Warren’s Spin Doctor Tells Half-Truths About the CFR to Save Warren’s Face

In case you were not aware, Rick Warren has retained the services of a Media/PR spin doctor. (Since when do Pastors need spin doctors??). His name is Mark Kelly and he writes a blog that is dedicated to cleaning up Warren’s media image.

Mark has a new piece on this blog designed to dispel the controversy over Warren’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Mark employs two very interesting tactics in his piece. The first tactic is ad hominem attack. The second is half-truths about the CFR’s global agenda. (This article will primarily look at Mark’s use of the half-truth. If you would like to see how Mark uses ad hominem attacks to smear CFR ‘conspiracy theorists’ as self-serving people with mental and emotional problems and those with ‘a darkness within their souls’ you’ll have to read the piece for yourself.) Click here to read Mark’s piece.

In an effort to discredit conspiracy theorist’s mis-givings about the CFR’s efforts to establish a global government Mark sets up a straw-man type of arguement that focuses on the fact that the CFR is no longer in the ‘global government’ business. Said Mark:

“The CFR was organized in 1921, and discussions at first focused on naïve notions that world peace could be achieved by establishing a global government. Projects like the ill-fated League of Nations were undertaken toward that end. Apparently that still makes the CFR a great target for conspiracy theorists, though recent discussions have focused on topics like Congress’s proposed guest worker program, relationships with China, defending chemical plants against terrorist attack, bipartisan opposition to free trade agreements, al-Qaeda’s new leadership, and terrorism in the Horn of Africa.”

Although the CFR ‘think tank’ publishes many documents discussing issues as diverse as guest worker programs and free-trade, and it is also true that the CFR is not advocating a one world government, it is important to note that Mark purposely failed to mention one of the CFR’s core policy issues. That issue is ‘global governance’.

Yet, even a cursory reading of the top websites that are critical of the CFR bear out the fact that the CFR’s postion on ‘Global governance’ is the primary reason why the CFR has such outspoken critics today.

Here is where things can get really confusing. It is important to keep in mind that Global Governance and a Global Government are not synonymous. Another critical issue to understand is that the CFR is actively advocating a redefinition of our understanding of state sovereignty and is recommending that states give up portions of their sovereignty to ‘global governance’ institutions such as the WTO and others like it in order to acheive international goals.

A prime example of this is the president of the CFR, Richard N. Haass’ op-ed piece published on the CFR’s site entitled ‘Sovereignty and globalisation’. In this piece Haass makes the case for redefining state sovereignty and says that ‘states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.’ Click Here to Read Haass’ Op-Ed.

Many Christians who research and follow the CFR’s ‘global governance’ agenda have legitimate concerns and apprehensions about the CFR’s redefinition of state sovereingty and its calls for states to surrender portions of their sovereingty. These concerns are especially heightend by a fear that the CFR’s efforts may play a role in fulfilling eschatological prophecies regarding a global one world government that will persecute Christians during the tribulation. What Mr. Kelly needs to recognize is that merely expressing these concerns does not automatically make a person an emotionally unbalanced “conspiracy theorist”. The reason for this is simple. Conspiracies are conducted in secret. The CFR on the other hand, is very open about its ‘global governance’ agenda. Therefore, the CFR’s stand on ‘global governance’ is not a conspiracy. Instead, it is their official PUBLIC policy position. Since this policy is published for all the world to see, people have a right and a responsibility to examine and debate this policy without being accused of having psychological problems.

Furthermore, Christians have a right and a responsibility to question and debate Rick Warren’s involvement in an organization that is openly pushing for a redefinition of state sovereignty and an expansion of ‘global governance’ and international systems.

Mr. Kelly, rather than marginalizing those Christians who have legitimate concerns about Rick Warren’s involvement in the CFR and telling half-truths about the CFR’s efforts regarding ‘global governance’ why don’t you take the discussion to a higher level and tell us what Rick Warren’s position is regarding ‘global governance’.

Does Warren have any concerns about how the CFR’s efforts towards ‘global governance’ could play into eschatology? Why or Why Not?

Given what scripture tells us about the political realities that will exist when the Anti-Christ enters the world stage, is it appropriate for a Christian pastor to align himself with an organization that is openly pushing for expanded ‘global governance’?

We’d all like to know the answers to these questions. Answering them would raise the bar in the current debate over Warren’s involvement in the CFR.

Portraying the CFR as an institution that is a victim of self-serving lunatic conspiracy theorists while ignoring the CFR’s publicly stated advocacy for redefining state sovereignty and expanding ‘global governance’ is a half-truth and a form of deception that is inappropriate for any journalist, especially one employed by a Christian pastor.

One thing is certain, propaganda, half-truths and ad hominem attacks are the tools of deception, and not the the tools of open and honest debate. Mark Kelly’s tactics make us wonder what Rick Warren is trying to hide.

Article referenced by:
CFR President Richard Haass

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F109%2Fsovereignty

Sovereignty and Globalisation

Author: Richard N. Haass, President

February 17, 2006
Project Syndicate

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection. Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.
y

You said — “I’m NOT familiar with this website.”

And neither was I so I checked it out. I looked at some of their “research links”, that they have listed on their page. I noticed that I use about half of those links myself and consider them to be very good resources.

Many of them are talking about the *Emergent Church* and this is a critical issue, today for the church.

One in particular I like to go to (to listen to a radio program) is Olive Tree Ministries, with Jan Markel as the host. She has a lot of guests on her show talking about many relevant issues to the church today. She has an archive of the show (going back about twor or three years) and you can get a look at the guests and the topics and listen to any of them. You’ll certainly get educated on that show.

Plus there are all those other sites for a lot of good reading, too.

Here are the links that they include —

A Little Leaven
http://www.alittleleaven.com/

Apprising Ministries
http://apprising.org/

Berean Beacon (Richard Bennett)
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/

Berit Kjos
http://www.crossroad.to/

Bob DeWaay
http://cicministry.org/

Christian Apologetics and Research
http://www.carm.org/

Christian Worldview Network
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/

Discernment Ministries
http://discernment-ministries.org/

Emergent No
http://www.emergentno.blogspot.com/

Gary Gilley Commentaries
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/index.asp

Herescope
http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/

In the Name of Purpose
http://www.inthenameofpurpose.org/

Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/

John Ankerberg
http://www.johnankerberg.org/

Lighting the Way International
http://www.ltwinternational.org/

Olive Tree Ministries
http://www.olivetreeviews.org/

Reinventing Jesus Christ
http://www.reinventingjesuschrist.com/

Steve Camp
http://www.stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/

Take Heed Ministries
http://www.takeheed.net/

True Light Education Ministry
http://www.tlem.org/

Vayahiy...God’s Infallible Word
http://thewordunbroken.blogspot.com/

Veritas Forum
http://www.veritas.org/

Walter Martin Main Site
http://www.waltermartin.org/

Walter Martin Ministries Blog
http://www.waltermartin.org/blog.html

Regards,
Star Traveler

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.