Now that would have been “change we can believe in.”
Other than the obvious political posturing and pandering that’s woven into the fabric of the historical moment, why does the inauguration of a president require the inclusion of the clergy to conduct a ritual? No chance of it ever happening of course, but just imagine if that part of the ceremony had been left out altogether…
I’d certainly rather have seen the fallout from that, rather than the dismal spectacle of Obama’s transition team defensively defending his “shrewd” decision to give Pastor Rick Warren a speaking spot at the inauguration.
Open & Inclusive Update: Warren thinks abortion a “holocaust” and urged his flock to vote for Prop 8. He compared gay marriage to incest and polygamy and pederasty, and when asked if he really thought those things “equivalent to having gays getting married,” he replied, “Oh, I do.”
Update2: Lee Stranahan at the Huffington Post makes a good point about the “mighty small politics” practiced in America these days. He writes: “I don’t understand how anyone who listened to Obama during the campaign would be shocked that Obama lets Warren give the invocation. It’s vintage Obama. It does not signal agreement with Warren’s political positions, some of which are clearly at odds with Obama’s. Warren isn’t making policy or even giving a sermon., He’s saying a prayer and then possibly dancing later at some inaugural parties. If anything, it’s the possibility of this dancing that should be deeply troubling to all Americans.” Indeed.
No, that would have been change that YOU as in you and people who share your wordview can believe in.
Obama’s talking about change that Americans, (as in Americans from all walks of life), can believe in.
So as part of his building bridges campaign to try mend the partisanship that plagues US politics he shouldn’t start with an action that will actually exacerbate the partisan divisions in US politics. And as an added bonus it would provide fodder for the people who say that Christians aren’t welcome in the Democratic party.
I suspect that Obama would do well not to ignore you on this one. He’s trying to be a President who builds bridges, not one who burns them down.
I was being facetious more than anything else. I’m under no illusion that such a thing would EVER happen in America — a country where people without “faith” are generally regarded with utter contempt, if not outright hatred.
Yeah, we all know that gays and lesbians aren’t really American and certainly not from all walks of life.
How long it will take before he awards Rick Warren the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
And as an added bonus it would provide fodder for the people who say that Christians aren’t welcome in the Democratic party.
Too bad what calls itself “Christian” in the US these days is anything but. I’m a Christian and the thought of building bridges to these medieval lunatics turns my stomach.
Hopefully, we can keep this crap out our own politics, because once it starts, you can’t stop it.
I dunno, perhaps Charles McVety would have been chosen as Minister of Culture by the coalition. After all, he gave a lot of unpaid press for “Young People Fucking.”
Sorry RT, but like it or not, the American citizenry still largely identifies itself with Christianity. I’d personally be glad for the change, but then again I’m just an abortion-loving heathen.
Oh, I know. It kind of surprised me there’s been so much blowback from this seeing that Warren is pretty moderate as far as evangelicals go. I don’t even mind him all that much despite the fact that a lot of his views are pretty kooky.
CC – the may be “Christian” but they are not, in any majority sense, evangelical, Baptist fundamentalist Christian.
Pretending that Rick Warren represents even a large part of American Christianity, let alone the majority, is a stupid as thinking Osama bin Laden represents all of Islam, or even a large part of it.
the US may be mostly made up of Christians, but it is not made up of hateful, mind-numbingly stupid Christians. Which is what Warren and his ilk are.
Actually Warren is seen (as RT states above) as a rather moderate or even progressive evangelical. I think that his views, regardless of what you may think of them, are fairly common among those that would claim to be regular, church-going Christians. It wasn’t completely surprising that Proposition 8 passed in California. You’ll find many people who would call themselves “progressives” but consider homosexuality to be a “deviant” lifestyle.
Slight correction to above: I should be a little more specific. Not so much a “deviant” lifestyle, but rather something that shouldn’t be intermingled with Christianity.
No, I think you were right the first time. At best, fundamentalist Christianity condemns homosexuality as a moral failing and at its most progressives recommends caring ministry in order to change the person’s sexual orientation. I’m not sure if that’s better than my own awful Catholicism, which just says they should remain celibate.
Red Tory.. Well that makes more sense. Detecting facetiousness on the internet is occasionally problematic.
Ti-Guy? The thought of reaching out to people who are different from you turns your stomach? That doesn’t sound very Christ-like.
I do agree with you about keeping the faith out of politics in at least one sense. One’s religious affiliation shouldn’t be the determinant of one’s political affiliation. Which is why political parties need to recognize that common agreement on one thing, (say fighting poverty), doesn’t imply agreement on another, (say gay marriage). Which is why the Liberals and the Conservatives decision to allow free votes when the issue came up in the house was spot on.
Mike… Rick Warren is hate filled? Oh please… See counter-coulter’s comment above.
The thought of reaching out to people who are different from you turns your stomach?
Where did I say it was simply an issue of difference?
Seriously, do you people even know when you’re lying anymore?
Another problem with Warren is also that he does not believe in the separation of church and state.
Jon Stewart has Mike Huckabee on recently and they discussed homosexuality, SSM, etc. Stewart said to Huckabee – people choose their religion, they don’t choose to be gay or lesbian….Huckabee was a little stumped at that line.
I don’t see how Warren is a moderate. Just because he puts effort into being amiable doesn’t make his views any less odious.
He’s just the pudgy, smiling face of fundamentalist Christianity.
Relatively speaking…
Ti-Guy, don’t be so melodramatic. There IS another option than assuming everyone is lying… People occaisionally do misunderstand each other. And occaisionally they just disagree. Grow up.
So here’s my assumption about what you meant. You tell me if I’m wrong about what you think. The post is about Rick Warren, so lacking any other indication of what you mean by “Medieval Lunatics” I assume you mean Christians like Rick Warren who share his opinion on the morality of homosexual behaviour. The major issue with the post is Warren’s belief that homosexual behaviour is sinful. In this he is simply different from you. (I assume).
So where’s my mistake?
And more to the point, let’s assume that it’s not difference of belief that turns your stomach. The comment about that not being Christ-like still applies.
Mike said: “Pretending that Rick Warren represents even a large part of American Christianity, let alone the majority, is a stupid as thinking Osama bin Laden represents all of Islam, or even a large part of it.”
Sorry, but that simply isn’t true. A Newsweek poll just last week showed that 69% of Americans do not approve of SSM. 85% reject evolution (45% are creationists). 80-90% believe in the actual existence of Heaven, while 55% of those same people don’t think good atheists will get into Heaven.
Americans are very, very silly when it comes to religion, which is precisely why Warren is so popular.
You also say that bin Laden doesn’t exemplify the Muslim world, but I think you made a bad analogy. Warren is nothing like bin Laden. If you took an anti-gay, anti-vagina, anti-secularism, anti-science, anti-liberal Muslim, you can be damn sure that guy would represent about 90% of Muslims.
RT: “relatively speaking…”
Fair enough, it just strikes me as a bit disingenuous to simply compare him to people who are crazier than he is.
Really, the only line he doesn’t cross is supporting violence against non-Christians. Everything else is there, just in a cleaner, more jovial manner.
Which makes the whole spectacle even worse, IMO.
The major issue with the post is Warren’s belief that homosexual behaviour is sinful. In this he is simply different from you. (I assume).
So where’s my mistake?
First of all, I don’t think Warren’s belief is that homosexual behaviour is sinful, but that homosexuals are inherently sinful. Why else would he compare that orientation to incest, polygamy and pederasty?
Your mistake is to think that I’m simply disagreeing with him. What I am doing is, however, condemning him.
As for that being un-Christlike…well, Warren is not the Samaritan living beside me. He’s more like the money-changer in the Temple.
Gordon — Perhaps it’s disingenuous. My preference would be if he’d simply dispensed with the whole kooky lot of them, but seeing as it’s absolutely required that there be some inane, superstitious mumbo-jumbo invoked at this thing by a God-bothering nincompoop, it might just as well be Warren.
Well Ti-Guy you’ll be pleased to hear that you are mistaken about Rick Warren.
Rick Warren doesn’t believe that homosexuals are any more inherently sinful than any other human being. The reason he compares it to pederasty, polygamy & incest is simple. He thinks those things are wrong, they’re sexual in nature and he doesn’t believe that pederasts, polygamists or people who commit incest are any more inherently sinful than any other human beings either.
What he believes is quite simple. Romans 3:23 pretty much sums it up.
If you think Jesus is cool with you being revolted by building bridges people like Rick Warren that’s your issue. I’m not going to comment on it any further.
issachar :
Rick Warren doesn’t believe that homosexuals are any more inherently sinful than any other human being. The reason he compares it to pederasty, polygamy & incest is simple. He thinks those things are wrong, they’re sexual in nature and he doesn’t believe that pederasts, polygamists or people who commit incest are any more inherently sinful than any other human beings either.
Yeah but it doesnt make the message any less sleazy. FWIW
He thinks those things are wrong, they’re sexual in nature
Well, then he’s stupid. Obviously, Warren doesn’t understand the concept of consent since that, and not the sexual nature of the acts, is what separates those practices from garden-variety homosexuality.
As I’ve said before, “Christians” who condemn sexual practices while ignoring consent have to be watched…particularly around pets, houseplants and…vacuum cleaners.