Quick quiz. What’s misleading about this item?
Rick Warren is being attacked on the left because of his view on gay marriage — especially after Barack Obama invited him to be part of the inauguration.
The implication here is that Warren’s "being attacked" because he simply opposes gay marriage. Not true. It’s because he’s expressed that opposition in the most hateful way imaginable — then tellingly, lied about it.
And it’s not just the corporate media that keeps making this mistake over and over. Check out this post from Nate Silver:
If John Kerry had won four years ago, and invited Warren or some analogous pastor to give his invocation, would there have been this much debate about it? It’s hard to say for sure, but I don’t think we would have heard very much about it at all. This all feels very recent, stemming from a renewed self-confidence on the part of the left, coupled in this particular instance with the aftermath of Proposition 8.
No, I absolutely guarantee you that if John Kerry had invited someone who equated gays with pedophiles or homosexual relationships with incest, there would’ve been hell to pay. If John Kerry, however, had invited his parish priest — who probably opposes gay marriage and abortion but to my knowledge hasn’t engaged in Warren-type hate speech — probably wouldn’t have been an issue.
I remain puzzled by the inability of people to grasp this.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
The poor thing is being attacked. Wahh!!!
Not to be rude, but I’m not puzzled at all. People grasp what they want to grasp. Many on the left are intellectually “ok” with teh gay, but lack real world understanding of what it means when you are.
If Nate Silver, and others on the left, had ever had a physical assault over his sexual orientation, he would have an entirely different opinion.
Hence the “gut punch” I felt over Obama’s announcement, and you know those feelings don’t dissapate quickly, if ever.
Good post, BT. Warren has equated homosexuality with types of behavior that are not only immoral, they are CRIMINAL. Obama’s association with bigots like Warren isn’t post-partisan, it is appeasement.
My view? What do you think BFL, you say? Ahem. The people with an inability to grasp the situation never will. It’s just not that big a deal for most people.
… coupled in this particular instance with the aftermath of Proposition 8.
I think that’s true. It makes Warren’s selection that more egregious. But people are moving on. Obama, media…. people. I think we oughta too.
Sooo agreed.
i maintain that good will come of this. first, there may be a spectacle in dc or anywhere he speaks. then there is the hightened level of exposure until he says something really obnoxious again. it’s only a matter of time. don’t think he can keep his mouth shut.
no don’t move on. enjoy the fruits of this. plenty more to come.
I think this is a brilliant move on Obama’s part. Warren will just give an invocation prayer at the Inaugural. That’s all. But the intense focus on Warren by the Media will do more to expose the hypocracy of his position(s). The vast Media does wonders in exposing clowns like Warren when he has to explain hisself (ask Palin). He’s already beginning to feel the “heat” and changed his web site. I think he will regret his decision to accept this “opportunity”. People recognize “inclusion” and Obama has “one-upped” him on that one. He’s a phony like the rest of those hustlers.
People like Falwell and Robertson have routinely made insane, offensive public statements throughout their careers without substantial penalty. Bigots tend to get a free pass when they pretend to speak for a Higher Power.
Since it’s “just not that big a deal for most people” the answer then is to “move on.”
Exactly the point; it’s not your ox getting gored. So what I end up with, without it being explicitly said is Friedman-like; “Suck it.” “We got more important issues.” Etc.
LGBT rights are Human Rights, so moving on isn’t really an option. And the march of progress has already enlightened a lot of people since before Stonewall, so there is plenty of proof of change.
yep. i keep hopin for a tipping point. can’t get there without exposure, imo.
My boyfriend and I are going to have ignore the inauguration party…… This crossed a line for me…… a bottom line in my moral acceptance of what is right and wrong.
I can’t participate when the first on the agenda is hate ……..
Warren apparently has a problem with the existence of gays and lesbians. This is my answer to his wondering why they exist, parts in increasing order of relevance to Warren’s worldview:
1. We don’t know why.
2. Because, that’s why.
3. God likes variety in everything. (See, for example, the number of beetles she created.)
4. God is running a test to see how well we understand her message of all-people-are-created-equal as expressed by Jesus. (Rick, you’re failing it. And you’re not the only one.)
i, for one, am not willing to let go of a single issue. there is no percentage in waiting for the thugs to do the right thing. i their face all the time i say.
Homosexuality exists in nature, it has been documented over and over again that it exists and is accepted throughout various species….. in many native peoples homosexuals were honored members of their society.
It is only the narrow minds of the christianists that push their agenda on the majority of Americans.
LGBT rights are Human Rights, so moving on isn’t really an option.
I didn’t mean we should move on from LGBT rights or human rights. I think this Administration will certainly be better than the current one in this regard (not saying much) and maybe the best ever. Moving on from the selection of this asshole to give the invocation is, in my view, the best option. gay people may not be able to. but the rest of us should, I think. But for example if Obama doesn’t change “don’t ask don’t tell” there should be no moving on from that. I guess I’m making the distinction between policies that will last for years and a prayer by some scumbag that will take, like, 2 minutes. I just thing the former is more important.
There is an applicable word for what Obama is doing: “triangulation”
He’s doing Clinton without being Clinton, and nobody wants to say so, since that would damage the “change” brand.
Frankly Warren’s vicious homophobia is only a part of the problem that I have with him. He advocates violence against women by being anti-choice and saying that the bible(that fictional document of hatred and bigotry) says that men should have dominance over women. He also advocates, when it comes to choice, the theory of the greater crime and committing a crime to prevent it by violence. In addition he has advocated bombing the crap of yet another piece of land covered with civilians, this time called Iran, just because his little imaginary person (doG) told him it was OK.
No this guy is a “bad actor” all the way. It were better he were not given a pulpit and national recognition. And to what bloody benefit is this going to be? It is nothing to do with advancing the rights of a human being, rather the reverse. It has nothing to do with “uniting” the country, Warren is an advocate of violence against those with whom he disagrees and I think that at the very least he should disavow his violent hatred against others before he is given a national stage. It is certainly yet one more slap in the face of the progressives that did so much to get this Democratic president elected. This unity bullcrap coming from the obama camp is easily detected for what it is after the past eight years of lying we are, I think, pretty well attuned to know when we are being sold yet another bridge.
I am not so sure that the Bagojavich scandal isn’t part of the Warren selection. It is working to give the Blago fiasco less attention as time and newsprint is being spent explaining Warren.
Anyway the guy is a pig and should not have been selected.
Wasn’t it the chistianists that invented “marriage” and made it some magical thing that only people of the opposite sex can do? Of course while they were at it they figures how to make money from it… those weddings in large tax free temples to greed cost a lot of bucks.
Why is the MSM fixated on Warren’s position on LGBTQ people?
There’s plenty of fundamentalism for almost every liberal or progressive.
Let’s all repeat a few lines:
Warren believes women should obey their husband’s commands.
Warren and his wife believe that the theory of evolution is against God. (They believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.)
Warren and his congregation oppose condoms and sex education – and have prevented them in their so-called HIV/AIDS work in Africa. (How many people have died as a result?)
Warren subjects LGBTQ members to psychologically damaging group “therapy”.
Their support for tackling Global Warming is weak.
And there is much more. Saddleback Church needs sunlight in many very dark corners.
I find it extremely offensive that Obama put Warren in this prominent spot, BUT: I can’t get over how Machiavellianly reasonable it is. It could have been done another way, but the essence of the political power thrust is nonetheless correct.
Every competent salesperson or politician knows you don’t even bother worrying whether you like or approve of the person in front of you; you just try to close the deal on your terms.
In the politician’s case, the deal may not be as singularly completed as in the salesperson’s, but, instead, may be only a re-orientation of power centers, and laying groundwork for longer-term, unavoidable interactions.
The politician also gets to rely on practically everybody’s adaptation to favorable treatment from Power.
You’ll never get an idiot like a religious fundamentalist or political conservative to change their stripes, but you can definitely grow their preference for favorable treatment, and make them fearful of losing such favor.
I don’t think Obama, who to me has always been disappointingly “centrist,”
thinks he’s going to change Warren’s ilk. Obama not only wants his enemies under his maximally close-in surveillance, he wants them seeking his favor.
I think…
Another thing:
Obama was supposed to represent a Calling to the very best of ourselves. With Obama, we were going to go forward/return to What America Really Means: the land of respect for the individual.
No aristocracy
No hierarchy of personhood based on how you were born
And the Warren Invitation ruins all that.
It’s not about gay marriage. Insistence that gay people not be allowed to marry is a product of what I object to: the idea that gay people (or any people) are not fully human, not allowed — in America! — to participate fully.
Mr. Warren is a 3/5′er — a throwback who believes that some people are only allowed to be counted partially.
This gay person read Silver as correct in his assessment. Since losing Prop. 8, LGBT people have moved the goal posts, for ourselves and for Democratic politicians. Past weasel words about domestic partnerships or civil unions are not enough: we do demand that folks who claim to be friends support marriage. (There are good legal reasons for this — but in this comment that’s a side track.)
As a woman said on my blog, “I didn’t know i wanted it, but having had it, I know I want it back.” Prop. 8 moved the goal posts for many LGBT people too.
The Obama brain trust, which is not very comfortable with us, didn’t know the rules had changed. I hope they have learned to listen more carefully. We are going to be an active part of their world.
As for Rick Warren — what a lazy pick! The guy stinks rotten not only on LGBT people, but on most everything: women, science, foreign relations. There are evangelical leaders who live in the real world — if the Obama folks had been doing their homework, they could have promoted someone like Brian McLaren who would have helped ease evangelicals into the 21st century without offending their beliefs. That would have been smart.
well… the word “pandering” comes up as another possibility
This is a test for the LGBTQ community — and a greater test for our allies. Will you get over it? Will you allow yourselves to enjoy the inauguration despite the ceremony being opened by a homophobic bigot? Will you allow yourselves to move on? Will you allow yourselves to say that you can let the wound heal, even though the wounded aren’t healed from the insult?
it seems to me that true allies would look to those with a horse in the race and ask, “Should we keep up our noise on your behalf, or are you okay now?” And when the answer is, “No, we are not okay” then allies keep up the noise. LGBT people can’t communicate alone to Obama; we need your voices too.
And if Obama realizes that the progressive allies of the LGBT community will leave them by the side of the road in order not to endanger the celebratory nature of the party, what’s to stop him from discarding ALL the promises he’s made on our issues? If you’ve shown you won’t stand with us when we are deeply hurt, why should he spend political capital on our behalf?
Obama, with FISA, has shown it’s easy for him to break campaign promises. There lots of talk he’ll break his promises to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Now he’s deciding which other ones to break. Will allies of the LGBT community help him to see that promises to us can be broken without a ruckus?
Because if Obama sees that’s true, then the promises will be broken.
Without your voices now, on this issue — a test of your alliance with us — Obama will break promises to us. Don’t let him see that chance please.
It seems to me that a lot of you are acting as if this is analogous to Lyndon Johnson hiring Bull Conner to handle security for his inauguration. It’s not.
Rick Warren is a businessman and Barack Obama is a politician. They have mutual interests and they both want to expand their constituencies.
The best thing Christians could do for their cause is to not demonize those that they disagree with, but to chastise those that claim to be on their side, and the same goes for those of us who believe in equal rights for homosexuals.
Flies and honey.
Stop being shrill and combative.
i have many complaints about obama and his team – but not doing their political homework isn’t one of them. therefore i must conclude that warren is who they chose because warren is who they want.
there’s a lot of problems with Wingnut Rick other than LGBT bigotry. He’s various on record for being an anti-science creationist, global warming denier (until 2005), end-times millenialist (some of his comments border on LeHayism), anti-humanitarian (only charitable and public service activites that are intended to further Christ’s message are ‘good’), and sometimes outright theocrat. He may be a little better than Ayatollahs Dobson and LeHaye but not by much.
Thanks, Teddy.
I consider myself your ally (y’all singular and all, all y’all group-wise). So, I’ll try to keep speaking up and reading here for suggestions on how best to be heard.
XXOO
FunnyD
Excellent point! Years ago, I was walking with some gay friends when a bunch of guys jumped out of a car and started pounding. That event has impacted the way I view this struggle.
And then, there’s this:
Why would I want flies in my honey? And this a DFH blog. Shrill and combative is what we do. Also thoughtful analysis. Why should we support Barack Obama’s political agenda if it doesn’t reflect ours?
I think maybe we should pray for Warren to be converted to Christianity, since (by my standards) he currently isn’t one.
Been here long?
Teddy,
This is the most eloquent statement I have seen on this subject. Hear, hear!
BTW Thomas Friedman had a piece up at the NYT. I won’t link and I seldom read his stuff as a rule. But this one was funny. Apparently he just noticed last week that America’s infrastructure is crumbling. Is that guy incisive or what? I mean who knew? Also apparently the financial crisis hit his wife’s money harder than we thought. He was complaining about having to spend $3 on a luggage cart. Hard times for us all, Tom, hard times for us all.
The deal is that the MSM is seeing the bits of the website that John Aravosis found and publicized as things taken out of context. They’re looking at Warren’s work for AIDS victims in Africa and his progressive stances on the environment, and favorably comparing them to the work, attitudes and stances of his fellow, more conservative evangelicals.
What percentage? You’ll never get a leader who gives you 100%, so why add to the troubles of a man who’ll give you 70 or 80%?
If Obama has Warren give the invocation, but then works hard to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, haven’t we won one battle?
OT
SnarKassandra just appeared upstairs to say hello.
FunnyD
It’s not about political agenda (at least Barack hasn’t yet exposed to us that it is. It’s about political strategy.
I’m uncomfortable taking this stance (see my comments at approx #22 above), but I have leanings towards the view Bobzim has expressed.
It’s like the Black thing. People who aren’t black will never know what it is like to be Black.
I saw that, too. Mister World-is-Flat suddenly realizes that the screw-the-workers globalization he’d spent the past two decades cheering on is a key reason why America is in rough shape right now.
Thanks, FD!
One would think so.
teddy, i’m reminded of some especially wonderful posts you wrote last year about the edna debate. “We’ll Pick You Up Later” has especially stuck with me because you weren’t willing to leave the most marginalized behind in order to achieve some quick progress for yourself.
hope you see this comment now because i’m with you. just tell me where you need me to stand.
Well, before BT and tbogg came under the FDL umbrella.
I know which way the wind blows here, but I don’t think it’s wrong for me to point out that sometimes we tend to apply gale force to issues that only warrant a warm breeze.
Looking at Obama’s support for the FISA Amendments Act, Paulson’s $700 billion bailout, playing nice with Lieberman, and his selections for his Administration, I don’t expect to see 20% of what I would like and what I think the country needs. And can we really dispense with these wishful thinking scenarios? Maybe Obama will do a lot of things but the odds are he probably won’t.
Teddy: I’m with y’all too. It’s not about teh gays. It’s about hate. It’s about what gets to be said about those who ask for fairness and equality which is actually every one of us. It’s about all the DISAGREEABLE (hey, I’m lookin’ at you Barry) shit that is going on in plain sight. We here at fdl are telling the truth. For that to be called a problem when lies get ”fair” hearing is just more of the same shit pie.
Oh, and Warren’s ’ideas’ on women and marriage and choice scare the hell out of me. NO wonder women still don’t get pay equity. And no one connects the dots.
Warren’s ability to lie and self-contradict while on a national stage and while poisoning any civil discourse is psychotic and must stop for the good of the country. About that, Obama is right but this kind of ”unity” is not the solution.
Warren will keep stumbling. He’s not smart enough not to and his PR team behind the scenes is not up to the challenge either. Propaganda is not going to fix this. Potemkin visits with teh gays. GAH.
This IS the thin edge of a dangerous wedge of so many ills that we thought were going to end. And maybe the biggest ill is the admonition to be quiet and listen to the old lies about civil rights, gays, money, jobs, unions, politicians, spying, terror, torture, and every other bloody crime that is our sad country now.
We can’t afford to shut up.
if obama does something i like then i’ll praise him. if he does something wrong i’m going to call him out on it. i don’t get it – what is the problem with that?
unless maybe the problem is that we’ve seen a lot to criticize and not much to praise?
You don’t want flies in your honey, but you do want to set aside a little of your honey to attract flies who produce larvae that COULD eat the gangrenous flesh that threatens the entire being.
Get it?
Yeah, well, when I see Fox News using Glen Greenwald to tout the power of left-wing blogs – as disingenuous as it may have been – then I think there’s some duty to temper the tone of criticism for the time being.
This shouldn’t be that hard to understand, even for the vacuous media personalities. For them to let Warren get away with equating homosexuals with incestuous pedophiles would be like letting someone get away with equating Catholic priests with child molesters.
If babbling bobbleheads had the brainpower, they would realize they would never let someone get up on the inaugural stage who had equated Catholic priests with child molesters. Never. So why they can’t fathom this double standard is beyond me.
The selection of Warren has advanced the conversation is a variety of ways;
First, Warren has taken some steps on his website that indicate something… if not a change in belief than an effort to be seen as tolerant.
Warren has also done a video blog which is very interesting because it’s off the cuff and seems to be more of a political statement than a religious one. Watch it. He argues some straw dogs and it’s revealing.
Mike Rogers has made the best case yet arguing that the evangelist leader should lead by quietly sitting down with LGBT leaders (out of the eyes of the media) and talk.
Barney Frank has spoken articulately identifying the ‘position of honor’ argument.
I don’t know if Obama intended to ignite this but every voice saying ‘the left’, or ‘the netroots’, or ‘the liberals’ are over reacting is another opportunity to be heard. The issue is front and center in a way that would be hard to maintain without the inauguration, and it is front and center on the heels of prop 8, which is a travesty of justice. So, in a word, whether Obama had the intention or not, his choice of Warren has created this opportunity to advance the dialogue of LGBT equal protection and respect.
i have no idea why something that fox news does creates a duty to temper criticism of obama.
For the same reason that the last time gay marriage became a forefront issue we got George Bush.
Debunked completely by voting statistics in the states with amendments on the ballot. Build another strawman.
I read that Warren has removed the homophobic material from his web site, so behavior is changing if not belief. It is a start.
There is a shift happening BECAUSE people are speaking up. And I’m thinking it’s ONLY because people are speaking up. History shows us that shifts happen ONLY when people speak up.
Making this issue JUST about the gays and about the left and about the netroots is a powerful way of sidelining all three. ”Look, look how silly they all are. How quaint: you know they are even worried about torture.”
If the issue were to be framed as civil rights it would be everybody’s business but we can’t have that, can we. That would mean things would have to change. Change? Change? Change? Now where have I heard that word recently …?
How can religion trump ANYTHING in the Constition? HOW?
Gee, it’s JUST about {slavery} so who cares?
I care about all of it. I’m sick of all of it.
It wasn’t just about actual votes, it was also about wedge issues being the final straw(man) for undecideds. Didn’t the same people who elected Obama not also vote yes on Prop 8?
Those are the next group of people who can be won over, and that will not happen with harsh sentiments.
Figuratively speaking, the burning of Newark set back the African-American Civil Rights movement.
Equating Gay Marriage with slavery is EXACTLY the wrong way to characterize this battle. The most appropriate, IMO, is pointing out that the electorate in Arkansas would’ve overwhelmingly voted AGAINST integration.
amen.
Thanks, selise.
Bobzim: I have no idea what your point is or do you mean that Arkansas’ electoral opinion in that day made slavery right? Do you think slavery is okay in 2008 too? The country was divided enought to fight a civil war over slavery but we now view the issue as closed. Arguments over gay rights are the same to me. We have patterns that we can see happening over and over. The obstacle is that hate and fear drive some groups to use these arguments AGAINST people who deserve equality too.
Has this country fallen so far that we will allow hate and fear to shame us anew?
Oh, and btw, Warren et al said that Obama was for Prop 8. This is the cost of lying. The lying must stop. If you find that harsh you are blind to the real personal suffering caused by denying civil rights … across the past 200 years up until today.
Shrub was not an effect of gay marriage, because it was not a major issue then. As you should know.
That’s funny — although I’m not sure you meant it to be. Glenn isn’t as happy as you are to have been used to make a point diametrically opposed to what he actually said.
Perhaps you need to read the updates — MSM is still lying about Brennan despite what Glenn or anyone else has said or written including Bloggers and Bloogers like Kurtz.
There’s no need to play Chamberlain now or ever. Maybe there’s a method to Obama’s pick (putting a spotlight on Warren so he has a tough time lying in the future & making him dependent on Obama for strokes and more spotlight time) but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees with the strategy — even if it’s true.
I totally agree! Thanks for saying this. I made this point on my blog recently and I also said Warren is a vile piece of crap, but can give the prayer on Barack’s inauguration day, because that doesn’t mean I’m going to suddenly become an evangelical by listening to him. What is going to happen is if Warren gives a prayer about unity etc., we will hold him to it. The fact that Warren removed that part of his website was a tiny breakthrough. A baby step. But it was good. ;-)
11 states nix gay marriage from 2004.
Warren’s “work for AIDS victims” consisted of nothing more than getting them to convert to Chistianity and thus Pray Away the Gay.
That’s all he cares about, and to imply anything more is to perpetuate A FUCKING LIE!!!!!!
/snark Historically speaking, the “hebrewists” came up with marriage as we in the west know it. /snarkoff
The Ten Commandments, which refer to adultery and thus marriage – among other violations – were recorded as part of the salvation history of the people of Jacob/Israel and Joseph (who’s exile in Egypt led to the Hebrews being in Egypt in the first place) after the Exodus from Egypt. That took place a long time before any Christians existed.
Note that you won’t find any support for homosexual acts among Orthodox Jews (or Muslims), but that seems to escape mention among progressives.
Just trying to point out that marriage between man and woman has a long history as an established institution. Whether it’s time has passed is not for me to say, and I don’t imagine that it will be resolved much in my lifetime.
The problem isn’t the history of marriage, it’s the people who insist that marriage has never changed, that it’s always been the way it was in the 50s and 60s, and can never change. Which is untrue, because we’ve seen it change.
I wonder what would happen to Rick Warren’s mind if he actually noticed that Jesus was a 30-year-old Jewish blue-collar worker, unmarried and hanging out only with guys, and a non-conformist to boot?
Simple answer to that question. The focus on gays is a winnable one in the politician’s minds. It is a distraction so that nobody examines all of Warren’s platform too closely.
No mention in the MSM of Warren being chosen by Davos to replace Billy Graham. Read the story behind Warren…The New National Preacher..He’s “Davos” People.
http://www.opednews.com/articl…..0-712.html
There is a video of Michael Rogers discussing that fact on HARDBALL. Rogers is a gay rights activist.
http://www.blogactive.com/
one more try..if it doesn’t work..that is the title to look for over at opednews..The New National…etc.
http://www.opednews.com/articl…..0-712.html