Did Warren say those quotes are okay? Or do you just know what he's going to say? Also, God DAMN America! Hitler!

Here's my point, Bob - you spent at least four times the amount of time typing in those quotes as Pastor Warren will speak on January 20th.

You could quote those same Bible quotes to Lowery, if you were so inclined....you just aren't so inclined.

So I get it - you're not going to be joining Saddleback Church. Me, neither. Beyond that - there's no context where this is relevant to the politics of Barack Obama except to show he doesn't freak out over stuff like this with either Warren or Wright.

>>Did Warren say those quotes are okay? Or do you just know what he's going to say?

No and no. However, in that section of his website, Warren uses Leviticus (and the Bible in general) to justify his position on homosexuality. After all, he's a pastor. But it's not a stretch to suggest that either he's cherrypicking (which is intellectually dishonest) or that he believes all of Leviticus as well as similar chapters and verses.

Secondly, he claims that if homosexuality is genetic, it's still a sin. So it's not unfair to extrapolate this belief to the genetics of being female, since the Bible is explicit about the inferior status of women. Actually, the Bible is pretty clear: men rule, and everyone is either inferior or evil or both.

Are you suggesting these views aren't offensive to millions of people? (not rhetorical - seriously asking)

I was so hoping Bob wouldn't lead with this topic again today. I know everyone want's to make thier very serious points about this issue, on both sides, but I honestly haven't read anything really new about it for days -- and I get the sense that no one's opinion here has been changed regarding the central points. What has changed is the tone of the discussion -- it's more angry, louder, and repetative -- anything possibly substantive has been lost in the noise. And that's too bad, because GDAB is not as enjoyable to read anymore.

I guess I could stay away until after the inaguration, maybe the topic will have changed by then.

Which view? That homosexuality is a sin? That view is 1) offensive to millions of people and 2) not offensive to millions of people.

Do you find this quote from Rick Warren offensive?

"nature arranged male and female organs "in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot manage well."

>>Here's my point, Bob - you spent at least four times the amount of time typing in those quotes as Pastor Warren will speak on January 20th.

Irrelevant. If Rick Santorum was being honored with an invitation to the inaugural dais to say "Hello! Bye!" I would be equally as alarmed.

>>You could quote those same Bible quotes to Lowery, if you were so inclined....you just aren't so inclined.

Lowery isn't using the Bible to very publicly justify the inferiority of millions of Americans.

>>So I get it - you're not going to be joining Saddleback Church. Me, neither.

You're right. But that's not the argument. Warren, his Church and his views are being shoved in my face and I'm objecting to that.

>>Beyond that - there's no context where this is relevant to the politics of Barack Obama

Not saying there is. You forget that I'm not a frothing maniac who's blasting President-elect Obama every time he sneezes the wrong way.

This is about dramatic and unnecessary symbolism and degredation, and a decision that I consider to be a pointless political blunder.

How about this one....offensive?

"Sexual pressure, sexual desire, actually, I think is short-period satisfaction and, often, that leads to more complication," he said.

"Naturally as a human being...some kind of desire for sex comes, but then you use human intelligence to make comprehension that those relationships are always full of trouble."

He goes on to say sexual activity leads to murder and suicide...

@Alan4s

>>I guess I could stay away until after the inaguration, maybe the topic will have changed by then.

In my defense, I've posted about a wide variety of other topics from Christmas movies to the recording industry to the Bush legacy project to the Franken v. Lizard People recount, and so on. With various levels of participation (the Warren posts seem to be attaining exponentially more views and comments that the others, but that's not how I choose topics).

The GDAB is certainly not all Warren all the time. That said, if you want me to move on, maybe it's time to drop the subject.

Oh, by the way - those last two quotes weren't Rick Warren. They were the Dalai Lama

The first quote in this post is the most informative. Shorter Saddleback:

"If you can't repress the way you were born, hit the bricks."

Saddleback also doesn't allows members who are men and women living together - same exactly reason.

heres a little tidbit from "Rick Warren's Ministry Toolbox" written by Beth Moore

http://legacy.pastors.com/RWMT/article.asp?ID=122&ArtID=3908

There are MANY reasons why having this man elevated to a place of prominence on a symbolical historic day is just a big steaming double decker shit sandwich. Not the least of which is his views on women especially in marriage (the right he would deny gay people)

from the article:
"God granted women a measure of freedom in submission that we can learn to enjoy.
It is a relief to know that as a wife and mother I am not totally responsible for my family. I have a husband to look to for counsel and direction. I can rely on his toughness when I am too soft and his logic when I am too emotional."

1. Submission does not mean women are under the authority of men in general.
I love the King James Version’s rendition of Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” Guess what? Wives aren’t asked to submit to anyone else’s husband! Just their own!

you think Michelle Obama is submitting herself unto her husband while, shes being that third leg of the christen stool.

And Bob to Alan's point, i understand the frustration, i have felt it too. Ive tried to just ignore or skip reading the posts but I've found it difficult to do being as its a subject i'm passionate about.... But its not YOU who is single mindedly beating this Warren thing to the ground and i for one would be pretty disappointed if you stop posting about it but Lee kept up his 24/7 shoveling of it down our throats.

Then there would be no balance, no voice of reason....

Warren, his Church and his views are being shoved in my face and I'm objecting to that.

How so? Whether you're attending the Inauguration in person or watching it on television, you've got options available that'll prevent you from seeing and hearing it. If you end up doing either of those things... well, that one's on you. And, to be honest, as much as you keep bringing up the subject, it seems you're beginning to enjoy rubbing your own nose in it.

I don't mean to be flip or suggest that you can't be angry about all of this. You can be as angry as you want. Just understand that, at some point, *you* have responsibility for your emotions. And the longer you give the President-elect permission to piss you off --- however crazy that sounds --- the longer you'll continue being the target of your own ire.

>>Saddleback also doesn't allows members who are men and women living together - same exactly reason.

And as we all know, being gay is just like cohabitation. Completely optional. Come the fuck on Stranahan.

Just as a sidenote. I always find it funny when religious people talk about some form of activity as a "lifestyle choice."

I mean, what is more of a "lifestyle choice" than really devout following of an arbitrary set of dietary, ritual, and thought-crime rules?

Being gay is a matter of identity. Being evangelical is a lifestyle choice.

>>prevent you from seeing and hearing it.

Whether I attend or watch is irrelevant. It's the symbolism -- the idea that someone with these views is speaking on the inaugural dais.

>>Whether I attend or watch is irrelevant. It's the symbolism -- the idea that someone with these views is speaking on the inaugural dais.

Exactly. It's the gesture in and of itself, not the magnitude or long term policy ramifications.

...it's an invocation which nobody is going to care about the second that it is over, the same as the benediction...

If he goes up there and spews hate towards gays and pro-choice people then we will have a problem

Whether I attend or watch is irrelevant. It's the symbolism -- the idea that someone with these views is speaking on the inaugural dais.

Fair enough. So at what point do you begin forgiving the President-elect (because it appears Warren's staying on the program)?

my little fantasy is that Warren gets booed by a million people live and on TV during his invocation...

I know im a dreamer

After all, he's a pastor. But it's not a stretch to suggest that either he's cherrypicking (which is intellectually dishonest) or that he believes all of Leviticus as well as similar chapters and verses.

Secondly, he claims that if homosexuality is genetic, it's still a sin. So it's not unfair to extrapolate this belief to the genetics of being female, since the Bible is explicit about the inferior status of women.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's intellectually dishonest to put words into another person's mouth, which is what you're doing when you "extrapolate his beliefs" about gay people and assign them to women, as well. It very well may be true, but in the absence of his own writings or some other verifiable/credible source that backs up your assumption, all you're doing is knocking down a straw man.

>>If he goes up there and spews hate towards gays and pro-choice people then we will have a problem

But if PE Obama make use of that spewing, if he repudiates any negativity, if he openly challenges the hateful biases, then something very positive will come of it. I have a hunch that something like that will happen, and that PE Obama is smart enough and politically savy enough that he will do so in a way that is not hurtful to the far right, but puts them in thier place and sends the strong message that the nonsense will not be tolerated.

For example, look at the way Senator Obama used the forum at Saddleback during the campaign. It was clear Obama was set up, and that McCain had been given the advantage. But by being calm, cool, and collected, Obama came out of the experience looking like the bigger man and the smarter politician. McCain looked like a schemeing, coniving, slimy creep. And Warren looked like a dupe who was trying to be powerful but ended up being used by both campaigns.

So the point I've been trying to get across here is that "we", the GDAB-minded folks, should not be yelling at each other about how Warren's choice was right or wrong - we should be talking about how we can take advantage of having this blowhard exposed for what he really is. Because I really do think there's more to this than we are letting ourselves see.

And even if I'm wrong, we need to be able to discuss issues we are passionate about, but may not agree upon, with sounding like a bunch of shrill, repetative children. If we cannot at least have civil discussions about issues, then whatever solidarity we have achieved to finally end the Bush nightmare will not last, and we will be defeated by the very right wing assholes we are arguing about.

I was not threatening to "take my ball and go home" (as Mr. Travis D suggested), I was trying to squelch the deafening roar of argument in the hopes we would think this through and come back to talk about it sanely once we have an idea of how this will really play out. I've obviously failed at that, so much so that I've joind the fray myself. Ah well....

...and I really should proof read and spell check my posts. Apologies....

Bob - it is absolutely a stretch to believe that Christians accept Leviticus as a whole. Selling wives into slavery and all of that was not validated by Paul in the New Testament, which abrogated most of the Old Testament laws. Restrictions against homosexuality was brought forward into the New Testament, and so Christians are stuck with it.

You'd make a better case for the continuation of slavery than some of the other Leviticus laws - since Paul advocated slaves remaining obedient and patient with their masters, etc.

Alan - I am all in favor of dropping this subject. It seems we really can't come to any agreement - there are deeply entrenched views on both sides, and yet, we have so much more in common (isn't that the example Obama is trying to set?). This is my last post on the subject, unless I'm called on by name. I'm going to live and let live. As with the afterlife - we will all find out who's right later (as in, when Obama actually starts governing).

QT

Jason Linkins has some words on this today:
Obviously, we'll have more than just this inaugural moment to judge Obama by where gay rights are concerned. But the reason I keep drawing attention to Dahlia's very nice, very concise statement* is that Obama obviously, speaking very highly of reconciliation and of reconciliative measures. But, as students of Aristotle know, character is revealed through actions, and the action of having Warren speak at the inaugural speaks louder than any of the rhetoric Obama's offered up to offset this. Now, it's my impression that Obama is simply, in this instance, being tone-deaf and not malign.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/21/tv-soundoff-sunday-talkin_n_152639.html

* "The president-elect continues to confuse reaching across the aisle with being principled. Sometimes the principle is just too important to compromise."

The hatemonger Rick Warren being chosen to give the invocation is just the latest evidence that Obama is nothing but a neo-con in very thin disguise. Look at his cabinet picks and look at everybody he surrounded himself with on the campaign trail. He's Nixon with more melanin. America, you've been fooled AGAIN!

These are the facts: A hate-filled bigot and proven liar has been given a place of honor at OUR inauguration (change.gov says it is).

This has caused an angry reaction in the already-smacked-down and fed up GLBT community. If you haven't recently had your civil rights removed, you can't imagine or understand the level of revulsion. This does not portend well for the Democratic Party, despite the cynical reaction that the queers don't have anywhere else to go.

The GLBT community has been treated like a giant ATM by the Dems and Obama, who push all the right buttons only to turn their backs after cash has been dispensed. No more.

Hundreds, maybe thousands of GLBT contributors to PE Obama's Presidential campaign have written to change.gov to request their name be removed from the fundraising lists. Hundreds more are returning their Obama T-shirts with "No Hope for Queers" written across the front.

Here in Southern California, where the community is still smarting in the wake of a heartbreaking defeat (prop. hate) at the polls, there is a serious movement afoot to persuade GLBT voters to re-register in the Green Party, which has always included GLBT rights in their platform. This is a move that if successful, could reduce the number of Democratic voters here by as much as 15%.

Obama may have the noblest of intentions in selecting Slick Rev. Rick to deliver the invocation, but I can't help thinking he's just another pandering pol. And he's made the wrong call because the followers of the Warrens, Hagees, and Robertsons on the RR will ALWAYS hate him.

There's always another election around the corner, and cynical pols will come to the GLBT with their hands out again. I truly hope they come away empty.