Pastor Rick Warren defends invite to inauguration

Trooper_IHB

Trooper_IHB

New member
<span style="font-size: 14px;"><strong>LGBTs Slam Inclusion of Antigay Reverend Rick Warren in Obama Inauguration</strong> </span>



<em>AmericaBlog's Josh Aravosis put it perhaps most simply: "Picking Rick Warren to give THE invocation is abominable."</em>



<a href="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid68652.asp">Sold down the river.....again.</a> Obama bows down to the religilous right.
 
Let's get real here folks. Rick Warren has come out MULTIPLE times and stated vehemently that he welcomes all people into his church. He repeatedly pronounces his faith that we should not judge people. He simply believes, like millions of other people, that marriage is a RELIGIOUS UNION, pledged between a MAN and a WOMAN before GOD. This is a RELIGIOUS indoctrination. It was established long before America was even discovered. Our gov't, which is not 100% free of religious influence, recognized it as a legal union.



Anyone who uses Rick Warren's presence at Obama's inaugaration to nullify the incoming President's credibility is simply an idiot. The last time I check Rick Warren was not a member of Obama's cabinet, nor has he held any political office of any kind, with any party.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1229654722]To me, it is an example of Obama making good on his pledge to be inclusive. Between keeping Gates, adding some nominal Republicans to his Cabinet, and selecting Warren for the invocation, Obama seems to be trying to reach out to constituents and non-constituents alike. Good for him.



Besides, he could have selected Rev. Jeremiah Wright...



EDIT: I guess "inclusive" wasn't the right term to use for you, Trooper. I should clarify -- I meant that he is including people that come from outside traditional Democrat constituencies in his administration and inauguration. Of course, from your vantage point, he is being ex-clusive.</blockquote>


He picking Janet Napolitano for DHS. Isn't that inclusive enough?
 
[quote author="skek" date=1229656765][quote author="WINEX" date=1229656352][quote author="skek" date=1229654722]To me, it is an example of Obama making good on his pledge to be inclusive. Between keeping Gates, adding some nominal Republicans to his Cabinet, and selecting Warren for the invocation, Obama seems to be trying to reach out to constituents and non-constituents alike. Good for him.



Besides, he could have selected Rev. Jeremiah Wright...



EDIT: I guess "inclusive" wasn't the right term to use for you, Trooper. I should clarify -- I meant that he is including people that come from outside traditional Democrat constituencies in his administration and inauguration. Of course, from your vantage point, he is being ex-clusive.</blockquote>


He picking Janet Napolitano for DHS. Isn't that inclusive enough?</blockquote>


I'm more interested in ideological inclusion, and I thought inviting Warren was an example of that. While other types of inclusion are good, I don't think we should pick the Cabinet based on quotas of skin colors, ethnicities and orientations. I suspect you'd agree...</blockquote>


Absolutely. My comment about Napolitano was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.



Isn't the idea of moving beyond racism supposed to be that content of character matters, not ethnicity/orientation? I don't see why someone with fundamental Christian values should be off limits.
 
While I appreciate inclusion of all kinds, I think he could have picked a better representation of a religious leader. IMO, no self respecting gay should step foot in that church Maestro.... no matter what he "says". I mean, think about it...."Sure, come worship with us you lesser-than human being !" He has drawn a line in the sand.



As a matter of fact, it's an absolute insult to my community that this honor has been bestowed upon him. Can you understand that ?



I will admit that Wright would have been a worse choice.



I found this commentary that sums up how I feel as most times I have trouble putting my feelings to paper eloquently.



<em>Warren, a Baptist, knows better. The cornerstones of the Baptist tradition are adult baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) and the principle of liberty of conscience and the separation of church and state. Baptists inherited these ideas from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist tradition in America. And, at least until the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979, Baptists have always been watchmen on that wall of separation and fierce guardians of liberty of conscience. Thankfully, Williams's ideas were incorporated into the United States Constitution, both in the First Amendment, which forbade a religious establishment, and in the recurring principle of respect for the rights of minorities.



These have been the guiding touchstones of American life for more than two centuries. We Americans have sought, at times better than others, to live up to the principles articulated in our charter documents, especially in safeguarding the rights and the interests of minorities -- though not perfectly, by any means. The scourge of slavery and segregation and discrimination remains an indelible blot, and our treatment of women has been cavalier. But we Americans eventually rise to our better selves and come around to recognize the claims of legal equality for those who, for reasons of gender or race or religion or sexual orientation, cannot number themselves part of the majority.



And if we needed further warrant for this, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under law" codified that into the Constitution itself.



Many Americans, myself included, understand the California supreme court's decision (and similar rulings in other jurisdictions) as an expression of that principle, an expansion of civil rights to those who have been denied equality for a very long time. It's not at all at odds with fundamental Baptist principles of liberty and protection from a majoritarian ethic that imposes its standards on the minority.



I challenge Rick Warren, my friend and fellow evangelical, to reconsider his support for Proposition 8. Warren and all people of faith have every right to hold to their religious views about homosexuality. But to insist that those standards must be observed by everyone in a pluralistic society is -- well, it's not Baptist.



Rick Warren knows better. </em>



I am ignoring you optimus, so whatever you wrote I can't read. Oscar, LOL on the tongue in cheek Mormon comment. Winex, Janet is not openly gay and is still in the closet. Did you ever stop to wonder WHY that is ? WHY she would hide one of the most important parts of her identity ?
 
He has never said gay people are "lesser-people." Have you ever been to his church or listened to a sermon? I was raised southern baptist, then Assembly of God, then non-denominational Vineyard church, and then I became "enlightened" so to speak. I can tell you that Rick Warren is the least judgmental pastoral leader that I have met. Yes I have met him and no I am not a member of his church. The man and his staff and church congregation do a great deal for people all around the globe. What Rick Warren does well is demonstrate the compassion of Jesus Christ. I have personally heard him many times discuss the differences in human beings, including sexual orientation. Before you judge the man, please meet him in person. His personal belief is in the holy declaration of marriage between a man and a woman. He does not make fun of, denigrate, mock, or condescend homosexuals at all.





Are we supposed to malign an individual because we do not agree with an aspect of his/her theology? That's the same as the religious right and not voting for a candidate soley on his/her abortion status. It's patently unfair.
 
[quote author="lendingmaestro" date=1229681219]He has never said gay people are "lesser-people." Have you ever been to his church or listened to a sermon? I was raised southern baptist, then Assembly of God, then non-denominational Vineyard church, and then I became "enlightened" so to speak. I can tell you that Rick Warren is the least judgmental pastoral leader that I have met. Yes I have met him and no I am not a member of his church. The man and his staff and church congregation do a great deal for people all around the globe. What Rick Warren does well is demonstrate the compassion of Jesus Christ. I have personally heard him many times discuss the differences in human beings, including sexual orientation. Before you judge the man, please meet him in person. His personal belief is in the holy declaration of marriage between a man and a woman. He does not make fun of, denigrate, mock, or condescend homosexuals at all.





Are we supposed to malign an individual because we do not agree with an aspect of his/her theology? That's the same as the religious right and not voting for a candidate soley on his/her abortion status. It's patently unfair.</blockquote>
I think you are missing the larger point here: Why is the gay community lambasting Rick Warren for his views when it was Barack Obama that picked him? This is just another example of the LGBT community getting sucker-punched by the left and instinctively blaming it on the right. Rick Warren doesn't need to justify his views and choices, Obama does. Rick Warren doesn't need to be defended by his supporters, Obama does. The tragedy here is that so much of the LGBT population was eagerly supporting Obama, only to be screwed twice by the same candidate.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1229679149]Winex, Janet is not openly gay and is still in the closet. Did you ever stop to wonder WHY that is ? WHY she would hide one of the most important parts of her identity ?</blockquote>


To be perfectly honest, I never had to wonder. The reason is pretty obvious. But not only do I disagree that her sexual orientation is one of the most important parts of her identity, I'd say it's one of the more irrelevant parts of her identity. At least it is to me anyway.
 
i dont understand the outrage. this is not about politics, its merely formality and tradition. it's not surprising the person selected for the invocation tends to be most prominent pastor in america at the time. for both clinton inaugurations it was billy graham and for W it was graham's son franklin. obama choosing rick warren is hardly a shock. politics aside, there's no one more influential figure in the evangelical america. heck, obama going to be officially sworn in by john roberts. i guess he has no control over that... but who could he really chose to give the invocation instead?



quick -- someone name the most prominent pro-gay Christian leader in america. umm.... hrmmm... err, al sharpton?
 
<em>quick?someone name the most prominent pro-gay Christian leader in america.</em>



<a href="http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_author/Perry_troy.htm">Troy Perry</a>



That only took me about 3 seconds. But your statement is sad in and of itself....isn't it. Well, it is for me at least...



<em>He does not make fun of, denigrate, mock, or condescend homosexuals at all.</em>



Oh, I beg to differ Maestro (see YouTube clip below). The real problem is this: Rick Warren lumps my marriage in with that of pedophiles, poligamysts and those between blood relatives. In making such ridiculous statements, it is apparent that he does not respect me as a homosexual. He's just another Evangelical Fundamentalist masquerading as a "moderate". He's Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt. And marriage is not a "holy union" to everyone, for some it is simply a civil contract that confers rights and responsibilities. I hope you're not forgetting that the gay marriage law wasn't going to force any church to participate if it was against their religion. Therefore, how was Saddleback going to be harmed by my marriage ? You can try and sugar coat it all you want, but it's still a turd.



The reason this is so big is that Prop 8 just passed and Warren and his ilk were vocal supporters. Obama should have chosen someone who is inclusive to <em>everyone</em> on this monumental day...(Rev. Lowrey is an excellent example of that) not someone who works to repress a minority portion of the community. If Warren had worked against the rights of ANY other community, he wouldn't even be considered ! I guess it's still ok to throw the gays under the bus.



If Warren hadn't gotten involved in the Prop 8 issue, I wouldn't have even heard of him. But now that I (we) know who he is, the fact that he has been given this honor is an OUTRAGE ! He can take his bible and shove it.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
Hold your friends close, and your enemies closer.



As Trooper has mentioned, Rick Warren is one of those guys you may need to look up. He's pretty obscure to most people. He's a pretty big presence to people who believe in the things he believes in and who live in so. california. However, national exposure to his brand of belief will not necessarily be a bad thing for the progress that needs to be made. I cannot believe that most decent people will think that his beliefs in discriminating against glbt are appealing. I think that it will force the issue even more. Discussion, information and education are the keys to un-demonize gay rights.



I'm not crazy about this choice, but I am going to trust Obama until he shows a pattern of untrustworthy. I want to see how this all goes down.



Already Warren is having to explain his bigotry on national television. I just don't see how these worn-out bible based excuses to hurt others are going to stand up, going forward. There are basically two groups left to bash openly: gays and atheists. That's got to change.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1229707894]<em>quick?someone name the most prominent pro-gay Christian leader in america.</em>



<a href="http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_author/Perry_troy.htm">Troy Perry</a>



That only took me about 3 seconds. But your statement is sad in and of itself....isn't it. Well, it is for me at least...



<em>He does not make fun of, denigrate, mock, or condescend homosexuals at all.</em>



Oh, I beg to differ Maestro (see YouTube clip below). The real problem is this: Rick Warren lumps my marriage in with that of pedophiles, poligamysts and those between blood relatives. In making such ridiculous statements, it is apparent that he does not respect me as a homosexual. He's just another Evangelical Fundamentalist masquerading as a "moderate". He's Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt. And marriage is not a "holy union" to everyone, for some it is simply a civil contract that confers rights and responsibilities. I hope you're not forgetting that the gay marriage law wasn't going to force any church to participate if it was against their religion. Therefore, how was Saddleback going to be harmed by my marriage ? You can try and sugar coat it all you want, but it's still a turd.



The reason this is so big is that Prop 8 just passed and Warren and his ilk were vocal supporters. Obama should have chosen someone who is inclusive to <em>everyone</em> on this monumental day...(Rev. Lowrey is an excellent example of that) not someone who works to repress a minority portion of the community. If Warren had worked against the rights of ANY other community, he wouldn't even be considered ! I guess it's still ok to throw the gays under the bus.



If Warren hadn't gotten involved in the Prop 8 issue, I wouldn't have even heard of him. But now that I (we) know who he is, the fact that he has been given this honor is an OUTRAGE ! He can take his bible and shove it.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object></blockquote>


I love how they cut it off right after he says.."Oh I do." Typical CNN video edited to be biased, just like CNN is. Hey, let's get a gay journalist to interview someone about gay marriage! That will be unbiased! Let's get the whole video before you judge. He wasn't comparing gay people to pedophiles. He was stating that any marriage that is not a traditional marriage one is not "godly."
 
sorry that my comments bothered you, troop. that wasn't my intent. i attend a non-denominational church so let me put my biases out there first of all. i've never heard of troy perry and IR's book is almost 900,000 spots ahead of either of perry's book on amazon, which is not to belittle either but merely to say i'm not sure he would be considered promiment to most americans. rick warren, well it's hard to say he's obscure when his book is the best-selling non-fiction of the last 20 yrs. best-selling period outside of davinci code and any of the harry potter books. i believe he's in time's top ten most influential people in america yr after yr.



quite frankly, obama really doesn't have a choice. although 75% of americans identify themselves as Christian, it's a smaller % that actively practice; which means there's only a handful of names to choose from for such a prominent occassion that won't leave most americans wondering, who is that guy? for most americans, the only people they've heard of with the title Reverend is unfortunately either a crazy black guy from tv... or crazy white guy from tv.



and that leaves rick warren, who is actually far more moderate than any of the conservative Christian leaders associated with bush republicans. many protestants still find warren's brand of evangelical far too radical. there a variety of sunday services at saddleback that caters broadly -- there's a service in spanish, one with traditional hymns and praise, one for young adults featuring more pop rock type music, another gospel style service, and so on. heck at one point they even had a sunday service featuring caribbean and reggae. their appeal is very broad, although unfortunately they haven't reached out far enough... but for a evangelical church they are considered on the forefront.



this is simply obama's M.O. -- it's going to be a big party and he's inviting the most popular kids in school. i simply see the inauguration as a who's who. it's not politics. aretha franklin is going to sing. itzhak perlman and yoyo ma are going to perform a piece composed by john williams. as a classical musician for most my life i could debate whether yoyo ma is overrated or whether john williams really deserves this honor just because he had the good fortune of being tied to spielberg and lucas early on. but the fact is he's the only composer out there many americans would recognize and nobody really cares about anything else.



i guess classical music doesnt stir up controversy but religion does; i get that... but let's just accept the obama's throwing a big party for one night and nothing more. in fact, if he decided to make the inauguration a showcase for only those in the winners circle, so to speak, we might find that more troubling.
 
Troop. . you know I love you but...



I go to Saddleback and unlike many preachers that I see, Warren does not preach from the pulpit (at least when I was there). He speaks about caring for others despite having differences with them. Warren gave his opinion on what he believes on the topic and he has a right to do that. I do not support his stance on the gay marriage initiative but I do respect his point of view/opinion. Warren has worked tirelessly on issues such as AIDS, Rawanda, and poverty. His views on gay marriage should not obscure all of the wonderful work his has done and is continuing to do.



For me, gay marriage should not be a religious matter but rather a governmental issue. The Bible forbids divorces except for two circumstance and yet we (as a society) allow divorce for almost no reason. I have my personal feeling about abortion and gays but do not wish to impose them on others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top