These aren’t vestments, they’re a cloak. Love the Navajo weave Rev.
Watched the debate between GOP Senator Kelly Loeffler and her opponent for her Senate seat, Reverend Raphael Warnock.I don’t think the debate was really very close. Though I was initially skeptical when Governor Kemp appointed her, wondering if her wealth and political connections were the governor’s overriding consideration, Senator Loeffler was quite impressive…Rev. Warnock was not…a leftist right down the line.
One thing that leapt out at me, however: Warnock clearly is all in on the socialist/communist agenda that has taken over the Democratic Party. In responding to Senator Loeffler’s citing his statements which make his radical leftist views clear, Warnock repeatedly cited the scripture…specifially “Matthew 25″…as his personal guidance which drives his political views:
Matthew 25:35-40; “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.”
“31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Very interesting to me is Rev. Warnock’s attitudes as to how his religious beliefs inform his agenda and will guide his actions as a US Senator…and presumably thereby ‘inflicting his religious beliefs upon his constituents and “unbelievers” among the American people’.
Especially interesting when one considers the “Cuomo doctrine”*, originated by the late N.Y. governor Mario Cuomo, and adopted by every “devout Catholic Democrat officeholder”, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, etc.
Each of them loudly announces their ‘religious commitment and devotion as Catholics”, which, of course, includes their “personal” abhorrence for abortion; however, they also honor their even stronger aversion, as “representative of all Americans” to” imposing their religious beliefs upon their constituents”. As Governor Cuomo said: “I felt I could not impose (my) religious beliefs on nonbelievers in clear violation of the constitutional principles he had sworn to uphold.”
That last part obviously doesn’t bother the Reverend Warnock, whom I don’t recall being asked about his feelings or religious beliefs about abortion, but as a Democrat seeking national office he could only be in favor of “choice”.
But then, the killing of babies isn’t covered in Matthew 25. dlh
**************************************************
*Cuomo’s 1984 Notre Dame speech was “the single most influential statement about abortion by any Catholic figure since Roe v. Wade,”
“With a reputation as a serious Catholic, Cuomo’s justification for abortion rights effectively ended the debate about abortion in the Democratic Party. His speech implied that no thinking Catholic concerned about the common good would object to unrestricted legal access to abortion.”
It was also also suggested that Cuomo’s argument “empowered abortion-rights advocates to silence what remained of Catholic dissent in the Democratic Party. Bob Casey could be prohibited from speaking to the 1992 Democratic convention in large part because Cuomo had provided the ‘official’ Catholic Democratic pro-abortion position.”
Cuomo defended his tolerance for legal abortion, in part, by arguing that Roe v. Wade secured a new consensus, and, consequently, he felt could not impose his religious beliefs on nonbelievers in clear violation of the constitutional principles he had sworn to uphold.
