Rick Warren pt. 2

The Rick Warren fued broils on.  I am still of the opinion that allowing him the honor of giving the invocation isn’t something that deserves the huff it has generated from the gay community.  I think the bigger picture still necessitates the openness, inlcusion, and dialouge.  And in the end, I care about policy progress, not bashing Christian leaders who think that I am an abomoniation.

However, Warren isn’t doing himself any favors in calming the storms.

First, word finally got out today that Warren’s mega-church specfically bans gays from becoming members.  From the church’s own website:

“Because membership in the church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership in Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted as a member of Saddleback Church.”

Do you think he would have been invited if his church denied black Americans membership?


Second, here’s Warren explaining that even if homosexuality is not a choice, gays should still repent, because controlling one’s sexual urges is a sign of maturity and character.  He provides a personal example to explain his point.  He says: “I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.”


3 thoughts on “Rick Warren pt. 2

  1. Inviting Rick Warren to speak at the Presidential inauguration is tantamount to inviting O.J. Simpson to speak at a women’s shelter.

    Evan Wolfson guesstimates we will have Federal Marriage Equality in about 30 years (which would almost certainly require equality in employment and the military also).

    So we need to either EMBRACE the fact that most of us over 40 will NOT see Full Federal Equality in our lifetime and remain “patient” as our civil rights crawl to the finish line…- OR – We could begin to TREAT the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as it treats US.

    Two American Myths:

    * Equal Protection Under the Law (except for gays)
    * Separation of Church & State (except when the law applies to gays or a woman’s womb)

    When Obama invited this “christian” to his speak at his inauguration, he invited a man who believes the Q-community are INFERIOR; “less than”. Let’s quit sugar-coating these turds! Being asked to “respect other’s opinions” doesn’t fly when those “opinions” are harmful lies about an entire segment of the population. Those “opinions” are tantamount to the extremely offensive beliefs and ideas our country once had about “negros” and “wives”, words and ideas that would NEVER FLY TODAY at an inauguration.

    Words and ideas that would incite riots today.

    The National Equality Tax Protest will be on Wednesday, April 15, 2009.

  2. Let me say at the start that Rick Warren would not have been my first choice, but that is for other reasons than are being kicked around here. But regardless, Obama is free to choose whomever he wants. And I have not heard Warren say hateful things about gays, other than by quoting from the Bible. He has also made some logical debating points about what our laws should support by asking if laws banning other acts can be supported if laws banning gay marriages are dropped. That is not directly comparing the various acts. It is simply looking for a basis for the laws governing such things.

    Also, I think such debates should abandon the tired expression “separation of church and state.” That phrase is a metaphor used by Jefferson in a letter. It was aimed at making a particular point, not at offering a thorough summary of the First Amendment. According to this article:

    The University of Virginia compiled quotes from Jefferson about the reason for the Bill of Rights. In that collection (linked in the article above) you find six references to “freedom of religion” and not even one to “separation of church and state.”

    So when Warren speaks out about gays or another other issue, it seems he is allowed to based on freedom of religion, isn’t he?

  3. History Matters:

    First, I agree that Obama is free to chose whoever he wants. I have repeatedly said that I don’t really oppose the idea at all. I have called the ‘outrage’ against his selection an overreaction.

    Second, no one is saying that Warren doesn’t have the right to make any statement that he choses. Obviously he does and has. This is a complete separate issue about government endorsement of those particular views based solely on a religious text.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s