The Unwarranted Talk About Warren
Reverend Rick Warren was speaking at the 2005 Aspen Institute Ideas Festival. I had taken the afternoon off to finish the preparations on our annual dinner, which hosts the event's speakers, when my husband suddenly burst into the room, exclaiming something I had long suspected. "You know, you're not going to heaven," Stewart informed me, as shocked as if he'd just heard it announced on MSNBC.
"Yeah, I know, but how did you finally figure it out?" I asked. Stewart went on to explain that Warren had just stated that unless I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I wouldn't be welcome across the threshold of the Pearly Gates "Who cares?" I threw up my hands, then added, with the assumption that my husband and I would end up in the same eternal destination, "Where we'll be, we'll be eating Chinese food, wearing Indian silks, and doing the hora."
Now you might conclude from that experience that I am part of the anti-Warren brigade, but in fact I adore the man. I don't, however, agree with all his views and certainly take great exception to his support of Proposition 8.
Rev. Rick Warren is a cuddly bear of a fellow, full of good cheer and a great sense of humor, even about himself. My main issue is sustainability of the earth, and protection of those animals and people who dwell here. One of the many reasons I admire Warren is that he brought this movement to the Evangelicals, where he has found many supporters among their ranks.
Before this month's spate of incendiary media attention, there were few who would deny that Warren's good deeds are numerous, that his work on AIDS relief in Africa alone merits our awe and respect. His book A Purpose Driven Life, which deals with self-motivation and helping others as part of our life's goal, has sold more than 25 million copies.
With the magnitude of the recent media attention, you'd think Warren had been chosen for a Cabinet post, rather than a small segment of a one-day affair. Someone has to conduct the invocation. Do you think it would be possible for our future president to find a famous religious leader that would publicly support same-sex marriage? And sadly, Barack Obama, if we are to believe his public statements, is also against gay marriage.
I mentioned Obama's stance to an acquaintance today, and she said, "Yeah, but he doesn't mean it." Maybe he doesn't and maybe he does, but as much as I revere Barack Obama, I know he is not infallible. He is not the caped superhero of graffiti lore (as dashing as that image may be) or even a one-size-fits-all personality who will continually please his supporters, let alone his detractors. He is willing to take the controversy of his decisions and even caution us when he says we can "disagree without being disagreeable."
The hubbub caused by Obama's selection of Warren is another example of the media whipping it up for 15 minutes of news noise. "The magic of this country is we are diverse, and noisy, and opinionated, " Obama stated at a recent press conference, "and so that's the spirit in which we have put together ... a terrific inauguration."
I think it will be a magical day, not just for our society but for the world. Just so you know, I am not giving up going to heaven, and I work on my entry speech almost daily. If The Rapture happens to arrive before I am called, and if I see Jesus in the sky above me glowing in golden light, I'm going with Him. And I don't follow just anybody.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So, Rick Warren is s "cuddly bear of a fellow".
Well, that just makes his bigoted view of the world so much more acceptable.
What we all need is a Evangelical free Inauguration.
Didn't we get enough of that old time religion from the Republicans?
Welcome to planet Earth, where no matter who you are, where you live or what you believe, some people are always going to hate you just because you exist.
The choice of Warren is hurtful but it's not the end of everything. If it matters (and if this gets past the moderator) I'm African American and I get it. Prejudice based on sexual orientation is immoral and offensive. Please don't take your ball and go home though. Keep the faith, stay non-violent and don't stop fighting for what's right. Things will change. Obama is not a Bad Man. I know that's not a good enough answer but as I said--welcome to Earth.
Excellent article.
When I was in college, I had two friends: one was Jewish and the other was a born-again Christian. The Christian was extremely concerned for our Jewish friend, and had told her she was going to Hell for her views.
Her views did not mean she HATED Jews, and it didn't make it fact that my Jewish friend would go to Hell. And, most amazing of all was that in spite of their opposing views, they were FRIENDS.
Obama giving Warren an "honored" speaking position at his inauguration does not mean that he embraces Warren's views, nor does it mean that he's "endorsing" Warren or OKing everything he says.
It means he is embracing the rights of Americans to think what they think, particularly if they are not engaging in hurting people, etc. It also means that he's willing to go beyond what many seem to see an comfortable to encourage a national attempt to LISTEN to others, even if you don't agree. I think we'd certainly like those who disagree with us to be willing to listen, and sometimes, you have to be willing to make the first move. Obama is confident enough and humble enough to do this, and it's frustrating that so many are upset with him for being willing to "bend", even if doing so might actually help them in the long run!
Rick Warren just campaigned to TAKE AWAY my rights. I don't care if Rick Warren hates me. I don't care if he says I'll burn in hell. He can think what he wants and he can say what he wants, but you should understand that Rick Warren DOES HURT PEOPLE. He hurt the individuals, couples and families who have lost rights because of his campaign of intolerance. Obama could have chosen an evangelical who doesn't compare me to a pedophile and who didn't just campaign to take away my rights. Warren and his kind don't have to listen to others. They have their bible and interpret it as they please. Obama could have chosen many, many people with whom I could "agree to disagree". Warren does more than "disagree", he has hurt me and many other citizens like me.
Trying this again. My earlier link to Katha Pollitt's article on Warren didn't work. Here it is again:
http://www
He is speaking before Obama is sworn in Pastor Lowery is speaking AFTER. He is Pro Gay rights and Pro Gay marriage. He has FADED into the woodwork and then Progressives and Gays and Lesbians on the left would have us believe that they are not shooting themselves in the foot.
Poor Lowrey I do feel sorry for him. He has to feel like Geez I guess I dont matter. I have YET to read a blog on this site about Pastor Lowrey but they are supposedly happy about him. Could have fooled me.
Got to love how people continue to go against their own interest it never fails to amaze me it doesnt matter who the group is whether they are on the left or right they have a built in inclination to go against their own interest. The sad part of it is they dont even realize it.
Carol
Again, a statement without an explanation of any kind or sense. How does being against Rick Warren and this ridiculous invitation for him to give the invocation go against our own interest?
Sorry, I left out the link, which is:
http://new
This is posted in various places, but I found it at:
But actually here is what Joseph Lowery says about gay marriage:
LOWERY: "Well, I've never said I support gay marriage. I support gay rights and I support civil unions. Like a whole lot of people, I have some difficulty with the term gay marriage. Because deep in my heart, deeply rooted in my heart and mind, marriage is associated with man and woman. So I have a little cultural shock with that. But I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country."
You lost me when you said, "when my husband suddenly..
The bickering and whatnot over Warren has actually made the invocation more important than it would have been and more people will be tuned in because of it. Ironic.
Cabinet appointees can come and go but the delivery of the invocation by Warren at the inauguration will stain Obama's presidency forever.
Oh, please!
Dramatic statement but not true for alot of Americans.
WOW
The fact that you equate your amusing non-heaven-approved status with the gay holocaust is sad. We are beaten, sometimes to death, on a regular basis, fired from jobs and evicted from housing, and disowned by our families. And that is in so-called civilized western democracies. In other countries, we are subject to summary arrest and even execution, let alone constant harrassment and surveillance, etc.
Mr. Warren is not cuddly. He is a mortal threat to my existence as a gay man, and to my marriage to my husband and partner of twenty-two years. He promotes hate-speech and his followers respond with anti-gay violence.
The good work he does in Africa espouses abstinence as a cure for AIDS ...
And he has no place at the nation's helm as we chart a new course, especially when it is he and his reactionary rightwing followers who are largely responsible for supporting, aiding and abetting the murderous, tortuous criminality of the past eight years, cheering all the way!
Obama can choose his bedmates - that's his right as President. But the rest of us have no obligation to cheer his elevation of bigotry and hatred over a chance for an enlightened beginning to an era we all wanted to cheer.
"But the rest of us have no obligation to cheer his elevation of bigotry and hatred over a chance for an enlightened beginning to an era we all wanted to cheer." -- Political Animal
Why on earth would Obama, a man who has one the most diverse group of friends, associates and now staff, choose to elevate bigotry and hatred? You're, in effect, saying that he is a bigot, which is beyond laughable.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
That saw has been around a long time.
It applies here.
"Do you think it would be possible for our future president to find a famous religious leader that would publicly support same-sex marriage?"
As opposed to selecting one who - against all conventional wisdom - thinks being Gay is a "curable choice"? Hmm. A progressive leader might have contacted the Interfaith Alliance and shopped around, after all, the United Church of Christ, the Friends, URJ (Reform Judaism) amongst many other churches, have no problem with same-sex marriages. Instead, we get a minister who is anti-gay, and who gave George W. Bush a medal of peace just this month. I dunno, there HAS to be someone out there that Obama could have picked that would have been a little less annoying to a lot of people.
If this helps spur the debate, that's one thing, but people are being raped, beaten and killed for their sexual orientation to this day. We have to stop that, and picking Warren for the invocation doesn't help us get there.
"Do you think it would be possible for our future president to find a famous religious leader that would publicly support same-sex marriage?"
Desmond Tutu
Lynda were you this vocal or did you blog about the attempted crucifixtion of Obama over the Rev. Wright? Where were you then? And he didn't hold a candle to this back peddaling bigot. Jeez he has his own PR redemption tour going on now to help reverse his hatefull veiws for the time being. Do leopards ever change their spots, do criminals ever change their ways? Why is this POS so different? Maybe it is because The Barack chose him?
I find it strange but there are an awful lot of people trying to defend this choice just because Obama made it.
There is a new sensation rolling all over America it is called the Obama Hypocrisy. It is bad only if done by someone other than Obama.
This is no different than allowing Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh the openeing speech of the inauguration. Would you support either of those people if chosen and would you believe them if they told you they changed their view of gays or liberals. You people are far too enamoured with Obama to see what is right in front of you.
Enough of defending Obama's poor choice. I hope this will not continue when his very poor repeat of failed Iraq war policy starts running amok in Afghanistan. But I am sure you folks will praise his decisions just like conservatives did for Bush/ Cheney.
Listen to yourselves. But I do stand behind your right to believe what you want.
Anybody ever think that this dialogue, no matter how ugly (or not), is part of what was intended with this pick?
Open the wound, flush it out, help it heal.
just a thought.
If this man was systematically trying to tear your family apart, you'd be singing a different tune.
Just a thought.
A thought that's worth noting. Knowing what I do about Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of his intention.
I would think less of him. The ends do not justify the means. I am straight.
Apparently all in the GLBT community who think it outrageous that Warren was invited to deliver a ceremonial prayer at Obama's inauguration have a lot in common with all who voted against Obama who find it outrageous that he will be inaugurated at all. If you are "against my point of view" you are invalidated. It seems to me there is an object lesson in that for all who care to see it.
I think the GLBT community should take a page from Obama's playbook and follow his path to success. Sometimes you have to build a team of rivals to ultimately prevail and get what you want. He's got to lead by example now and that means being inclusive. Warren and those who believe as he does need to be educated and enlightened and that is not going to come from perpetuating an adversarial relationship. I'm with you all the way in your fight for equality, but as someone who might just be a little bit more objective due to a degree of detachment, I want to tell you that I think you will have more success and win the rights you are seeking and deserve by approaching this less emotionally and more analytically and strategically.
My gay brothers and sisters, I respectfully submit that you would greatly benefit from this whole Warren-invocation conflagration if you'd--at least for a day--remove your blinders; thereby expanding your visual field. The disfavor of the gay lifestyle is deeply rooted in virtually all cultures, ethnicities and religions. You only change that type of pandemic internalized behavior in baby steps. The reality: most people fear what they don't understand. And unitl we get an empirical handle on the genesis of gaydom, there'll be people who'll ardently believe it's a choice. Or, a result of being sexaully abused as a child...An
There's fear, especially amongst conservatives, that if there's wholesale acceptance more people may convert...
Your post shows you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the gay delimma. If you are a man, can you understand wanting to be intimate with a woman ? Of course you can - it's exactly that same feeling gay people feel - we are not aliens among you, begging you to understand our need to devour brains ! For god's sake, we are IN FACT your brothers and sisters, LITERALLY - don't pretend you don't understand us ! You have lived with us your whole lives ! It IS your business - you have children, they could be gay ! It's preposterous to think "wholesale acceptance" would lead to "conversions" - 9 out of 10 people are straight, one is gay, PERIOD. Gays don't make girls have kids out of wedlock, gays don't weaken family structure - all that is done by straight people ! You cannot be so ignorant, what you believe is WRONG, and it's your responsibility to GET IT RIGHT. How can we have a "respectful, adult debate" when people like you lay the problems of the human race at the wrong door ? Think about what you are demanding from gay people - that they remain alone, celibate, with their mouths shut, for their entire lives, so STRAIGHT PEOPLE CAN BE COMFORTABLE.
You post shows that in your umbridge, you can't read well. I never said I hold these views. I said many conserves do...And they do. I never said or intimated that I agreed with these negative assumptions. In fact, if you read between the lines, you would have surmised that these are NOT my positions. Read my post again...Oh
Gay people should "remain alone, celibate, with their mouths shut, for their entire lives, so STRAIGHT PEOPLE CAN BE COMFORTABL
That is what the entire debate is really all about.
"if there's wholesale acceptance [of homosexuality] more people may convert...
1. Two gay men marrying has zero affect on my interest in women (and marriage to said women), and suspect it is the same for any heterosexual man or woman (who aren't closeted homosexuals, anyway).
2. There's no "veil of shame" to being gay, except in the minds of those who feel it's OK to push their belief system on others.
3. According to the latest reports, teen pregnancies have been going down since the 1990s, due primarily to availability of contraceptives - not shame or abstinence.
Understanding the other side doesn't mean the other side cares to understand ours - that's what they do. I've yet to figure out how to have an "adult debate" with folks on the other side of this issue, since they can't debate on that level, and inevitably resort to circular arguments (i.e. "the Bible says being gay is wrong, the Bible is infallible, so being gay is wrong").
pakaal, like Demigod...
That's what I like about the print medium; it's harder to miscontrue one's words.
Basic human rights are not negotiable.
And by the way - there is no "gay lifestyle" anymore than there is a "straight lifestyle.
So touchy...E
How does this sound? Think carefully about this:
"Frankly, I don't understand why a man would want be intimate with a woman, but I understand it's none of my biz."
It sounds like the truth. Just like I don't understand how the planets came to be so perfectly aligned. Or why some babies are born laughing and cooing and some cry all the time...Doe
It sounds absolutely insane, considering the fact that the human species--and our biological gender differences to begin with--are a direct function of the evolutionary strategy of survival and replication. Heterosexuality is the ultimate culmination of this dynamic in human biology.
Even comparing the two as if they are similar is fundamentally intellectual dishonesty. one would not exist without the other, and the reverse is not possible. Whether or not it makes someone feel bad will never change that immutable fact. the majority of Americans understand this bit of common sense.
Comparison of the gay marriage issue to race struggles is blatant racism. Sorry, but the idea that races are different from each other in any way other than complexion and superficial difference due to climate adaption is absolutely false. the fundamental rationale behind racism is bunk. the oppression that people of color experienced was
On the other hand, the gay rights movement is *precipitated* upon the idea that gay people are fundamentally biologically different than everyone else. The gay community posits that they are inherently different from the rest of the species innately. That difference, of course, renders them obsolete in terms of the biological evolutionary drive. sure, gay people have kids, but that is despite their sexuality, not because of it. That is an important distinction--if you are interested in being honest about the issue, that is.
To tell you the truth, the notion of heterosexual men showing up to have sex with thirteen year old girls as exposed by the dozens on TO Catch a Predator makes me wanna puke.
Gay predators who go after boys, same deal.
And actually, if i really try to picture it, men having sex with women makes me wanna puke.
As does sex between men and men and women and women.
Having sex myself is delightful.
I think that if you focus on pretty much anybody having sex with anybody who is not you, you will find that you have some mega-disgust for anybody who is not you.
All those combos count as equal "lifestyles".
Did it take Obama to pick Warren for people to figure out that Warren and Obama views almost mirror each other? Obama has picked someone who also does NOT believe in Gay marriage..
Warren does *not* believe in civil unions. He clarified that statement saying he thought the interviewer had asked about civil rights. He then said, no, he doesn't believe in civil unions. Get your facts.
I mean this is just getting silly now. Even though Obama has a strong record of support equal rights for all, an invitation to Rick Warren to do the invocation at his inauguration has all of a sudden turned into a referendum on Obama's beliefs on discrimination.
this issue is blinding a lot of peole.
I'd say this issue is illuminating a lot of people. Now we are learning who stands for what. Obama could have avoided all of this, by choosing almost anyone else among America's clergy. Instead he continued his strange association with Rick Warren. Now, most of Obama's supporters are cracking not on Warren, who tried to prevent Obama's election, but on gay people, who helped Obama with a lot of money, volunteer help, and votes ! Gay people didn't pick this fight, it is shocking to us, but we won't back down, either ! This is a very serious betrayal, everyone needs to know it. The message this sends to the gay community couldn't be worse, and couldn't go any deeper.
Where exactly is this vaunted record? Stop saying this if you have no proof to back it up.
Rick Warren opposes civil unions.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
