Wiley Drake Embarrasses Christians Again

June 10th, 2009 By: marc moore | Tags:

image

It’s been a few months since I first wrote about Wiley Drake, the uncouth pastor from Buena Park, California whose 15 minutes of fame came when he posited that God would strike Rick Warren down for daring to speak at President Obama’s inauguration.  Strangely, Warren seems to be doing just fine, thanks, and most Christians have forgotten about Drake and the the dead albatross he hung around our necks with his ridiculous pronouncement. 

Unfortunately it seems that run of good luck is over: the Drake has laid another, even more foul egg with which to stink up the good name of Christians everywhere.  This time he’s on record saying that he’s actively praying for Barack Obama to die.


[Alan Colmes] “So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?”

[Drake] “Yes.”

“You would like for the president of the United States to die?” Colmes asked once more.

“If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct.”

A quick read of my original post would reveal a sort of cautious optimism about Barack Obama’s upcoming presidency.  I was then not fully jaded, hopeful that, despite what his radical supporters clamored for, Mr. Obama would stick to his promise to govern the whole country and not radically inject government into the business and personal lives of Americans.  I have been vastly disappointed in this vain hope, for it seems the audacity of hopelessness that drives Obama’s neo-liberalism is well on its way to being implemented nationwide. 

From the ill-advised bailouts of failing financial conglomerates to the nationalization of the auto industry liberalism helped destroy to the bloated, pork-laden budgets that make George W. Bush look like a miser, Barack Obama has already done many things wrong in his short presidency.  Moreover, virtually everything he stands for is equally wrong.

Nevertheless, for a self-defined Christian, particularly a so-called leader of men, to actively seek the death of a president who has done nothing to deserve such condemnation is outrageous, ridiculous, humiliating for the rest of the flock, bordering on the insane, and a grotesque insult to the Son of Man himself, who Drake purports to follow.

Desperado says:

I’ll make you a wager. I’ll bet you won’t hear Hannity and Limbaugh play this in an endless loop like they did the statements of Reverend Wright. Any takers?

To which I reply, why should they?  Are we in the middle of a presidential campaign and is the leading Republican candidate a decade-long follower of Wiley Drake?  No, making both the wager and its pro-Obama hyperbole meaningless.  Wright was a racist influence on the President of the United States; Wiley Drake is a fool who doesn’t deserve media attention.

To conclude, if you contribute money to Wiley Drake then you need to stop doing so.  Today, before he makes more trouble for the nation and for the brotherhood of Christians that frankly he has no more right to claim to be a part of than his former nemesis, one Dr. George Tiller.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Rudi666
    June 10th, 2009 at 23:44
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Your link about Obama doesn’t contain the quotes in your post.

  2. Rudi666
    June 10th, 2009 at 23:46
    Reply | Quote | #2
  3. Michael Merritt
    June 11th, 2009 at 03:09
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Congratulations, Wiley Drake. You probably just earned yourself closer scrutiny by the Secret Service.

  4. Doomed
    June 11th, 2009 at 15:59
    Reply | Quote | #4

    I am a Christian. There are many people who speak about Christianity. There are many who posit their political views, religious views and social views. None of them speak for me.

  5. Mark D Yeager
    June 12th, 2009 at 02:11
    Reply | Quote | #5

    I suppose that we shouldn’t ask God to stop the Muslim terrorists from killing us if it means they must be killed to stop them. From what I’ve read, Mr Drake only asked God to stop these men, he didn’t tell God how He should do it. Do your research before you judge Mr Drake.

  6. Geno
    June 12th, 2009 at 18:59
    Reply | Quote | #6

    I believe there is a concerted effort now in the liberal climate of America to launch unceasing vilification on Bible-believing Christians, and to paint them ( as Nero did) as “dangerous” to society. Persecution of Christians will intensify with a vehemence never seen in this country. It’s not really Mr. Drake’s views ( of which mere sound bites are used) that I find chilling – it’s the “get the Christians now” mentality that looms ominously.

  7. Cypher
    June 13th, 2009 at 02:03
    Reply | Quote | #7

    As a slightly left of center non (and in the cases of some denominations, anti) religious person I’d like to compliment the poster on a succinct summation and a refreshingly consistent moral compass.

    Although I’m not Christian, I know most of the different flavors of the religion from professional experience. This guy has it right if you’re playing by the rules of Jesus.

    Just 2 cents from one of them horrible anti-fundie, Obama-voting, heretics,

    Good post, best of regards.

  8. Paul
    June 14th, 2009 at 15:12
    Reply | Quote | #8

    @Geno
    I hope it does, and it should! (non-violently)

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.