Comments on: Rick Warren Pays Himself First

By: astilbe

astilbe — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:04:26 +0000

I am opposed to the Religious Left.

This is not just the inaugural. This is dancin’ with those you HOPE will bring you. (ie assured votes). This is the law of unintended consequences.

Look at the world of hurt the ‘r’s are in. ‘Cultural values’ have ALOT to do with that walk in the wilderness.

Molly Ivins must be twirling in her grave.

No, no, no. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Can’t put it strongly enough.

By: reader

reader — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:00:07 +0000

Apologies: I got the quote wrong … Warren says ”I happen to love gays and lesbians.” Sounds even worse!

I read the thread over at Juan Cole’s and I notice that some people who are trying to be ”agreeable” see this dance as a necessary part of changing minds. Some seem to think Warren’s mind may be changed by Etheridge and Obama???? But don’t Warren & Co. think everyone else’s mind is being changed?

Just who is changing whose minds?

WHAT A MESS!

By: shell

shell — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:14:52 +0000

This is what worries me about Warren: his snake-oil, nice guy persona seems to be bought by way too many non-religious zealot Americans.

Example: Gavin Newsome. He is the mayor of San Francisco. You would think he would be very angry at Warren. No, he doesn’t like what Warren said about gays. BUT, on Rachel Maddow’s TV show, he also said he had met Warren several times and found him very nice and personable.

So F-ing what???? It is really depressing to see so many Americans so easily duped. I swear to God/Buddha/whatever, if that slimeball tried to be nice to me, I would just walk away. Oops! I forgot. I am not famous — I guess I don’t count.

(And if you ARE religious, remember the story of false prophets.)

By: reader

reader — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:01:30 +0000

Thank you so much Stirling! I was confused about Warren’s ”good” works although I am not confused at all that he must have the considerable charms of any good conman or serial killer (thanks for including that reference too) or common garden-variety abuser.

And he is defintely using these ”talents” on good people like Juan Cole and Melissa Etheridge. And of course, these characters depend on the social niceties that the rest of us live by. How often do people who deserve it get disrespected or even challenged in public? Why, no, even torturers get time on primetime tv these days.

It’s got nothing to do with religion. And as far as I am concerned it’s gone beyond the issue of gay rights. Warren is a liar ~ about gays, about religion, and about his business. And about Obama which is one of the more shocking parts of this drama.

There have been numerous wonderful comments here so I’d like to add just this.

Notice that Cole reports Warren saying ”I love Muslims. And for the purposes of the media, I actually love gays and lesbians.” As he is sharing the stage with a lesbian artist from whom he requests an autograph, according to Cole. This is either deeply conflicted or cruelly manipulative. Is this supposed to be some kind of making nice? Don’t be fooled. This is part of the con. This is but one play in the game.

”FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MEDIA” ~ So it’s a PR play.
”ACTUALLY LOVE” ~ Actually means what? In spite of all past statements?
Oh, he ’loves’ Muslims but ’actually loves’ gays and lesbians. Yeah?
Feh.

It is only abusers who claim to love those whom they also belittle and demonize. Warren is a toxic personality. I find it more and more disturbing.

By: selise

selise — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:19:57 +0000

personality, charm, talent, charisma – these are not the same thing as character. but character is harder to discern, and that makes it possible, even easy to get fooled.

here’s a simple test – how does he person treat the marginalized, the oppressed, the powerless? does he suck up to power and prestige while looking down at the weak or does he stand up to the powerful insiders in order to defend the outsiders?

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:02:27 +0000

Juan Cole’s post was surprising not simply for his conclusion that there might be more to Warren than bullying the sexually non-compliant out of their civil rights. That’s a fair comment. But as he writes in his post, he based his column on reading a single book and a few hours meeting with Mr. Warren, in a venue at which his talents most shine. Stirling suggests that a more thorough review of Mr. Warren’s history and programs does not jive with Prof. Cole’s hopeful conclusions. They are, in fact, directly at odds with Mr. Warren’s history.

I imagine Obama is triangulating with virtually anyone who might be won over, inviting them to his table, as Christian theology might put it. Fundamentally, however, as a politician, he is responsible for framing the message. Giving Mr. Warren such a prominent place at his inauguration cedes that to his opponents. Which suggests either that he agrees with them, or has determined that Warren and his followers will come to the table only when he serves their favorite foods. Progressives? They can clean up afterward.

By: Stirling Newberry

Stirling Newberry — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:35:13 +0000

And your dishonest reply to my post trivializes the hard evidence that I present that Rick Warren is a huckster. His so-called “PEACE Projects” are nakedly designed to swell his flock first, and then make people dependent on attending and adhering to a politically enforced religious police state.

But I would like to thank you for revealing the angry bullying that comes out the moment that Warren is questioned.

I feel that Juan Cole’s post - and I almost certainly know him better than you do - was extremely ill considered, and contrary to his usual work, ill informed. The facts on the ground are different: Warren’s “Peace Projects” are amateurish wastes of money at best, and theo-fascism at worst.

I cannot remain silent while Rick Warren’s self-aggrandizement causes people who might have otherwise lived die instead, had they been seen as people, and not possible converts. And it does not matter how many personal testimonials he gets, or from whom.

By: iconlady

iconlady — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:06:46 +0000

You are absolutely right. This was a big mistake and we need to admit that Obama has a blind spot when it comes to preachers. Probably because he grew up secular (normal) and doesn’t have the conditioned paranoia that anyone raised in a fundamentalist household has. He needs to have an advisor who is not just queer, but who has experience with hateful clergy. The granola gays don’t get it any more than Obama does. It’s all, “well lets see if the evangelicals will listen and learn”. Are they f****** kidding? They share with Cheny the belief that its ok to torture the “enemy” (eternal damnation) for all eternity, or until they confess, reprent, and turn in their friends.

By: iconlady

iconlady — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:54:12 +0000

Dear Stirling thank you so much for this post.
I have sometimes, in the past, been slow to get excited about LGBT issues, but I had no problem feeling outrage at the choice of Warren. I grew up in the evangelical tradition and grew to be very afraid of it. My paranoia kicked in immediately. Feel-good hustlers are just as dangerous as hell-fire hustlers, and I can’t believe that people actually think that Obma is so brilliant, so flawless, that he can’t be seduced by his own rhetoric.
One doesn’t ask someone who wants to undermine the constitution to please bless the ceremony that enshrines it. Will there be a creationist on his science team? I doubt it.
Obamas weakness here is that he has not been warped (and made wiser) by a fundamentalist upbringing and therefore no bells go off in his head when he is confronted with what is essentially a charming representative of the American Taliban.
I think its creative and hopeful that he will sit down and negotiate with the taliban, and the right wing, and whoever else is a threat to our democracy, but I don’t want one of them praying our President into office.

By: Propagandee

Propagandee — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:49:37 +0000

Thanks, camilow.

It’s very much what I was thinking.