Perhaps it’s because I’m not gay. Or maybe it’s because I’m not a woman. But I’ve had a hard time getting all riled up about Barack Obama’s choice of the anti-gay, anti-woman Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation, and I can’t help but agree with Carla over at Blue Oregon in wondering if this type of symbolic litmus test is really worth our collective energy and outrage:
There are a lot of excellent bloggers who know how to take the fight to the halls of DC and beyond. The ability to stir things up is a hallmark of what some of us love to do. But the ability to do this stirring has its limits. Our political capital is finite. Do we really want to spend it in an attempt to influence Obama to dump Rick Warren’s Inaugural invocation? Really?
I know, maybe it’s because I’m not Christian (or even a theist for that matter), and so I find the whole notion of a religious invocation or benediction at any political event unappealing, regardless of who delivers it, but in answer to Carla’s question, I guess I’d say, um… no. Actual policy, well that’s worth a fight, but this… well… not really.
Not that my fellow progressive bloggers shouldn’t feel free to express their outrage if that’s what yanks their chain, but as Carla demonstrates, mainstream observers would be mistaken to view the netroots as some sort of group-think monolith, and should avoid mistaking loudness for leadership. Even the name brand national bloggers speak only for themselves; if you don’t believe me, just read their comment threads.
Meanwhile, Carla is dead-on in pointing out that the political capital of the netroots is finite, though I’d elaborate by saying that it’s also rather limited when it comes to influencing the White House, regardless of the occupant. Maybe it’s because I’m just a lowly local blogger, but it’s hard to see why I’d bother wasting my time trying to persuade Obama to hire a different preacher?
Or… maybe not.
Yes, it is because you are not gay or female. Obama campaigned to us, got us to support him and donate money to him, while failing to help us fight our big battle in CA. Rick Warren fought against Obama, didn’t vote for him, is generally an asshole and was a fervent supporter of Prop 8.
Then, as soon as Obama became president he decided that no gay person and only a handful of women deserved posts in his Cabinet despite many qualified candidates. And to add insult to injury he decides to grant a special place in his inauguration to a bigoted asshole, who clearly hates gay people and everything connected with them. It’s hard to see how Obama is actually supporting gay people right now.
Obviously policy is the real key, and in the end the only thing that truly matters. But so far his decisions and choices aren’t inspiring the gay community.
I’m not gay, but I am a woman, and although I knew Obama was going to be a centrist kind of guy, I am disgusted by his connection with Rick Warren. Warren is an example of the kind of backwards mentality that runs rampant in the GOP, people like Sarah Palin. Barbarians. They’ve had far too much time in power and the limelight, and it’s time to shun them.
Chris @ 1
OK, I’m not gay and I’m not a woman BUT I’m also not deaf or blind. How many times did Obama and Biden have to repeat the phrase “we do not support gay marriage” before it started to sink in that they really aren’t THAT far away from Rick Warren when it comes to “teh gay”? … Obviously not enough. So brace yourself – You MAY see a change in DADT (even the top brass in the military are ready to change that rule just for the purpose of retention.) However, don’t hold your breath if you are expecting any movement on DOMA. Obama is OPPOSED to gay marriage. Just ask – He’ll tell.
But then, on the bright side, we aren’t stuck with McSame and Palin.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
I’m not gay but, If Bush was spending a trillion dollars a night for some swank
beach house and golfing by day the media would
crucify him. In fact they did so years back and
he hasn’t golfed since. Why does the messiah get a free pass when he should be saving the world?
I say… fight. But it’s the perfect Sister Souljah moment to give him some cred with the evangelicals, which is exactly what he needs right now to get through politically. I don’t mind playing the role that needs to be played.
If he fucking sells us up the river and doesn’t completely obliterate DOMA / DADT though, then the REAL knives should be pulled out. I don’t want to go through another eight years of triangulation by someone that claims to be a Democrat.
– old white guy devout atheist here.
this is a math problem – there will be a bunch of issues we gotta go fight for, and not all of us can fight everything all the time. most of us gotta do our day jobs, or, we ain’t gonna be fighting anything but the guy under the bridge for a piece of cardboard to sleep under.
ummm… oh wait!
the fascists have somebody fighting EVERYTHING 24*7*365 !!
IF we had more than a few leaders in our party of political sell outs and political incompetents,
THEN this would be a fight for a subset of the leaders on our side, and for some of us.
HOWEVER, for us working stiffs who can’t fight everything everytime, we gotta chose.
expecting that there is some set of issues with will ALWAYS galvanize EVERYONE to all act in concert … is freaking childish. Go watch Mr. Rogers.
Hopefully those most interested in this issue will figure out a way to make it easy for many of us to participate that sends shivers up the bones of the establishment. IF it ain’t easy to have an impact, it ain’t gonna happen … DUH?
in my NOT humble opinion we should be figuring out how to get REAL fighters to be leaders, instead of patty cant do much
(anyone noticed the effective message from our U.S. Senators against the fascist UAW lies? against the fascist holder for AG lies? against the fascist lies about Blago? against the fascist lies over 700 billion handouts to aig / banking execs?
NO?
THERE ISN’T.)
rmm.
He’s not President yet, shithead.
The issue is one of what is a legitimate opinion. For gays and some progressive the idea that gay marriage can be equated with pedophilia and bestiality is not a legitimate opinion.
For Obama, Warren’s opposition to gay marriage is within the spectrum of normal opinion that doesn’t disqualify Warren from playing a prominent role in the inauguration.
I also think that the reaction was so strong partly as a result of the Prop 8 victory. Gays had to watch the majority of Californians reject their right to marry and now they’ll have to watch an anti-gay-marriage activist bless their new president.
For Obama and many other progressives who aren’t gay, prop-8 was a disappointment, for many gays it was a personal rejection. So the Warren pick is more salt on a bleeding wound.
I agree its just a prayer lets move on, I am so glad Obama is our next President his center-left ideology is just what we need.
A couple of things.
#9 is pretty much bang on.
When you invite the screamers and the haters (left and right) to the table you can defuse the screaming and the hate by pointing out that they have a seat at the table and that they can lose that seat by screaming and hating. Warren’s power-hungry and wants a seat at the table.
Demographics. Support for gay marriage runs something like 80% in the under 30 crowd and something like 20% in the over 50 (60?). Gay marriage will happen without much fuss in about a decade regardless of Obama and Warren.
I find it interesting that Obama picked a youngish white guy instead of one of the cadaverish white guys that usually dose the honor.
@7 You’re kidding? You must be a fudgepacker?
I think it is a brilliant move by Obama, bringing Warren in. Reagan reached out to the “world is only 6,000 years old” gang, and they gave the GOP every ounce of their energy for a generation. The evangelicals are the last stronghold of the Republicons. If Obama can reach out in the same way, and convince them they have more in common with “us” than with the warmongers, the fascists, and the corporatists, it will be the death of the GOP.
“We” don’t have to agree with their fantasies of how the world should be, and which Americans should have their rights denied. If we can keep the evangelicals from marching lock step with the GOP while the GOP tries to turn America into a 3rd world nation, that will be enough of a victory to help get a lot accomplished.
Obama understands this. Keep your powder dry. Barack will need all the help he can get when he asks the top 1/10 of 1%, who make half the money in America to pay their fair share for once. Our wealth is already being re distributed up to the pigs at the top. Time to change that, and it won’t be easy.
Throughout recorded history, symbolism has been one of the most powerful influences on human culture and behavior, so yes, it’s worth fighting for because the symbolism of Warren delivering the invocation implies official approval of discrimination against gays. And if it’s okay to discriminate against gays, that opens to door to discrimination against other groups. This isn’t about whether you’re gay, or care about gays; letting Warren stand at that podium drives a stake through the heart of the notion of that in America we’re all equal in the eyes of the law.
If you feel this is not your issue, fine. Just don’t go around telling gays and women to STFU and sing kumbaya, mmkay? But we’re watching y’all and are gonna notice when you get all upset about something that is not high on our list, and expect us to join in your outrage and whatever protest you have planned. It’s called building a movement, beyotches, in the old scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours way. And guess what? The white males don’t get to set the entire agenda anymore, as much as you can’t be motivated to be outraged by this.
its kind of funny that people are saying no gay person and only a handful of women got cabinet appointments. first, on the one hand you say it doesn’t matter what a person does in his bedroom, then you go and say you want people who have made a declaration of what they do in the bedroon to be appointed. the other thing is, do we only have three catogories, women, men and gay? what about african american and latino. bush appointed them and you still didnt like it. plus what about religion. there’s a huge differance between christian and jew. if we start to point out , oh he appointed a gay, he appointed a woman. why can’t we say , oh he appointed a jew. first, as a christian male, i get offended when jewish men are counted in the diversity world as white males, as in, he appointed larry summers, a white male. first it uses up a slot in the insane diversity counting game, second, you get so worked about counting human beings and their identity, and feel, apparently, that you need people of your own identity to represent you, i dont feel people that are not the same as me can represent. so, i dont think jewish men have my best interest at heart. so, the new treasury sec is jewish, bernake is jewish, the fed governors are jewish, a large number of senators and congressmen are jewish.
ok, i’m sure most of you didnt like that. so now i appeal to some of the more level headed of you, like seattle jew, can you see now how pissed off someone like me gets when i hear people say, he didnt appoint a gay.
One of the reasons I initially supported Clinton during last spring’s primaries was because I disagreed with Obama’s conciliatory approach toward conservatives. I understand Obama’s impulse to be a healer, but the reality of this world is that you can’t be friends with people who hate you and want to destroy you. I believe my father’s generation was right in their attitude that the only way to deal with Nazis was eradicate their ideology, their leaders, their armies, and if necessary their nation and cities from the face of the earth. Why would anyone — let alone an African-American — reach out the haters of America’s far right? Last spring, I thought Obama was wrong to think he could cut deals with these people, and today I think he’s wrong to reach out to them. I’m glad he won, and all that, and I have no doubt that an Obama presidency is vastly preferable to a McCain (or any other Republican) presidency, but how would African Americans feel if Obama invited a KKK leader to his inauguration? Of course, he wouldn’t do that to America’s blacks, but he is doing to America’s gays and we ought to be questioning it because it’s wrong and because it sends the wrong message about where he plans to take the country.
@15 We’re not talking here about cabinet appointments. We’re talking about the symbolism of asking a rabidly anti-gay conservative megachurch leader to lead the religious facets of Obama’s inauguration. America is a religious country and this will have a powerful influence on America’s Christian believers. There are plenty of religious leaders Obama could have chosen for this role. How can he justify choosing someone who so openly peddles a message of hate and rejection against a group comprising about 5% to 10% of the nation’s population? Warren’s message wouldn’t be acceptable if it was based on race, religious affiliation, or ethnicity, and the fact it’s an anti-gay message doesn’t make it acceptable. Yet, that’s what Obama is saying, that it’s okay to be against gays. This isn’t about whether you’re gay or whether you like gays, it’s about the idea of giving this hugely symbolic role to a person who is an “anti.” The religious leader who delivers the presidential invocation shouldn’t be “anti” anything, he or she should be someone who is a healer, a uniter, who promotes universal brotherhood (and sisterhood) and brings us together, not someone who has devoted his pulpit and career to driving people apart. It’s the wrong message to deliver from an inaugural podium. And Goldy’s indifference to it is a mistake, because qualitively, you can’t distinguish between his indifference to Warren and the world’s indifference to how the Nazis treated the Jews at a time when it still might have been possible to stop them. People simply must stand up against what’s wrong because if they don’t there’s no telling how far it will go. If rabbits can figure this out, then you stupid humans should be able to, too!
Then again, maybe not. Contrary to popular belief, humans are not smarter than rabbits. They only think they are.
I mean, how smart is genocide? Have you ever heard of rabbits committing genocide against other rabbits? I’m not saying rabbits never do anything stupid. Crossing the street is stupid. You want to see a stupid rabbit, just look in the gutters of Aurora Avenue, and you’ll find what’s left of some stupid rabbits! I mean, why would anyone rabbit get himself killed trying to get out of Green Lake Park? I can see a point in risking your ass to get into the park, but getting squashed trying to get from the park to the zoo, you gotta be kidding me! Believe me, there are stupid rabbits! But even the stupidest rabbits are not as stupid as some of you humans, not even close. At least we don’t systematically kill each other because we don’t like the color of another rabbit’s fur or the shape of his ears or whether his ears stick up or hang down! When we have a problem over territory or females or whatever, we bite the other guy in the ass and rip a little chunk of fur and skin out, and that’s the end of it. We don’t go out and kill thousands or millions of our own kind, like you stupid humans do. That’s why we’ll still be around after you stupid humans are long gone.
Rick from WIKIPEDIA and other sources
I have favor to ask. Can someone tell me why the “left” has made a cause of Rick Warren? I have tried to ifnd some substance to the charges and really can not find much other than anti-scientific remarks on Terry Schiavo and creationism, that make me fear this guy.
I have spent about an hour on the web and this is what I can find:
Positives:
Warren has pushed for efforts to:
stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to
support literacy and education efforts
combat global warming.
Warren has expressed support for:
civil unions
Negatives
Warren called decision to remove Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube, “an atrocity worthy of Nazism,”
Supported Bush in 04 by telling his flock to vote for candidate who:
was committed protecting the lives of unborn children
opposed stem-cell harvesting
opposed homosexual marriage
opposed human cloning
opposed “euthanasia—the killing of elderly and invalids”
Warren spoke out against evolution and in favor of creationism
Warren blamed Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot on their atheism.
So I guess the big issue is Warren stand on gay marriage? I looked to see what he has actually said and this is what I found:
On Gay Marriage
Warren is usually quoted as equating gay marriage to incest or pedophilia. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID.
What Warren is opposing is use of the term “marriage” to apply to unions between parent and child or sibs. I do not see what is wrong with this statement. If marriage can be redefined to include same sex unions, what is wrong with applying the same term to any non reproductive pair? Why shouldn’t a father and daughter become married or a brother and sister?
I am tired of the gay marriage issue myself but certainly do see Warren’s point. It does seem to me the French solution, civil Unions as an alternative to marriage, completely solves the problem without redefining a term that does mean a lot to many people, including to me. What is wrong with preserving a tradition if it can be done without harming the rights of others?
If the issue is imply equality, why equate Warren’s statement with pedophilia or incest? Beyond the obvious health issue arising from these practices, both pedophilia and incest imply abuse of one person by another. That is, of course, not the case with gay unions, but it is also not the case when any two adults decide to commit to each other .. including brother/sister and child/parent. Even sex between consenting adults, as distasteful as some pairings may be to many, ought not to be a crime as long as the sex is not reproductive and there is no rape.
For that matter, Americans do not even require sex to define marriage between a man and a woman.
So what is the effin issue? I have come to believe that the motivation behind the gay marriage movement is to remove the recognition of heterosexual unions from our society. Isn’t that goal bigoted?
It seems to me that Obama is acting as a good teacher for all of us , just as he promised he would do.
@12
Thanks for that.
@16
I’m coming more from a political aikido, castration through kindness, point of view.
@20..So what is the effin issue? I have come to believe that the motivation behind the gay marriage movement is to remove the recognition of heterosexual unions from our society. Isn’t that goal bigoted?
that is exactly the point. there may be less than 1 tenth of 1 per cent of people in this country who just dont want gays to marry because they just hate them. but the rest are divided into two groups. religious fundamentalists who believe its a duty, and people like me who feel that they just want to stick it (no pun intented) to the rest of us who held these beliefs for thousands of years, and want to change society against the wishes of the majority. i feel attacked , so i’m defensive.
MOT
Well …
I must be in a third group. I am married and treasure my luck. My marrigae has nothing to do with disrespect for any other relationship people have.
Marriage, as we understand it, however, is not “thousands of years” old. Societies differ hugely in what sort of paired or other commitments they accept. Hell, can there be anything odder tha being married to God .. as in the practice of nunnery?
KMarriage is, however, a couple of thousand years old in our society and, afik there is no harm in recognizing it.
I do not think the gay community wants to harm married folk any more than conservative religious folks want to hurt gays. I think for gay couples the issue is a desire to be accepted and a bleif that changing the definition of this word will make other accept them as “normal.”
Variations on a theme
I know it won’t change any minds but …
Lets play a game:
What if Obama had chosen a anti union preacher to speak?
What if Obama had chosen a “Stay in Iraq, Invade Iran” preacher to speak?
What if Obama had chosen a “Wallmart – Free Trader” preacher to speak?
What if Obama had chosen a Anti-Environmentalist preacher to speak?
What if Obama had chosen a anti-Endangered Species preacher to speak?
But Obama chose a Anti-Gay marriage preacher to speak.
Now can you see how the gay friendly population might be upset?
Disclaimer here: I am a Straight Agnostic Female, with a Gay Sister & Gay Niece, many Gay Friends
My initial thought was “are we making a mere rathole into a mountain?”
I DO see the sense of outrage, especially after Prop 8 passed. I think the Rachel Maddow Show covered much of the hypocrisy and answered many of the points raised above.
Rick Warren Says “Hate” Speech Directed At Him “Christophobic”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctnI4uiZF4A
I believe Obama was going at the deal with the idea that Warren & his church were confronting HIV/AIDS & giving community support and activism, perhaps unaware of the ugly statements made by Warren in the past. Obama was likely trying to appease the Evangelicals (however, they too are hammering Warren for agreeing to this situation).
My personal preference is that they cut out ALL the prayers, let Obama place his hand on the Lincoln Bible and swear the same as:
“I, Abraham Lincoln, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....oln-bible/
Sure beats what GW & his ilk has done to this country! Get religion out of the mix and start running the country forward.
Hey, you guys get bored waiting for the turk to cook. Here’s a new game called “Sock and Awe” Good fun.
http://sockandawe.com/
ETA: probably should have explained, it is a chance to swing shoes at George shrub.
Yes it is worth every ounce of a fight and I will tell you why even though I didn’t vote for Obama, am a Christian, and am not even interested in the controversy surrounding gay marriage much less who gives the prayer at the inauguration.
Rick Warren has been blowing hot air for years and finally people are discussing what he believes, what he promotes (I don’t think that it’s true biblically based Christianity.) and questioning what he is doing which is plain weird.
He would have cuddled up with whoever won the election because I think that what he is looking for is government money (Remember the faith based initiative) to fund his P.E.A.C.E. Plan to create purpose driven countries.
He is promoting himself, period.
I didn’t know anything about Warren until this year when I heard him on interview with the BBC.
He said a individual human being to God is like we are to an ant. Wow what a salesman. How inspiring.
Aside from his tendency to putting his foot in his mouth and selling lots of books to gullible people I don’t know much about him. (Yeah, he has a few commendable positions on poverty, AIDS and the environment.) Let him have his moment on the big stage. Again, it’s what happens after the invocation that matters to me.
Warren is usually quoted as equating gay marriage to incest or pedophilia. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID.
Actually, he said exactly that. Watch the youtube video FricknFrack posted at #26. The relevant portion starts aroud the 3 minute mark.
It’s quite amusing to watch the Libs heads explode ever since Warren was invited by Obama to the invocation.
Then again, watching children like Goldy and his marionettes soil their dirty diaper in a toddleresque temper tantrum on this issue has also been quite enjoyable to watch.
Keep it up kiddies. Even the Queer eye for the pervert guy poster @ 29 doesn’t see a problem with it.
Hey All!
It’s Christmas…Prince of Peace and all that.
On one day of the year – this one – NO FIGHTING!
The Piper
Here a few points to make it clear why this is so important.
1. Rick Warren uses any acknowledgment or honor to leverage legislation from hi pilpit.
2. Seeing how he has most recently done this on a massive level it really shouldn’t be rewarded with an honor.
3. If we do not speak up clearly and correctly now…when? Half way through when we realize Obama is not the man he said he was? or we find that hypocrisy doesn’t only mean a man whose mother would have been arrested not 10 years before…had she given birth to Barack for this reason…
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
this is the quote a judge made for his spiritual Christian reasoning (shared by 70% of the country at the time of Lovign vs Virginia which made it legal for races to love each other) that interracial relationships should stay illegal because in the eyes of God they were not natural… which then was overturned by “liberal judges”
10 years later Obama was born…
as I say if not now when would it be okay to see if the hypocrisy we see with a man whose mother fought almost identical battles will feel comfortable or…not bothered by on any issue…or all issues that do not effect him directly.
There are values to compromise on and very few there should be no compromise on…
equality is one of them…
especially when he is handing a tool to those who would say “Mr poitier…I am a huge fan …love you…but can you take your frinds in the back door”
and
“I love women but the country is not ready for them to vote”
or “There are scientific studies that show interracial relationships will corrupt the gene pool”
It is important enough to fight now.
@ 20 — The evidence that RW supports civil unions seems to consist of a second-hand account of a spokesperson’s “clarifying” statement that RW is “OK on civil unions.
Not OK with civil unions.
Not for civil unions.
Just OK on civil unions … whatever we take that to mean.
And we can infer some of what it means by considering RW’s stance on Prop 8 – where he threw his considerable weight behind a reversal of the particular way that California law had resolved the problem of civil inequality between gay and straight unions.
RW came out affirmatively for re-tying the Gordian knot.
And the 5,000 year old definition of the M-word? In our society, the current meaning (a partnership of equals, severable by either at will, and distinguished – how? – from long-term cohabitation with or without procreation) is only a couple of decades old, and unsettled in many respects.
We’re still on the Pastor Warren fight.
OK, I’ll admit that as a straight man, I have a hard time understanding this fight. Mr. Obama wants to reach out to evangelicals, trying to show them that liberals, in fact, have more in common with them than do the neo-cons.
You know, stuff like feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, reaching out to those in prison (or in danger of going to prison) in ways that will help them become good citizens, encouraging good stewardship of the planet, etc…
Yes, we have big differences too, but even there, if we would take the trouble to listen to each other, we might find that our differences aren’t as big as they seem at first.
And with estimates of their numbers between something over 60 million (although I think that even this number is a bit high) and 120 million (way high, in my not-so-humble opinion) they’re much too large a segment of the population to ignore.
I defy anyone to find an Evangelical preacher that is more acceptable to the left than Pastor Warren.
Considering that over the next four (and hopefully eight) years, the Evangelicals are likely to have to swallow a number of policies they will not approve of, perhaps showing them that we are at least listening and considering their views might not be such a bad idea.
I expect that within his first year in office, President Obama will:
– fully open the military to gays and lesbians
– issue federal guidelines on adoption and foster parenting to allow gays and lesbians to fully participate
– issue guidelines respecting domestic partnerships as completely equivalent to marriages for all legal purposes
and generally annoy all of the folks that find homosexuality to be their favorite sin (so much worse than cruelty and injustice, after all), it seems that a symbolic olive branch to the Evangelicals is a small price to pay.
But those of us on the left that insist on ideological purity, and have an attitude that says that anyone that isn’t completely, 100% in agreement with us is the enemy (sounds a lot like the Bushies, doesn’t it?) will continue to rail against anything and anyone that is willing to even try to reach out across the political aisle.
And if that group ever gains real power, that huge group of folks that range from center-left through center-right will begin to switch sides again.
The same way it happened to the Republicans.
I’ve decided this is a wag the dog moment. This Pastor Warren thing has taken Governor Blago out of the news cycle.
political capital is infinite;
the more you confront injustice, the more political capital you get.
the naacp had no political capital in 1945. It got some with its first fight, it got more with other fights.
it’s like the energy balls in pacman.
I’d say the equality movement loses political capital, if they don’t speak up and organize about Rick Warren.
@30. Another TJ
No, Rachel said that Warren equated gay marriage to pedophilia and incest. That is NOT what the man said!
Hey, Goldy, as long as you don’t complain when your divorce is annulled and you lose any parental rights (don’t know much about Warren, do you?) that’s fine with me. Because human rights are ALWAYS subject to majority rule. No consequences, no reason not to…
Yo SeattleJew Today: Care to differ? (http://www.teachthefacts.org/2.....l#comments)
Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?
Rick Warren: Oh I do ….
(He ain’t much on Jews either, he says they’re going to hell. But I guess you’re used to that.)
No, Rachel said that Warren equated gay marriage to pedophilia and incest. That is NOT what the man said!
You’re wrong. Watch the video, or read the transcript that Humbert copied in #40. He specifically equated gay marriage with incest and pedophilia.
Another TJ
I watched Rachel when she made that comment, and I watched the video.
He used both of those (and a couple of others) as examples of things that he does not consider to be “marriage”.
And while the implication is there, he did not specifically equate them.
There is a certain level of hypocrisy on Pastor Warren’s part in what he did not include in that list. For example, as he does not recognize divorce for any reasons except infidelity and abandonment, he must not recognize my marriage, as both my wife and I have been divorced.
So, while my stake in this argument is not as serious as that of gays and lesbians, I’ve got one.
Regardless, I see it as important to offer a symbolic olive branch to the Evangelicals. They represent too large a part of our population to ignore, and even though we have many important differences, there are also many areas that we have in common, if we are only willing to look for them.
Pastor Warren’s beliefs seem to come honestly, from a strict reading of several Bible passages. He doesn’t seem to be trying to drag them out of context to suit a political agenda, and is willing to work with folks that disagree with him, where that work does not conflict with his faith.
He’s a bit hypocritical, but if any of us dig deeply enough into ourselves, we’ll probably find some hypocrisy. Certainly I have, and there’s certainly more that I haven’t found.
Unless we’re willing to completely cut off the entire evangelical movement, we probably won’t find anyone in it that is as open and honest as Pastor Warren.
He strongly disapproves of homosexuality. He has strong views on marriage and abortion.
But he isn’t trying to hide them, and seems able and willing to “love the sinners” as he sees them.
He’s willing and able to incur the disapproval of many of his own parishoners in supporting domestic partnership laws. He’s willing to work with pro-choice groups in reducing the need for abortions.
If we’re not going to completely write off up to sixty million Americans, he’s the best we’re likely to get. At least he seems to have no hidden agendas, and is willing to try to find common ground.
I think that Mr. Obama has made this choice (at least in part) to strengthen Pastor Warren’s position within the Evangelical community, as opposed to those that have hidden agendas and are actively hypocritical in their words and works.
That seems like a good thing to me.
“I think that Mr. Obama has made this choice (at least in part) to strengthen Pastor Warren’s position within the Evangelical community, as opposed to those that have hidden agendas and are actively hypocritical in their words and works.”
Well, Mr Barelli, you’ve put your finger on the reason why many many people are concerned and angered by Obama’s choice. I agree, Pastor Warren is very clear that all Jews are going to Hell because they killed Jesus. (In fact, he’d be happy to get them all back to Israel so we can get Armageddon a-goin’.) He’s also quite straightforward that gays aren’t allowed to be members of his church (oops — he took that statement off his website this week, wonder if that wasn’t “hidden” enough). His statements that evolution is disproven by the existence of gays is, likewise, unobjectionable to all right-thinking citizens. And I think all of us can agree that heterosexual Africans need to be treated for AIDS, it’s just the gay ones who deserve it.
Good luck in your real estate ventures, and here’s hoping “Mr. Heater Portable Buddy” is keeping you warm this xmas. Happy Rapture!
@41 TJ
I watched it when ti first ran and watched again since you raise doubts.
All Warren says is that there are relationships, pairings, that most of us would not recognize as marriage and .. for him that includes same sex.
I think John has a point in that Warren did choose two examples that are distasteful to most, but I fail to see why anyone who thinks we can redfine marriage to include people of the same gender would cavil at the idea of a brother and sister or father and child being married.
What would be terrible would be if he equated gay commitment with sex between brother and sister or adult and child. He did nothing of the sort. Seems to me that you, not he, are hung up on this.
Like John, I do object to Warren, esp his willingness to support DWB in 04 because of relatively samll social issues despite the already apparent fact that shrub was destroying our country. The imbalance between vote for Shrib even though he is killing people, wasting billions, and losing a war worries a lot more than whether we pass civil union laws rather than redefining marriage.
Look, we have a choice, we can support That One, a man who clearly wants to work for us all, or we can get our noses out of shape because he shows tolerance we lack. If Warren moves votes into the sane column on global warming, finacial reform, civil unions, socialized med, respect for ALL religions, … is that too foul for you to swallow?
Fianlly, imagine this, he is now talking with a very, very bright man. Do you suppose Warren might actually learn something from That One?
Next Doctor
Pastor Warren believes that anyone that does not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior is going to hell.
Please note that it isn’t that Pastor Warren wants that to happen. He simply believes that it is true.
I’ve had friends that were Evangelicals, and even attended (as a non-member) an Evangelical church for a time, and they would tell you, with great sadness, that if I do not change my opinions and beliefs, I will be in hell too, along with most of the United Methodist Church.
There’s an old joke about that kind of belief.
If Pastor Warren were to publically change his position, without actually changing his beliefs, then he would be a hypocrit.
Personally, I think he has misunderstood the teaching of the Bible. I think his understanding of God is too small. My understanding of scripture says that only people who knowingly and deliberately reject God (which would require them to actually know God first) will end up in what we call “hell”, and only that because they choose to go there.
But my understanding of God is big enough to bring him and his followers in, along with any person of good will. I think that both he and his followers will have a pleasant surprise when they find out that they aren’t the only ones in Heaven.
Oh, much has been made of the fact that some folks are not eligible for membership in Pastor Warren’s church.
Each denomination sets its own rules for membership. That doesn’t mean that non-members are not welcome to worship in that church, but simply that they do not qualify as members.
I, for instance, would not qualify as a member of any number of denominations. I cannot join a Mosque, as I do not believe that their prophet brought the final word of God. The same holds true for the Mormons.
I cannot become a Roman Catholic, as I do not believe that the Pope is the unerrant Vicar of God on Earth.
A person that did not believe in Jesus would not be eligible for membership in the United Methodist Church.
We also have people attending my church that, for whatever reason, have chosen not to become members.
In our case, that means that the non-members are ineligible to sit on some comittees and boards. At least two thirds of the Trustees Comittee (responsible for the actual building and property), and all of the Staff Parish Relations Comittee (responsible for evaluating the Pastor and hiring church employees) must be members, and the representatives to Annual Conference must also be members.
But anyone that wants to come in and worship with us, or even just enjoy the music, is welcome, whether they are a member or not, and whether they are eligible for membership or not.
(If you can sing, we’re always looking for choir members. About half of our choir are not members of the church.)
I presume it is much the same for Pastor Warren’s church.
John
Where we differ is that I abhor the idea of any deity judgemental enough to even have a hell for those who do not choose to adore him.
The best compromise, I think, comes when believers can seperate that process .. what Halevy called the Word, from the physical reality of the world. That way, the Word cane be a source of wonder without compulsion of others or even oneself. Kind of like marijuana bit with more depth and thought. grin
SeattleJew
We don’t differ as much as you might think. Remember that working for justice and caring for others is loving God.
Even if you don’t believe in the images of Him that some of His followers (myself included) put forward.
Making the right pious noises and saying the right words doesn’t cut it.
Work for justice. Care about others. Don’t consider yourself to be the center of the universe. Does that work better for you than “Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God”?
Ok. It means the same thing.
Enough preaching for one day. Merry Christmas!
“We don’t differ as much as you might think.”
No, you don’t, because you think you are right and EVERYBODY ELSE is wrong and just needs to be led, like a little brain-wiped lamb, to your position. How very white of you.
Frankly, Jesus would have nothing to do with you. Nor would Martin Luther King, who considered the “white” middle class his enemy in social change. I cannot speak of what your ultimate justice would be in your afterlife, but in terms of your righteousness I would hope that you would righteously suffer for your pride, gluttony and sanguine hatred. (And remember, 50% of the born-again have sex addictions, according to their own studies.)
I hope you enjoy drowning in your own delusions. Don’t worry, Jesus — I mean YOUR Jesus, not the one in the Bible — will take you to heaven, sorry, YOUR heaven where you don’t have to deal with us moral ones who didn’t fit with your bigoted reality. Or perhaps we’ll be looking down on you and saying, “sorry goy, turned out the Mormons/Scientologists were right, enjoy Hell.”
SJ @ 44,
All Warren says is that there are relationships, pairings, that most of us would not recognize as marriage and .. for him that includes same sex.
And Rick Warren finds same sex relationships equally distasteful to incest and pedophilia and that those relationships are equally distant in his eyes from true marriage.
I think John has a point in that Warren did choose two examples that are distasteful to most, but I fail to see why anyone who thinks we can redfine marriage to include people of the same gender would cavil at the idea of a brother and sister or father and child being married.
Ahh… there’s the rub. You don’t see a difference either. To you too, same sex relationships are equally distasteful to incest and pedophilia and equally different from marriage. If you really don’t see how someone could be for gay marriage but oppose marriage in cases of incest and pedophilia, I can’t help you.
What would be terrible would be if he equated gay commitment with sex between brother and sister or adult and child. He did nothing of the sort. Seems to me that you, not he, are hung up on this.
I’ll spell it out for you: Rick Warren’s (and apparently your) objection to gay marriage is based on a foundation of disapproval of the sexual acts they will engage in. When he says he doesn’t want the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian relationships, the only reason to do so is because of the sex they have.
Look, we have a choice, we can support That One, a man who clearly wants to work for us all, or we can get our noses out of shape because he shows tolerance we lack. If Warren moves votes into the sane column on global warming, finacial reform, civil unions, socialized med, respect for ALL religions, … is that too foul for you to swallow?
Fianlly, imagine this, he is now talking with a very, very bright man. Do you suppose Warren might actually learn something from That One?
I’ve never suggested otherwise (though your faith in Obama on gay rights issues is probably misplaced). The problem is that Obama is privileging Warren over all other Christian religious figures in the US by asking him to give the invocation. He’s not simply meeting with him, debating him, persuading him. He’s giving Warren a platform he does not deserve. THAT is what this is about, not “tolerance.”
John,
I’m on board with the “reaching out to all sides” thing. I’m not even that terribly down on Warren vis-a-vis a lot of other popular religious figures on the right, though I too see him as hypocritical at least (and quite pernicious at worst – which I suppose demonstrates my feelings for the majority of popular conservative religious figures – Though “He’s probably not Ken Hutcherson!” is not much of an endorsement either).
But that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether Obama should have offered Warren a place of honor like delivering the invocation. To my mind, especially in the context of the assault on gay people that was Prop 8 and Warren’s prominent and dishonest backing of it, the answer is clearly no.
TJ
He has never said this
I have never said this nor do I believe it. I think we should have a “NOK” law, a law that allow any two people to commit to each other as next of kin. These pairs should have any and all rights that we now give to married couples with only exceptions for issues where there is a legitimate argument that gender is important (e.g. rights associated with conception and possibly adoption).
Yu seem to be hung up on the idea that there is no difference between men and women. That is as antiscientific as the right to life idea of when people begin to exist.
I really detest people who argue by putting THEIR words in others mouths, I have no interest in what sort of sex anyone pratcices consensually. Nor do I assume that all marriages, or other pairings, are based on intercourse.
As for Warren, you could be right but then it seems to me you need to cite something like this he has stated and explain why he favors civil unions? Look, I know beeders who have paired for life but resisted marriage. In one case a couple was denied spousal benefits in Seattle because they were unmarried and of the opposite sex. This obsession with sex really should be removed form the discourse.
I call horseturds on your comment. You remind me of the one issue folks on the right. You put gay marriage, as opposed to civic unions, as high as the R2L crowd puts the belief that thye sould is created at impregnation. Warren is an influential figure who is on the same side of comes well below such issues as classism, fair taxes, the wars, etc, as Obama and myself.
What BHO is doing, I beleive, is teaching us all the lesson Dr, King taught when he noted that the bibles statement about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everyone toothless and eyeless.
Uh, “Next Doctor”?
Perhaps you should actually try reading my posts before you jump into a tirade about them.
Had you bothered to do so, you might have found that I not only did not say what you attribute to me, but actually took the opposite position.
Of course, just as the neo-cons have folks that simply hate anyone that doesn’t agree with their narrow, bigoted world-view, and have no desire to find out we actually believe, there are “liberals” that also simply hate anyone that they perceive as not agreeing with their narrow, bigoted world-view.
Thank you for giving us an example of just such a person.
Oh, and I really hope that your “next Doctor” nom-de-plume has nothing to do with Doctor Who. It would pain me to think that someone posting here under that name was so dense as to miss many of the morality plays in that rather enjoyable show.
SeattleJew
Amen, brother.
John,
You illustrtate the persistent issues of antisemitism by this ugly quote, let me repost it so you can see how it reads to me:
Aside from the paradox, this is another text that demeans OUR teachers. How would YOU feel if I claimed as holy scripture the last line:
And God said to the Christians, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”
You really need to remember who redacted the NT .. the Roman state, after two huge wars committed ot wiping out Jewish resistance and at the same time as it moved its capital to Constnatinople to create a new state and a new religon that excluded all others.
BTW, since I suspect this thread is of more interest to you and I then others, you may want to continue it over at SJ.
SeattleJew
Actually, I’ve always assumed that that particular bit of scripture was aimed at anyone, most especially Christians, that made all the right pious noises but didn’t actually do what we’ve been so plainly told to do.
Some of the lawgivers of that time said all the right things, but when it came to actually helping the poor, visiting the sick, and working for justice, they were conspicuous in their absence.
So, no, I would have no problem with your re-write, and actually assume it to be what was meant.
(cross posted at seattlejew.blogspot.com)
Sorry to hear you fell for the old bait and switch.
Obama was always against gay marriage. Did you think he was going to help out a voting bloc that already pledges their allegiance to the democrats?
Maybe if rick warren would preach the correct type of hate message, more like what wright preached to obama for 20 years the left would approve.
@55 John
Well, you may presume that, BUT IT IS NOT DIRECTED ATR YOU.
I really do not want to dwell on this, but much of the Christian bible is as offensive to me as contemporary antisemitic writings in the Arab press or the words of Martin Luther.
The same problem exists in the Quran that accuses the Jews of Yathrib (Medina) of perfidy to justify our being murdered or enslaved. Moderate Muslims excuse this too, saying it does not refer to modern Jews.
Can you understand this? Some Christians have approached this problem by doing historical research in an effort to reconstruct the historic Jesus. There is good reason to believe the “Jesus” and “Hillel,” the better e4stablished founder of rabbinic Judaism and leader of the Pharisees, are derived from common individuals who resisted Rome in the name of Judaism. I personally think it is very unlikely that the Jesus of the CB, even without the miracles, was a real person but do suspect he was one of the more radical and outspoken followers of Hillel. This would explain the role of James as an antagonist of both Paul and the Temple.
Of course that version creates the opposite dilemma since it leaves Christianity without its core beliefs in a man-god. For all the quelling, it is bigoted not to recognize the profound good that belief in a loving Jesus has done. Western civilization IUS based on its Christina roots, even if in some of the most important stories the best of our civilization arose in rebellion against that root.
To me, if I may advise a Christian, the best answer lies in accepting the horrible way the life of Jesus was recorded and the history of the organized church. I rather like the ideas of the Gnostics … of Christianity as a very personal religion, a relationship of man to a loving God who does not need a priesthood or a canon. This has led some wonderful people, Paigels and Armstrong among them, to preach that Christians can accept what YOU want to believe while discarding the accretions that are so hateful.
Whether what s left is supernatural, inspiring image of a loving God or a dimly seen effort at humane growth under Roman suppression, as long as what comes out is intense and humane I can admire that.
And Rick Warren finds same sex relationships equally distasteful to incest and pedophilia and that those relationships are equally distant in his eyes from true marriage.
He has never said this
Except when he did in the video you claim to have watched. When he said that same sex relationships are as equally unlike marriage as pedophilia and incest, I assume he means it.
In addition, he has repeatedly claimed to love gay people but hate the sin of the gay “lifestyle.” By his own admission, his objections to homosexuality are to homosexual behaviors. How can you love the sinner but hate the sin if there’s no sin?
Again, I lack your ability to see past his words to divine his true beliefs, which are evidently contrary to his words; I am forced to assume he means what he says.
I really detest people who argue by putting THEIR words in others mouths,
Then I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t do that same to me. I don’t believe there are no differences between men and women.
I call horseturds on your comment. You remind me of the one issue folks on the right. You put gay marriage, as opposed to civic unions, as high as the R2L crowd puts the belief that thye sould is created at impregnation. Warren is an influential figure who is on the same side of comes well below such issues as classism, fair taxes, the wars, etc, as Obama and myself.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It’s just an incomprehensible mix of invective and typos, though it appears you are once again putting your words in my mouth.
What BHO is doing, I beleive, is teaching us all the lesson Dr, King taught when he noted that the bibles statement about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everyone toothless and eyeless.
You just claimed (I think) that same sex marriage isn’t that big a deal and that Warren isn’t so bad on a bunch of other, more important, issues, and besides, he’s kinda for civil unions.
If you believe that, then Obama can’t be forgoing retribution because he hasn’t had a metaphorical eye or tooth taken from him. It’s pretty easy for people who’ve suffered no harm to tell people who’ve had their rights taken away to get over it.
Speaking of MLK, Jr., perhaps you should reread “Letter from Birmingham Jail?” I suspect it goes pretty far in demonstrating how gays and lesbians probably feel right about now.
TJ
Horseturds
Again, Warren did NOT say this. You need to listen again. Rachel said he said it. He compared same sex marriage to child parent or brother-sister. These are NOT the same thing as the sex acts meant by incest or pedophilia.
Try to be accurate!
I loved my Dad, even though he voted for Bush and Reagan. I like a number of people who do things I disapprove of. I suspect Dick Chaney loves his daughter despite her being gay.
Perhaps, but it seems to me you impute meanings he may not have and certainly cite words he did not say.
I have read that many times and certainly understand that gay people feel pain. Nothing you have said, however, explains why civil unions would not level the legal field. The goal beyond that, mutual acceptance as in the “I Have A Dream Speech” require more profound changes than the law can make.
Look, the point is this. Man and woman are, we agree, different. So, a union between a man and a woman is objectively different form other forms of union between two people. For many people, myself included, that union is a very special thing that deserves the simple respect of recognition by society.
You may not agree that this sort of union deserves a name, but how are you hurt by the word if we simply make a next of kin law that gives ALL committed pairs, sex or no sex, the same rights? It seems to me that theonoly people who lose by defining marriage in a new way are .. heterosexuals! Why hurt them?
I rather think that Dr. King would have stood firm, as does Dr, Lowery by the way, on the need for a next of kin law or civil unions but, again as with Dr, Lowery’s recent remarks, Dr. King would not want to disestablish the existing institution. In fact, his successors, after legal equality was won, have fought hard to to ESTABLISH recognition by all Americans of the value of Black traditions.
Rather than diminishing gay pairing, I would rather see us celebrate it along side of marriage.
Again, Warren did NOT say this. You need to listen again. Rachel said he said it. He compared same sex marriage to child parent or brother-sister. These are NOT the same thing as the sex acts meant by incest or pedophilia.
You need to look up the definitions of pedophilia, incest, and homosexuality. He said what he said.
I loved my Dad, even though he voted for Bush and Reagan. I like a number of people who do things I disapprove of. I suspect Dick Chaney loves his daughter despite her being gay.
So what is the sin involved in being a homosexual? Even in your examples, you love your dad in spite of his actions, but simply existing as a homosexual is something you seem to think needs to be forgiven somehow.
Perhaps, but it seems to me you impute meanings he may not have and certainly cite words he did not say.
I have done neither. I have simply taken him at his word. Pretending his words don’t mean what they plainly mean does no one any favors.
Nothing you have said, however, explains why civil unions would not level the legal field.
It doesn’t matter where Rosa Parks sat on the bus because all the seats go to the same place?
Look, the point is this. Man and woman are, we agree, different. So, a union between a man and a woman is objectively different form other forms of union between two people. For many people, myself included, that union is a very special thing that deserves the simple respect of recognition by society…
Rather than diminishing gay pairing, I would rather see us celebrate it along side of marriage.
This is nothing more than sophistry in the service of bigotry. You want to “celebrate” committed homosexual unions by allowing them second-class status? That’s veeery big of you.
But it’s not your bigotry at issue here; it’s Obama’s acceptance of Rick Warren’s bigotry. The question is, how much disapproval should be expressed to PE Obama for his inviting an anti-gay, anti-woman pastor to give the inaugural invocation? I happen to think gays and their supporters should make it clear to Obama that he screwed up. You agree with the pastor.
If Rick Warren is “anti-woman”, then why does he count many, many women (+/-50%) among his members? Are they full of self hate? Or are you just full of bullshit?
TJ
Yes, and incest is NOT the same thing as parent-child or bro sister committment.
You got the wrong dude man, very much the wrong dude. Why do you feel this way? do On the contrary. For the most part I have no interest in anyone’s sexual proclivities. Since i like cultural dversity, I wish I knew more gay people.
Then restate his words not oyur own or Rachel’s.
Sorry, but what is second class? I am, for example a jew. I am not a Christian. Does that make me second class or do we live within the leagacy of the Revolution?
I would go FURTHER than you seem to want to go. Are you biased against straight pairs who do not have sex? How about bias against committed brothers and sisters, nuns, or polygamists? I think NONE of this should be the sate’s business. Rather we should celebrate the full diveristy of human, consensual relationships.
Where is there bias in that? If you want to marry a woman, that is fine by me. If you want to pair with oyur sister, MY bklessing s on you. If you wnat to become part of a triplet with someother guy and a great lady ..cool. All I care about is commitment and mutual respect.
NOW Warren is “anti woman?” look, I do nto like the man either. I hope he is learning but at least I try to be rational about what he does and doesn;t stand for.
The alternative is more extremism.
Agasin, I have never said that I agree with Warren. I do agree that Prop 8 was correct. I do nto agree that support of gay marriages is an issue worth eleting a half ass who ebelieves in the Great Turtle.
BTW, do you also oppose Rev Lowery because he too is against gay marriage?
……………………
BTW, doe TJ stand for Tom Jefferson? He is my greastest Bhodi, the single most importnant man in history to my taste. Do you come to DL?
I have made up WWJD button is TJ;s honor. BTW .. he was an antisemite but I am confidant that if he had met us, he would have changed his mind. I also think he would be very, very proud of That One.
SJ, I was under the impression that we were discussing this in good faith. I believe now that I was mistaken. The way your argument shifts around from one comment to the next, with you disavowing statements you made upthread, I can’t help but conclude you didn’t mean anything you’ve written in this thread. Either that or your writing leaves the impression you mean things you don’t intend. I’d like to believe it’s the latter, but I must say that I’m forced into the former camp until I can be convinced otherwise. Either way, I cannot continue a conversation under these circumstances.
BTW, doe TJ stand for Tom Jefferson?… Do you come to DL?
No and no.
Rev. Rick compared a brother & sister marrying, an older man and young child and a man and several women to gay marriage on an extended interview in Belief.net. He has restated the same words on several other occasions. Warren’s ‘AIDS Activism’ in Africa has consisted of driving a wedge between progressive and ultra-conservative church factions, siding with the anti-gay Bishops, and pushing his ‘Purpose Driven Agenda’ in homophobic Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda, where even more repressive anti-gay laws have been enacted. In Nigeria, it is now illegal for gays to be served in restaurants, congregate in public, show any sign of ‘affection,’ have social clubs or organizations, with penalities up to 5 years, 14 years for any sexual contact.http://www.iht.com/articles/ap.....nd_Gay.php
In March 2008, his Purpose Driven Plan was instituted in Uganda to the letter and set back Human Rights by decades. Women have become virtual property of their husbands. Even if abused, they must just be better wives with no right to divorce according to allAfrica newswire and the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor.....81265.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/.....s-activism
On his sojourn to Syria, he was hailed a hero by the Sryrian press, but decried by ChristianNewsWire.net as the “Purpose Driven Terror”