Looking under the veneer on Rick Warren's choice for the invocation at the Obama inauguration

The choice of Rick Warren to do the invocation for Obama's inauguration is all the rage. Granted, people like Hillary Clinton has also participated in events sponsored by Warren in the past. And yes, Warren is a complicated, controversial person in the evangelical community. Perhaps there was the same amount of rage when Reverend Billy Graham (anti-gay rights) did the invocation at both of Clinton's inaugural ceremonies. That's another story.

However, looking at the full picture of Rick Warren, his stances on other important issues besides gay marriage (and Prop 8 support) are certainly needed from the evangelical community.

The New York Times mentioned a little about that today:



So upon reading that information, I did a search of how Warren is seen with the Christian Right and the evangelical community. Guess what... they don't want him allied with "liberal causes" and particularly with Barack Obama. This is mostly due to their wretched notion that Obama (and all liberals) like to kill babies and apparently have infanticide parties. Here's a taste of that along with a list of the Usual Suspects:



And yes, Hillary Clinton has also participated in Warren's AIDS conference. Where was the outrage when she did that? Add that the Christian Right thinks that while AIDS is a tragedy, it's nothing compared to abortion... hence Warren is seen as wasting his time on his AIDS awareness efforts because the AIDS victims aren't Christian enough:



Additionally, there is evidence that Warren may not believe in changing the parameters of marriage as it stands now, but is certainly for, as he terms it, "full equal rights for everybody in America". This would mean he's at least for domestic partnerships and civil unions. Add that he thinks divorce is a greater "threat" than gay marriage:



OK. Do I like Warren. I don't hate him. I actually think there is a chance that, if faced with more solid evidence and examples of those married and of the same sex, he might actually change his ways. Warren is somewhat hated by the Christian Right for being somewhat of a renegade, so there is indeed a chance that he might "see the light" with wanting to fight for what he called "full equal rights for everybody in America".

It's easy to demonize Warren on face value.

It also takes doing some research and trying to understand all the complexities and arguments on the issue of gay marriage.

Am I for gay or same sex marriage? Indeed!

Do I think we need to get domestic partnerships and civil unions (which people like Warren support) made into law first? Yes, please!

Other than that, he's a GREAT guy!!!

Got link?

"Steven Waldman: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family? Divorce or gay marriage?

Rick Warren:Haha! That’s a no-brainer. Divorce. There’s no doubt about it."

so that would be bad for business.

http://www.leviticus2010.com/

Maybe Warren wants to add something to it...

:rofl:

his comments to Waldman in a subsequent email to him disavowing those comments and saying he misunderstood the question. Furthermore, Warren has compared gay marriage/unions to incest. He's called abortion a holocaust and pro-choice people holocaust deniers.

He's a bigot. There's just no way around it. Trying to justify his positions is just not a good thing. Oh, and he's said himself that his positions don't differ AT ALL from Dobson's- except in style.

I've seen Warren be accused of practically wanting to round up all gay people and kill them here. Any links to what he supposedly said about these issues you present would help in the dialogue...

here's more:

. God, who always acts out of love and does what is best for us, thought up sex. Sex was God's idea, not ours. Like fire, and many other things God gave us, sex can be used for good, or abused in ways that harm. The Designer of sex has clearly and repeatedly said that he created sex exclusively for husbands and wives in marriage. Whenever God's parameters are violated, it causes broken hearts, broken families, emotional hurt and shame, painful memories, and many other destructive consequences. There would be so STDs in our world if we all played by the rules.

2. God gives me the free choice to follow his commands or willfully disobey them so I must allow others to have that same free choice. Loving, trusting, and obeying God cannot be forced. In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.


3. If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.


4. Much of this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don't believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights. What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary. Any disapproval is quickly labeled "hate speech. Imagine if we held that standard in every other disagreement Americans have? There would be no free speech. That's why, on the traditional marriage side, many saw Prop 8 as a free speech issue: Don't force me to validate a lifestyle I disagree with. It is not the same as marriage." And many saw the Teacher's Union contribution of $3 million against Prop 8, as a effort to insure that children would be taught to approve what most parents disapprove of.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/should-...

I mean, come on. Hitler loved dogs. That doesn't mitigate his other actions, and it doesn't make the American Kennel Club suggest that "Awww, he wasn't ALL bad--he had a german shepherd, after all!"

Warren is a bigot and a homophobe. The Democratic Party doesn't "do" bigots and homophobes--at least, it never USED to.

And he's being praised and enabled and given a rare opportunity for prominence by the LEADERSHIP of said party.

It's bothersome, and no amount of happy-talk mitigation can change that reality.

Bill Clinton signed The Defense of Marriage Act. That's pretty damn homophobic in my book. Wasn't that 11 years ago?

Hopefully, you can see my point that Warren also has worked on other important issues.

There's a difference between signing something that means nothing in order to deal with an UNFRIENDLY legislature that wasn't supporting your agenda, and actively sucking up to a homophobic bigot at your frigging INAUGURATION--when you HAVE a legislative advantage. He's telegraphing a message, not having his arm twisted. And therein lies the difference.

Clinton signed that in 96, after he'd done a term. He wanted to eliminate the prohibition against gays in the military, but had to "settle" for DADT when a hostile LEGISLATURE refused to go along with him. But Clinton, at least, was "trending" in the direction of rights for all. He didn't succeed, certainly, and had to abandon that goal--but he started out TRYING.

Obama's going the WRONG way, away from tolerance. From the OUTSET.

What legislation will Obama be signing four years from now?

My point stands. I'm not playing "Two wrongs make a right" here.

Wasn't the game supposed to be "Change we can believe in?" Wasn't Obama supposed to be "better than?"

This isn't CHANGE--it's more of the same, only WORSE. There's no justifying it. None.

Obama isn't to blame, though--AT ALL. He told EVERYONE where he stood back during the South Carolina primary. He had homophobic campaigners make his point clear--Kirbyjon Caldwell, Bush's pastor, and Donnie McClurkin are no friends to gays, but they support Obama. Obama openly ran as a center right candidate. People thought because he was "ethnic" that he just HAD to be "liberal." Their very own bigotry (anyone with a drop of black blood just HAS to be a Super-Liberal, it's a "rule") blinded them to the reality that Obama ran and will govern well TO THE RIGHT OF BILL CLINTON.

It's going to be interesting, watching Obama lower expectations of the far left, and watching the far left continuing to dig through the pile of shit, looking for that pony, blaming "the DLC" (as though Obama is a VICTIM) and refusing to admit that their own simplistic bigotry sold them on a untrue view of a candidate.

Perhaps you think that Obama will sign something like Clinton's DOMA in four years. Is that a real crystal ball or a Sears crystal ball?

Why should I praise Obama for having someone who ISN'T A BIGOT there? Talk about setting the bar LOW!!!

Keep digging for your pony.

Your argument is pathetic, as is your Sears reference.

My "crystal ball" tells me you'll be crying bitter tears of betrayal in four years, unless you're a "right of center" type, anyway. If that's the case, you're 'right' where you'd like to be.

You were a big Hillary fan, right?

Where was your indignation when she spoke at one of his AIDS conferences?

"Digging for my pony"? Are you that transparently inept?

Do you even see yourself?

I mentioned that Hillary Clinton spoke at a Warren convention on AIDS awareness. No outrage then, right? None now, right?

Should we sweep that fact under the rug?

But she isn't the President.

Believe me, I don't want to be angry at Obama. I don't want to be disappointed.

But that doesn't change reality. That doesn't make me go so far as to defend a cretin like Rick Warren so I can convince myself and others that maybe this isn't as shitty and insulting as it is.

I have wholly and repeatedly stated that Warren's (and anyone else's) views that people shouldn't be able to marry is completely wrong.

However, if someone like Warren, coming from where he is as an evangelical leader, pisses off the rest of the evangelicals with his OTHER views which most Democrats agree on (like climate change, support for civil unions/domestic partnerships, AIDS awareness and support), isn't it a bit foolish to just throw him out the window?

If you knew someone who was pretty decent except for one issue you were for, would you just hate that person?

Look at Hillary Clinton speaking at Warren's AIDS conference. Although I don't have any sources, I would presume she gave her support for AIDS awareness and education in the conference that completely jibes with Warren's views on AIDS. Would you have thrown her under the bus because she spoke at the conference, which I'm sure made some evangelicals pissed?

Please stop spreading that lie.

And he is NOT a moderate. He has compared gay people to pedophiles and criminals, and pro-choice activists to fucking Nazis. He is a RADICAL BIGOT.

Just. stop.

Are you so determined to twist this around in Obama's favor that you would distort reality to this extent?

Get a grip.

Had to know that was coming.

The fact is, ONE stand often can and should lead to rejection.

And no, I'm not saying Warren is Hitler.

Do you like to fight, or do you just put untrue words in people's mouths for simple sport?

I think you've got a shovel, and a pile of crap in the form of lowered expectations before you, and you still think there's a pony in there. And there's nothing "inept" in that observation, despite your snark and unbridled anger.

Sorry, pal--Hillary's not the President. You can't even TRY to hang this on her. She's not the issue. Obama is.

Two wrongs never make a right, now, do they?

Sorry if my civil rights are a bother to you.

Why are you even here? Free Republic is calling - they want you back.

I've done many hours of grassroots efforts for gay/queer rights and AIDS awareness since the 1980s. I don't need your support or whatever.

Have a great day.

That is all.

There will always be thankless people like you.

I don't care. I don't need your praise.

I do what I think is correct. That includes doing grassroots efforts out in the street for causes I believe in, such as gay rights.

As a matter of fact, a recent project I have is a web site (www.leviticus2010.com) that I'm trying to ramp up to get different states to have the Leviticus 20:10 Referendum. I don't need or want help from people like you.

Keep up the hate. You're really good at it. :crazy:

Fuck him.

Ho-kaaay . . .

No, it's absolutely proper considering what he's said and done.

And WTF are you getting that he supports civil unions?

Please just stop.