My mind boggled when a friend assured me the other day that Rick Warren is James Dobson with a friendlier face. HRC doesn't go quite that far, but it does say this: "Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian [sic...Dobson is a psychologist; should HRC know this?] James Dobson disagree on."
True, Warren is a transitional figure, hardly what gay people would call enlightened. But he is no Dobson or Wildmon or Robertson or Falwell. He has tried to move the evangelical movement away from politics. He thinks too little about homosexuality, instead of obsessing on it. By mostly ignoring homosexuality, he puts it in reasonable proportion to other (as he sees it) sins-and, with the religious right, mere proportionality is half the battle.
It's worth actually reading the BeliefNet interview which has become the locus classicus for those who call Warren a hater. He calls same-sex marriage a redefinition on the same order as adult-child marriage. Obtuse, to say the least. He also says, "Civil unions are not a civil right." Meaning, he explains, that the constitution doesn't mandate them.
But he also says he does not oppose California's domestic partner law (which is a civil union law, whatever the statutory name). And he says it's a "no brainer" that divorce is a bigger threat to family than gay marriage. And that the reason gay marriage gets so much more attention than divorce is because "we always love to talk about other [people's] sins more than ours."
Of course he is an evangelical preacher and he does think that homosexual relations are a sin which should not be dignified with public sanction. But he represents a major step forward over the generation before him (as the generation after him is better still). I hope that, beneath the denunciations, the folks on our side understand this.
58 Comments for “James Dobson He Ain’t”
posted by Mike Airhart on
I am glad that, Rick Warren often tries to make homosexuality and abortion take a back seat to poverty and AIDS. Unfortunately, with Prop 8 he put homosexuality front and center, and borrowed some of the falsehoods of Dobson — for example, calling legalization of gay marriage a means of silencing and censoring Christians.
Back on the poverty/AIDS front, Warren’s solution for AIDS is to deny condoms to the world’s at-risk youth. And the solution to poverty seems to be a religious takeover of federal social initiatives, combined with a bootstrap philosophy which does little for those who are physically or emotionally incapacitated.
In other words, Warren’s chosen causes are modern and moderate, but his solutions seem not to be.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Until the gay community says with a loud, clear voice that barebacking with multiple partners is WRONG, they are in no position to criticize those who purportedly “deny condoms” to people.
posted by JimG on
Rick Warren may be “a major step forward over the generation before him..” but he is still deeply problematic. At 3:56 into the interview, speaking of Prop 8 he says,” if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech…etc.”
That is an outright lie. No matter what the problems many of us have encountered about “political correctness”, Prop 8 had nothing to do with that. Yet for Mr. Warren, it was a “Free Speech” issue. What utter rubbish. That man’s congregation should oust him based on his complete and total lack of truthfullness.
posted by Jorge on
Rick Warren may be “a major step forward over the generation before him..” but he is still deeply problematic. At 3:56 into the interview, speaking of Prop 8 he says,” if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech…etc.”
That is an outright lie. No matter what the problems many of us have encountered about “political correctness”, Prop 8 had nothing to do with that. Yet for Mr. Warren, it was a “Free Speech” issue. What utter rubbish. That man’s congregation should oust him based on his complete and total lack of truthfullness.
I think considering the current calls from him to be disinvited, Warren’s words are almost prophetic.
posted by Pat on
I think considering the current calls from him to be disinvited, Warren’s words are almost prophetic.
How’s that Jorge? Only Warren is entitled to free speech, but not those who oppose his invitation to be invocation speaker?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Warren is not going to accept a redefinition of marriage which says that marriage is a socially constructed, patriarchal, oppressive institution which needs to include open relationships and multiple partners to be viable and which we don’t want anyway but we demand be available to anyone who does want it, even though we think they’re stupid for wanting it.
I believe that Warren will accept that God doesn’t want anyone to be alone, that God has created some people to be homosexual, and that God creates lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships for homosexuals and straights equally. I believe I can best make this case to Warren (and those like him in my church) if I wait until I am in the lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship God has created for me, and, when I am in that relationship, I live up to the public vows I’ve taken (see previous link to the Episcopal Diocese of LA for an example of those vows).
I think Warren will be moved by the witness of homosexuals choosing to base their relationships on traditional values. I don’t think more chanting, or throwing rocks, or disinviting will have the desired effect. Instead of planning another rally or writing another nasty letter to Obama, perhaps it would best to ask, “How can I find the relationship God has created for me? How can learn to be faithful within that relationship?”
posted by Mike Airhart on
Jorge, it is a privilege — not a free-speech right — to serve the invocation. According to your logic, Jews, atheists, and liberal Christians are being denied free speech by being denied participation in the invocation. No one is trying to silence Warren or shut down his ministry; they have made a compelling case that Warren has not earned the privilege.
Warren is disliked by both conservative and liberal Christians for his shallow spirituality and poor knowledge of the Bible. He is especially disliked among mainline Christians for his periodic smears against mainline churches. Warren is a divider, not a Christian uniter. He is not a monster, but he is not a hero, either.
That being said, I think far too much energy has been wasted supporting or opposing on what will be a very brief prayer during a very long and historic day.
posted by Mike Airhart on
I think it’s important for Warren’s critics to acknowledge Jonathan Rauch’s closing statement:
“But he represents a major step forward over the generation before him (as the generation after him is better still). I hope that, beneath the denunciations, the folks on our side understand this.”
posted by avee on
I agree Warren has indicated some openness to civil unions. But he hasn’t exactly distanced himself from state initiatives that banned both marriage and CUs (e.g., Florida), either.
Much of this is about symbolism, but symbolism is important. It is very likely that Obama is using the issue as his “Sista Souljah” act. Certainly, HRC feels it has not gotten the input with the Obama camp that its feverish support should have bought (er, brought). They were not consulted about Warren, nor indeed about much else. There is fear that if Obama doesn’t deliver anything of substance, they’ll be on the hook come fundraising time.
And with DADT off the agenda for now, and the demand for transgender inclusion likely to derail ENDA, it doesn’t look like Obama will be delivering the golden age that GLBT Democrats promised.
posted by Jorge on
How’s that Jorge? Only Warren is entitled to free speech, but not those who oppose his invitation to be invocation speaker?
They have the right to say what they please, but that doesn’t change the fact that what they are calling for is censorship. Also I am getting sick of the “tax the church” chants and signs.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, it is a privilege — not a free-speech right — to serve the invocation. According to your logic, Jews, atheists, and liberal Christians are being denied free speech by being denied participation in the invocation. No one is trying to silence Warren or shut down his ministry; they have made a compelling case that Warren has not earned the privilege
I strongly disagree. An opposition to homosexual relations and same sex marriage is the only reason they oppose his inclusion. By that standard, over half the people and preachers in the country would not be appropriate.
If it were a Jew or liberal Christian performing the invocation, there would be no demands to rescind the invitation. If Obama were an athiest and chose to have an athiest speaker instead of a pastor, then perhaps.
As the incoming president, it is Barack Obama’s prerogative who to invite to his inauguration. I think there is something fundamentally un-American in this attempt to intimidate Obama into rescinding the invitation and to punish Warren for his religious and political views. What this does is create a climate of fear and intimidation. Our freedoms won’t be taken away instantaneously, but in small steps, like this.
posted by Ashpenaz on
One of these days, I’m going to write The Purpose-Driven Gay Life. Actually, I think Warren’s book does an extremely good job of explaining the Christian approach to life which I hope I am taking–I don’t think he needs a gay version. Gays don’t need a “special church for special people,” which is why I’m not a fan of the MCC. But gays seem to think they are unique in ways which noone can ever, ever understand, so I’d simply reproduce Warren’s book word-for-word and put a pink triangle and a rainbow on it.
I hope that Warren’s emergence as anti-gay villain du jour will cause gays to read his book, and to their surprise, discover how wise and welcoming his theology is. I read his book and think to myself not, “How can this man be so hateful and homophobic? Are there enough rocks in the universe to throw at his church?” but “How can I help this fellow Christian understand that God has created a place for homosexuals in His Purpose-Driven world?”
Read his book and you’ll get a good idea of what I believe which will make you all able to insult and demean my beliefs more accurately.
posted by LeBain on
Warren apparently hasn’t even read the US Constitution, and apparently doesn’t understand that it and its amendments define the rights of government, and preserve the rights of people.
Here’s how Warren attempted to clarify his civil rights claim:
But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It’s just not there.
Just because the Constitution mentions some rights by name (like freedom of speech, the right to own guns, etc.) does not mean no other rights exist. Nowhere does the Constitution mention the right to drive, yet most adults drive. Nowhere does it mention the right to travel to other countries and return, yet people do. Warren has completely missed the 9th Amendment, which reads in its entirety:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
He has also completely missed Section 1 of the more well known 14th Amendment, which reads in part:
No State shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Marriage equality does not have to be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution for the right to still exist and be retained by the people.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ashpenaz, other than being incredibly presumptuous, logically incoherent, treating a diverse community as if it were monolithic and could speak with one voice, ignoring decades of HIV-prevention efforts by thousands of people, and disrespecting the countless gay couples who have defended their love and committed to each other for years without legal protection and indeed with many barriers thrown in their way–other than these things, your comments haven’t much to recommend them.
Your notion that God creates relationships for us is the sort of infantilizing approach to religion in which we are encouraged to be like sheep. To the contrary, God gave us brains with which to think for ourselves, and it was my brain that said “Now or never” that prompted me to cross a crowded room in Cape Town seven years ago and say hello to the young man I wish to marry, and who wishes to marry me. We no more needed to be virgins prior to making our mutual commitment than straight people do, nor is belief in God necessary for us to enjoy our birthright of equal protection of the law. If your faith comforts you, fine; kindly spare us the authoritarian-scented lectures.
I am embarrassed by the excess of gay drama in reaction to the Warren invitation. Of course Warren’s views are appalling, but I get a kick out of the idea that he will be blessing the presidency of a pro-gay, pro-choice liberal. When all the silly gay people who are now overreacting get up from their fainting couches, I hope that some of them get to work to help enact the pro-gay agenda that Obama supports but which he cannot accomplish solo (as he has repeatedly pointed out).
posted by Ashpenaz on
Are we ignoring the same HIV-prevention work Warren does in Africa? Just asking. Could you be talking about your understanding of Christianity when you treat a diverse community as if it were monolithic? I don’t think my belief in God-created relationships is any more infantile than your belief in a “gay gene,” “once gay/always gay,” “visibility leads to tolerance,” or any number of other gay myths. I’m glad that on some enchanted evening you saw a stranger across a crowded room–taking public vows of lifelong monogamy will be an interesting challenge for the two of you. However, if you planning to include open relationships or multiple partners in as part of the contract, then I would vote against you. I don’t want to see the fundamental idea of marriage changed from what I and many other voters think God created relationships to be.
BTW, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens are just silly, really.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ash, nice try, but I am responsible for what I wrote, not for the words you put in my mouth. I only critized YOUR religion, and your presumptuousness in lecturing the rest of us about it. Faith is a personal matter, and therein the patient must minister to himself. If you have a problem with those authors, you should talk to them. Why, after I referred to my partner’s and my mutual commitment, you find it necessary to speculate about multiple partners etc. I cannot fathom except as another reflection of your need (like the ex-gay ministry frauds) to deny the validity and seriousness of any and all who do not share your particular dogma. This causes you to disrespect most gay people, by appearances, which makes me wonder why you hang out here.
And Ash, to be clear, it is not your belief in God per se that I consider infantile (I myself referred to my God-given brain), but your insistence that God creates relationships. That trivializes God. If God created us, then kindly do Him the honor of noticing that He gave you a brain. That makes you responsible for seeking and creating and nurturing your own relationships. And so for the rest of us. As for the pro-gay notions that you call myths, there is evidence for some of those things. What distinguishes the scientific method from religious dogma is that the former involves testing one’s ideas against observation. As a dogmatist, you have already made up your mind so you either ignore contrary evidence or force it into your conception whether it fits or not. As for my partner and me, our commitment has survived seven years of challenges and burdens and barriers that most couples never have to face, thanks to the discrimination we face as a binational gay couple. That you are inclined to be dismissive and insulting toward us displays how contemptible your rigid-mindedness has made you.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ash wrote, “Are we ignoring the same HIV-prevention work Warren does in Africa? Just asking.”
No, Ash. You know perfectly well that it was you who implicitly denigrated all the HIV-prevention efforts of gay activists over the past quarter century with your monolithic framing of the issue of barebacking, as if the entire gay community could conceivably be responible for the reckless behavior of a few–and as if the gay community could possibly speak with a single voice as you pretend. You write that way in order to preserve the illusion of permanent moral superiority that you seem to find it necessary to strike as a pose.
As a matter of fact, my partner Patrick spent a week earlier this month in Burundi on an HIV-prevention speaking tour. Does he get credit for his efforts, or does he have to be either a Western evangelist or straight to get that honor? Judging by your posts, gays automatically have something extra to prove–as if each of us is guilty of every bad thing any gay person ever did. Do you blame all straight people for the crimes of straight serial killers?
posted by Mike Airhart on
Now Warren is damning Jews to hell. Source: The New Republic via AmericaBlog.
Has James Dobson been quite that bold?
posted by Pat on
They have the right to say what they please, but that doesn’t change the fact that what they are calling for is censorship. Also I am getting sick of the “tax the church” chants and signs.
Jorge, there’s all sort of free speech. But nobody has advocated a law saying what Warren spews should be hate speech. If they did, well, that’s still free speech. I’ll worry when such a bill is even being considered.
An opposition to homosexual relations and same sex marriage is the only reason they oppose his inclusion. By that standard, over half the people and preachers in the country would not be appropriate.
Fine by me. Preachers have to realize it’s the 21st Century as well.
As the incoming president, it is Barack Obama’s prerogative who to invite to his inauguration.
Agreed.
I think there is something fundamentally un-American in this attempt to intimidate Obama into rescinding the invitation and to punish Warren for his religious and political views.
“Un-American”??? It’s our preregotive to praise or criticize, and even call for Obama to rescind his decision. Obama ran for president, so he should have understanding of what it takes to be a leader. It’s up to him to look at the criticism and decide for himself to stay with his decision or change his mind. If Obama feels anyway intimidated by this, then I regret my decision to vote for Obama. As for Warren, he has expressed his dislike for homosexuality. People have expressed their dislike for Warren’s views.
What this does is create a climate of fear and intimidation. Our freedoms won’t be taken away instantaneously, but in small steps, like this.
Where’s the fear and intimidation? Our freedoms will be taken away if we cannot criticize a decision by the President.
posted by Pat on
I think Warren’s book does an extremely good job of explaining the Christian approach to life which I hope I am taking–I don’t think he needs a gay version.
I’m not sure when Warren wrote his book, but I’ve heard some of the things he said recently. He talked about “natural” desires that humans should rein in. For him, as a (presumed) heterosexual, it was natural for him to have sex with a lot of women, but he decided that he should be monogamous with his wife. So far, so good. However, he did not say that for people whose natural desires are to have sex with a person of the same sex should be monogamous. He said that they should not have sex at all. How frickin’ convenient and upstanding of him.
Oh, and Warren has gay friends and eats dinner over their houses. So he’s met gay couples and all. Yet he still has this bigoted point of view. Maybe he’ll change his views, but I doubt it.
That makes you responsible for seeking and creating and nurturing your own relationships. And so for the rest of us.
Amen to that Richard.
Ashpenaz, if there is any comment in this forum that you need to digest, it’s the one above.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Now Warren is damning Jews to hell.
So friggin’ what?
News flash: Many Evangelicals believe that Hell is the default destination for everybody ever born, unless they accept Jesus in the Evangelically-approved way. (Sorry, Catholics!)
Evangelicals who believe this also generally assume that this rule applies to Jews — although there’s IS disagreement as to whether Orthodox Jews who scrupulously observe Jewish Law will have salvation under the terms of the “Old Covenant.” What Evangelicals tend to agree on, though, is that the mere fact of being (halachically) Jewish, in the absence of any conscientious effort by the individual to observe Jewish Law, will not be enough for salvation.
So if The New Republic or anyone else wishes to make a scandal about the fact that Warren believes in a version of Christianity whose God cheerfully consigns PRACTICALLY EVERYONE to Hell, then they’re welcome to. But to raise a special stink because Jews happen to be on the long, long, long list of the damned-by-default is kind of pointless, and seems to reveal a basic ignorance of Evangelical theology.
posted by Pat on
Now Warren is damning Jews to hell.
So friggin’ what?
News flash: Many Evangelicals believe that Hell is the default destination for everybody ever born
So, in other words, there’s a lot of other good reasons why Warren, and other evangelicals, shouldn’t deliver the invocation. Sorry, these beliefs do not to be sanctioned at an inauguration.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I can see why many gays haven’t read Warren’s book. The opening line scared you off: “It’s not about you.” The idea of living your life to please God rather than yourself yields only blank stares at Pink Triangle night at the Cock ‘n Bull. I would argue that the “some enchanted evening” paradigm of finding lifelong romance (which for most gays just leads to one more damn enchanted evening after another) is more infantile than seeing yourself as a responsible adult who makes choices in line with absolute values. Seeing yourself as a steward of God-given sexual desires meant to be used, not just for your own pleasure, but for the good of the relationship and the community is a concept foreign to the pages of The Advocate.
It’s not a matter of “reining in” desires–it is channeling those desires into the relationship God has created for them to be fulfilled. I feel like I’m discussing Sexuality 101 here–has no one here thought through the deeper implications of sexual morality since they last giggled when their 7th grade gym teacher put a condom on a banana? Adults recognize their role within a larger society and set of traditions–which is why one mark of maturity is not barebacking with multiple partners.
I think hell is a difficult concept, but if you don’t like God now, why will you like Him later? If you don’t want to live your life in submission to God now, how will that change after you die? Based on your reaction to God now, what do you expect will happen?
posted by Bobby on
Ashpenaz, in Israel there are ultra-orthodox jews that all they do is pray and have children because they think that’s what God wants them to do. “Be fruitful and multiply.” If a woman is infertile, they’ll divorce her and find another one. They pray while their wives beg for money, they don’t serve in the military (which is required for almost all Israelis), they get welfare checks, they’re are basically religious parasites feeding on the compassion of others.
So I’d much rather live for me than for God. I have seen too many stupid people saying “God will provide.” they’re clueless, sometimes God doesn’t provide, sometimes you have to provide for yourself.
Warren is simply lucky that he can make a living selling God. Let him get a real job and see how he does. And to be fair, I compare him to other writers of self-help books. Those books are nothing more than false hopes and lies to make people feel better about themselves. They rarely work.
The last thing gays need is more religious propaganda in their lives.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Jonathon Rauch said “But he is no Dobson”.
That’s not what Rick Warren himself says:
“So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? “It’s a matter of tone,” says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree.”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/warren-vs-dobson-difference-tone
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ash, maybe God meant for Patrick and me to meet in that church fellowship hall that night in Cape Town; who are we to say? You can put any gloss you like on it, but I made the decision to cross that room. And both of us subsequently made a decision to pursue a relationship, despite the distances and legal barriers. But you are so busy lecturing everyone else that you cannot even listen faithfully. What a fraud.
And in this case, I find myself agreeing with Bobby.
It is possible to have a approach to religion that is not at all based upon seeing oneself as a sheep submitting to the Shepherd. If God had wanted me to be a sheep, He should have made me one. I have a mind and conscience of my own, and doing the right thing is not about submission. But it’s your way or the highway, so I might as well be speaking Harappan.
posted by Throbert McGee on
So, in other words, there’s a lot of other good reasons why Warren, and other evangelicals, shouldn’t deliver the invocation
*Shrug*. I don’t attach THAT much significance to a candidate’s choice of an “inaugural invocation speaker,” and I don’t take the selection as an endorsement of overall theology. (And I’m speaking only for myself as a secular agnostic who generally accepts the whole Ceremonial Deism blah-de-blah as an inevitable part of American political ritual.)
On the other hand, if Obama was trying to be “ecumenical” in his choice, then in that sense he totally fucked up in going with Warren — and you’re correct, Pat, that Evangelicals in general are not the flavor of Christian you’d want to go with, because they certainly don’t hew to the “spirit of ecumenism.”
posted by Pat on
*Shrug*. I don’t attach THAT much significance to a candidate’s choice of an “inaugural invocation speaker,” and I don’t take the selection as an endorsement of overall theology. (And I’m speaking only for myself as a secular agnostic who generally accepts the whole Ceremonial Deism blah-de-blah as an inevitable part of American political ritual.)
Throbert, after further review, I’m not attaching that much significance to this choice anymore. It’s done with. It’s not a piece of legislation he’s promoting to Congress, or not necessarily Obama’s views. People have voiced their views, which I still think was a good thing. So I’ll just leave at that for now.
Ashpenaz, there’s approximately currently 6.7 billion views on what God is and what He (if He exists) wants for us. We each have to make our own determination what that is. And for most of us, we take the interpretation that God helps those that help themselves. And while that’s going on, I try to make good on my relationship with my partner, family, friends, and various communities I belong to. The God I believe in isn’t the One who believes we should be sanctimonious and let life go on while we endure misery waiting for His way of life to happen. God gave us the rows. You either choose to use them or not.
The last thing gays need is more religious propaganda in their lives.
I would agree, except I would replace the word “gays” with “anyone.”
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m watching a guy named Mike Rogers on MSNBC. He keeps on talking about “my community” and “the gay community.” He wants Rick Warren to sit down with the leadership of the “gay community” which he calls the HRC and LGBT Task Force.
Huh? My understanding from this blog was that there was no such thing as the “gay community.” I’ve expressed my desire to not identify as “gay” because of the political baggage, but if I understand Mike Rogers correctly, being “gay” means your leadership is the HRC and LGBT Task Force and gays speak with one voice about the Warren invocation.
So which is it? Is being gay what Mike Rogers and I believe–an identifiable community with identifiable leadership? (Which Mike accepts and which I reject?) I’ll let you guys have one of those “closed door” meetings Mike suggests so you can all decide for the rest of us. Until then, I will identify as a man with homosexual attractions so my inborn, God-given orientation doesn’t get associated with a political/social movement which has nothing to do with me.
I, with the Jewish and Muslim community, believe in One God. Human understandings of One God are fragmented and preliminary. Even so, we can’t believe in the god our minds create–we have to respond and submit to God as He actually is. Jesus simplifies this for me, and frees me from my own unclear and self-serving ideas about God, by saying “He who has seen Me has seen God.” Again, it would be helpful to actually read Warren’s book as he does a good job of breaking all this down. So I will refer all future questions about Christianity to Warren’s website.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Speaking to the whole room: I know that Ashpenaz has an annoying tendency towards broad generalizations and strawmen that are often particularly out-of-place here, since IGF isn’t too knee-jerkingly leftwing by gay standards. But to give credit where it’s due, I think that for a change Ash did right when he said, of Rick Warren:
“How can I help this fellow Christian understand that God has created a place for homosexuals in His Purpose-Driven world?”
In other words, Ashpenaz did acknowledge a major deficiency in Warren’s thinking, since the man has thus far lacked the moral imagination to suppose that God may have a “mission” for homosexuals to fulfill even if it’s not clearly spelled out in the Bible.
posted by Bobby on
Ashpenaz, I also find myself agreeing with Richard.
“If God had wanted me to be a sheep, He should have made me one.”
Organized religion for the most part loves sheep. Read the story of Anita Bryant on wikipidea, soon after divorcing her husband, the evangelical community turned against her. In other words, this “hero” of the right was betrayed by her own people. Why? Because those evangelicals didn’t like divorce at all, so by divorcing, she got to experience what it’s like to be an outcast.
“Due to her divorce, many fundamentalist Christians shunned her. No longer invited to appear at their events, she lost a major source of income. With her four children she moved from Miami to Selma, Alabama, and later to Atlanta, Georgia. In a 1980 Ladies Home Journal article she said, “The church needs to wake up and find some way to cope with divorce and women’s problems.””
And here’s the most telling part:
“In the same article in Ladies Home Journal she said that she felt sorry for all of the hateful things she had said and done during her campaigns.[7] She said that she had a more “live and let live” attitude, apparently indicating a significant shift in her worldview.”
So you see, Anita learned the hard way what happens when you’re not a sheep, what happens when you make your own choices. Gays will only do well in pro-gay congregations, they don’t need to waste their time attending some megachurch where they’re tolerated as long as they’re quiet.
Here’s the whole article. I wish someone made a movie about her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Bryant
posted by Jorge on
News flash: Many Evangelicals believe that Hell is the default destination for everybody ever born, unless they accept Jesus in the Evangelically-approved way. (Sorry, Catholics!)
Don’t worry, the feeling is mutual.
Fine by me. Preachers have to realize it’s the 21st Century as well
Uh, Pat I tend to think if most people think in a certain way, then the “21st century”, by definition, embraces the majority view. I also tend to think that in a free country, most priests reflect the views of their parishoners. So I see this as not only a threat of tyranny, but a thrat tyranny against a majority.
To me these calls for Rick Warren’s dis-invitation is only the latest in a series of embarassing episodes of radical lunacy by gays since prop 8 passed. They are declaring war, but in too many places it is a war of aggression, not of self-defense or retaliation.
posted by Ashpenaz on
It’s interesting that your distrust for organized religion isn’t mirrored by a distrust of organized gayness. When I criticize rallies, parades, bars, and community centers, you jump to their defense. But you see churches as sheepish, Borg-like, and destructive. You see value in people with only a shared sexual orientation forming a community and sharing an identifier–gay. But you don’t see the value in people who share nothing but a belief of God revealed in Jesus forming a community and sharing an identifier–Christian. You see a wide diversity of people and beliefs organized under a rainbow flag, but you can’t see that a wide diversity of people and beliefs is also organized under a Cross.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ash, spare us the disingenuous “Which is it?” When Mike Rogers speaks monolithically about the “gay community,” the person responsible for that statement is, um, Mike Rogers. The two of you use this convenient fiction for opposing reasons. While I have my differences with Mike Rogers (I don’t like “outing” because it essentially exploits homophobia in service of gay rights), he is at least trying to advance the rights of gay people, which I respect.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Yes, Rogers is advancing an agenda on behalf of those who identify as “gay,” but he is not speaker for men with homosexual attractions. The “gay agenda” he is promoting and you respect is actually oppressive to those of us who are working on behalf of the rights of those who want to express their homosexual attractions in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. The tactics of the “gay community” in response to Prop 8 have practically assured that same-sex marriage won’t exist anywhere in America for the forseeable future. Thanks, guys!!! Those of us who continue to work within the church to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a threat to tradition are the ones who are actually working for marriage rights. Those of us who don’t want closed door meetings with Warren and the “gay leadership” but in fact want to work with Warren to find common ground based on the same Scriptures we both love are the ones who are working for same-sex marriage. The fact that you don’t see gay activism as oppressive is like, well, Muslims who think they are freeing women to be themselves by forcing them to wear a hibab.
Incidentally, I bet when your friend was working in Africa on behalf of AIDS, he worked with people from Warren’s organization. Right? Am I right?
posted by dalea on
What Warren puts forth as Christianity bears very little resemblance to what I was taught the Pure Evangelical Lutheran Faith consists of. Herr Doktor Martin Luther has nothing about ‘accepting Jesus as your personal savior’ but he had a lot about the sacrements and receiving the Eucharist regularly. Somehow, a cracker in an Hawaiin shirt does not suggest the Apostalic Succession of the priesthood. Nor the solemn dignity of the consubstantiation of the mass. Where are the kneelers? Is the altar oriented towards Jerusalem? Where are the altar servers? Where is the crucifix? Does the service follow the form that dates from the reign of Diocletion at the latest? Where is the vigil lamp?
When I was a Christian, long ago, my attraction was to the High Church. Liturgy, pagentry, chanting, candlelight, tradition speak directly to my soul. Which is probably why I am a Pagan now. What Warren does strikes me as no more religious than an auto show. So, perhaps a little more caution in calling things ‘The Christian’ anything.
Question: you have said you live in ‘Central Nebraska’. In that area, the largest ‘city’ is Grand Island, which I know from business trips there, actually has THREE stoplights. Grand Island is the Paris and Gommorah of Central Nebraska. I also know that between Lincoln and Cheyanne WY there are no gay bars. So, just how is it you know so much about gay communities and their drawbacks? Have you ever actually attended a major Pride, which for you would be Denver or Chicago. Have you actually witnessed all the crap you kvetch about? Is your source on Pride anything other than ultra-right wing ‘religious’ groups. Just asking.
posted by Rob on
I’ll support Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration, so long as David Duke does so as well. Afterall, Obama should reach to differing points of view no?
And in the classic words of Bill O’Reilly, Melissa Etheridge can just shove it.
posted by Pat on
Uh, Pat I tend to think if most people think in a certain way, then the “21st century”, by definition, embraces the majority view. I also tend to think that in a free country, most priests reflect the views of their parishoners. So I see this as not only a threat of tyranny, but a thrat tyranny against a majority.
Jorge, my views, even if erroneous, are a “threat”? Does certain free speech really threaten you that much? I gave my opinion of an aspect of what I believe about the 21st Century. If the majority believes otherwise, so be it. It’s not like I can personally force others to believe what I believe, even if that’s what I wanted to do. So I don’t get the threat, and I don’t get the tyranny.
It’s interesting that your distrust for organized religion isn’t mirrored by a distrust of organized gayness.
Ashpenaz, many of us here have criticized what we believe are the bad aspects of religion and/or particular religions. We have done the same for the gay community as well. Many of us feel more threatened by religion, because they are more powerful in this country, and many religions have gone out of their way to prevent or strip rights away from gay persons. The worst that can be said about (some parts of) the gay community is through misguided actions, they hurt advancement. Some of that is debatable as well.
Those of us who continue to work within the church to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a threat to tradition are the ones who are actually working for marriage rights.
As I’ve said before, thousands of years of Bible study, and there is still differences on what the heck is going on. Maybe your way will “only” take hundreds of years. Good luck with that.
The fact that you don’t see gay activism as oppressive is like, well, Muslims who think they are freeing women to be themselves by forcing them to wear a hibab.
You mean the God that you believe in let’s this oppression against women in the name of one of His religions?
Here’s the difference. Many Muslim women, to one degree or another, are forced to wear hibabs or burkas. Most gay men aren’t forced to live by any oppression of the gay community. You’ve decided to even identify yourself differently, and still use this “oppression” as an excuse. When pressed to see exactly how you are pressed, you either ignore the questions or become contradictory.
Even so, we can’t believe in the god our minds create–we have to respond and submit to God as He actually is.
Um, and what is God as He actually is? Are you aware that most people don’t believe in the God that you believe in? And that some of these people are also sanctimonious in saying that their God is the true God? Did it also occur to you that many people believe that the God you believe in was made up by men thousands of years ago?
Yes, Rogers is advancing an agenda on behalf of those who identify as “gay,” but he is not speaker for men with homosexual attractions.
I identify as gay. Rogers is not advancing an agenda for me.
The “gay agenda” he is promoting and you respect is actually oppressive to those of us who are working on behalf of the rights of those who want to express their homosexual attractions in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships.
Even though I don’t agree with Rogers’ tactics, it’s not working against my lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship.
posted by Ashpenaz on
The violent protests against Prop 8 and the uncharitable calls to “disinvite” Warren have created a backlash against the gay community. True or false?
Since Stonewall, nearly every state in the union has passed some sort of constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. True or False?
As a result of the current protests, even more states are planning to ban gay marriage and those who have already banned it are planning to ban everything else. True or False?
It is unlikely that Rick Warren is going to be moved to even greater inclusiveness because of gays slandering him publicly and throwing rocks at his church. True or False?
Rick Warren has done more to prevent AIDS in Africa than either Melissa Etheridge or Rosie O’Donell. True or False?
The fact that people have different ideas about God means God doesn’t exist. True or False?
posted by Pat on
1. False (The first part of the conjunction is true, the second part as well as the premise of “uncharitable” is false)
2. False (Thirty states is not “nearly every state in the union.” Further, before Stonewall, it was just understood that gays were pieces of scum that didn’t deserve equality, so laws weren’t “needed” to ban marriage. Since Stonewall, some states enacted same sex marriage and civil unions, sodomy laws have been ruled unconstitutional, and more freedoms now exist for gay persons)
3. False.
4. False (unless Warren is an idiot that attributes the actions of a few to everybody).
5. No answer (I don’t know enough of Warren’s work (or what Etheridge or O’Donnell) in preventing AIDS in Africa to know. I will say that if anyone has done zero in regards to preventing AIDS in Africa, then they have done a lot more than the current and previous pope have in preventing AIDS in Africa.)
6. False (what is almost in all likelihood true is, if God exists, He is not what you, I, or the Bible portrays Him to be.)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ash wrote, “Incidentally, I bet when your friend was working in Africa on behalf of AIDS, he worked with people from Warren’s organization. Right? Am I right?”
Oh, brother. No, you are not right. You think there is only one AIDS charity working in Africa? As it happens, though, I think Warren is to be commended for his efforts to fight AIDS and hunger. If you assumed otherwise, it was once again a result of your putting words into my mouth.
It is sad, Ash, that you persist in making sweeping, false generalizations about gay people and activists. But I would be more productive giving a sermon to a waterfall.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pat asks what the penalty is for gays who speak out.
Here, apparently, it’s being banned from commenting.
After all, the gay community can’t tolerate dissidence.
Your days are numbered, Ash. Realize that Rosendall and his fellows are very protective of their correctness and eliminate those who aren’t. Soon you’ll be denounced by nameless individuals, and removed, like I was.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
“Nameless individuals”? That’s rich coming from a person hiding behind a pseudonym.
I confess I don’t see what the great loss would be, but if I were in the business of banishing people from the IGF discussion boards, I sure am awfully late and lax about it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The pseudonym is necessary, Richard, precisely because gays like yourself use Mike Rogers to attack and harass people with whom you disagree.
And as far as the great loss, Richard, that’s not a surprise either; someone who would endorse Mike Rogers obviously is neither capable of or interested in the value of diversity of opinion.
Meanwhile, feel free to explain why you called for my banning. I’ll be happy to post to my own blog examples of comments, such as calling for the death of gay religious and conservative people, that didn’t warrant removal.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Meanwhile, feel free to explain why you called for my banning.”.
You should be banned for your tedious repetitive lying, claiming things said by one gay person were said by others and the entire gay community, claiming the isolated wrongs of gay individuals are fully supported, endorsed, and acted out by the entire gay community,
falsely claiming other commenters whom you don’t know demand public sex, engage in barebacking and drug use, assault Christians and heterosexuals in all possible manners including punching, kicking, shooting, and stabbing.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “gays like yourself use Mike Rogers to attack and harass people with whom you disagree.”
If you actually read what I wrote, then you don’t for a moment believe that. I specifically pointed out my disagreement with Rogers’ use of outing, and IGF has a column I wrote on the subject last year. In any case, I have had a handful of conversations with Rogers ever, most of them quite argumentative, and haven’t spoken with him since early this year. The notion that I could “use” him for anything is absurd. So my saying that I at least respect him for trying to advance the rights of gay people, in specific contrast with sweeping slanders of gay people by Ashpenaz, constitutes and endorsement of him? That is just dishonest, ND30. Why can’t you criticize what people actually write, instead of resorting to such nonsense?
posted by Bobby on
“The violent protests against Prop 8 and the uncharitable calls to “disinvite” Warren have created a backlash against the gay community. True or false?”
—Come on, Ash, anything gays do will always provoke a backlash among the usual bigots. I remember the histeria about the Brokeback Mountain movie, I remember Michael Reagan being pissed off about it. Then when gays make a play about a gay jesus, some catholic anti-defamation league gets all pissed off about it, if gays want to serve in the military, then people rail that no straight will want to serve there.
So bring on the backlash! Fair minded people will take everything the activists do with a grain of salt.
Tell me, Ash, have you ever experienced homophobia yourself? Have you ever lost all your friends after your best friend told everyone you where gay? Have you ever been ridiculed? Ever had your father tell you year after year to “give women a chance?”
Some of those activists had gone through that and much much worse. It is not enough to judge them for what they do, you have to walk a mile in their shoes first.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sure, Richard; you claim to “oppose” Rogers, right as you praise and endorse him because he works to “advance gay rights”.
Meanwhile, Priya, good show; there’s nothing like watching someone who screams that other people she doesn’t know have eight-year-old children chained up in their basement to molest, who insists all Christians want to kill gays, and who supports and praises gays who tell religious and conservative gays to kill themselves to demonstrate what gays like Richard and his fellow editors support.
posted by Pat on
NDT, question. Is it possible to praise a quality or action of someone, but still be mainly opposed to that person?
For example, I have praised Pres. Bush for his efforts in trying to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians and his support of Israel. But no one ever confused that with me from thinking that Bush, IMO, is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Priya, good show; there’s nothing like watching someone who screams that other people she doesn’t know have eight-year-old children chained up in their basement to molest, who insists all Christians want to kill gays, and who supports and praises gays who tell religious and conservative gays to kill themselves”.
Typical Northdallas, several more lies in a pathetic attempt to cover up his other lies. I never accused you of having an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained up to molest. That was a statement of fact made after you supported pedophelic, polygamous, and incestuous marriage in this thread and screamed at me for opposing them:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
at June 19, 2007,4:02 pm
Few people would be surprised if someone who defends pedophelia turned out to be a pedophile.
I said some Christians want to kill gays, I never “insisted all Christians want to kill gays”. Thats the sort of lie typical of you, claiming something one or a few people said was said by all members of a community.
I never supported or praised Colorado Pat when he told you to kill yourself, I told him he had gone over the line:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31169.html
at February 3, 2007, 12:16pm
But of course you can’t resist lying about that because you have no defense for claiming that someone you don’t know demands to have public sex, repeatedly shoots and stabs Christians, uses drugs and has bareback sex.
posted by Priya Lynn on
bold off
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thank you, Priya; your little screaming fit did exactly as I intended, which is to demonstrate what Rosendall and the editors consider “acceptable”. You have showed clearly that they do not ban people who tell others to commit suicide, who accuse others of child molestation, and who insist that all Christians want to kill gays — which, given that they ban that with which they disagree, makes it obvious that they endorse and support your words and attitude.
Now to Pat: of course it is. But the difference is that you made it obvious that you didn’t support Bush and that you were doing everything in your power to block, stop him, and get him removed. Richard is doing nothing of the sort with Rogers, and is in fact praising and endorsing him.
posted by Pat on
Now to Pat: of course it is. But the difference is that you made it obvious that you didn’t support Bush and that you were doing everything in your power to block, stop him, and get him removed. Richard is doing nothing of the sort with Rogers, and is in fact praising and endorsing him.
Thanks, NDT. I guess I saw the opposite regarding Richard. It seemed to me it was more of a criticism of another poster as opposed to an endorsement of Rogers.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I thank the editors here at IGF for restoring my full posting privileges. Obviously they are interested in giving voice to opinions of dissent, and that makes it clear that I was wrong when I accused them of doing otherwise. My apologies.
posted by Amicus on
I hope that, beneath the denunciations, the folks on our side understand this.
======
I’m unconvinced that these nuances will amount to much, in practical terms, even if they are good to “know” (in quotes, because Warren himself has distanced himself from is ‘mis-statements’, etc.).
Two issues:
True or false – we fool ourselves if we think that there is a moderate wing among evangelicals that will be strenghtened, over time.
It’s not clear the Warren isn’t *more* pernicious than his forerunners. His “message” is more sly. He has the convenience of ‘doing nothing and saying nothing’, because of the laws that were passed, rendering gay relationships …er, formally against policy. In other words, his sin will be / can be one of indifference, right?
posted by Danny Morse on
Though I am homosexually oriented, I am embarrassed to be called “gay.” The typical behavior of the so-called “gay community” and the political/social positions and associations that seem obligatory within that framework are enough to make me feel I am not a member of that club (and would likely be unwelcome in any case).
Though I am a believer and (imperfect) follower of Christ and student of Scripture, I am embarrassed to be called “Christian.” The various organized religions calling themselves “Christianity” and the political/social positions and associations that seem obligatory to that paradigm convince me that I am not a member of that club either.
Many members of both “clubs” would insist that membership is (or should be) exclusive to one or the other. Those persons who seek or declare membership in both clubs simultaneously seem to be denounced as apostates by the leaders of each respective club more vigorously than most any other class of person.
However, I am undaunted. For I am still a gay Christian regardless of what I want to say, or what other individuals or groups do; regardless of how I feel about it. However alienated I may feel toward either of these “identities” at times, and for whatever reason, for me it is like a law of nature I cannot divorce myself from by will. I can no more cease being about a 4.5 on the Kinsey Scale than I could cease being 6’1″ tall: destructive surgery would be required. I can no more stop believing God exists than I could stop believing gravity exists.
But I still don’t want to join the clubs. I don’t agree with so much of what is said and what is done, how can I wear a facade and pretend to be among them? Perhaps it is only semantics. No group speaks for me. Only I can speak for me. Who is Rick Warren to think he knows my relationship with God? Or my relationship with my partner? And who is anyone to think that because my partner is also male, that means that I must be politically Liberal, go to the bars, march in the parades, bareback with multiple partners, have an “open relationship,” dance competently, or any of a thousand stereotypes? We are together for life (only 13 years so far, but we know), and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference if it were recognized by the State or the Church. Yes, it would make certain things in life easier, but it would not change our commitment to each other an iota.
God does not require the rituals, blandishments or politics of an organized religion to commune with His creation. And He is certainly not restricted by our imagination of Him or His will for others. “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:4)
posted by Pat on
Danny, I appreciate your feelings regarding the gay and Christian communities. There are things about the gay community that I disagree with, and I don’t subscribe to all of the stereotypes you listed. And while it may be true that many in one community insist that one cannot be a member of both, that is simply not true. Most gay persons I know consider themselves also as Christian or Jewish. And even though the vast majority of gay persons appear to be liberal and/or Democrats, about a quarter are Republicans and/or conservative.
As for Christianity, it depends on the religion. They run the full extreme in attitudes and dogma regarding homosexuality. Some are fully accepting of homosexuals and believe that we should have equality. So I don’t think there has to be a dichotomy for gay Christians.
I particularly don’t worry about whether I’m joining a “club” or not. I have my views, and I act and behave as I do. I’ll leave it up to others whether they feel I’m worthy to belong to their community or not. Whatever, we’re all entitled to our opinions. I don’t really consider whether or not I am “alienated” by the gay community. It’s diverse and not monolithic. I suspect they are many who don’t I’m a good gay, and wouldn’t issue me a gay card. So what?
The important message here is that despite your many qualms with both the gay community and Christianity, you have not used that as an excuse to live a miserable life. You were able to find a life partner despite the fact that many Christian religions say you should be celibate or change your orientation. You and your partner are able to conduct the relationship as you both see fit despite the (real or perceived) notion that gays cannot or should not be monogamous.
There are a lot of influences in our lives, and we have to take in what we’ve been taught and continue to hear. But, at some point, we have to weed out the immoral and/or irrational stuff, and decide for ourselves what is right and what is best for us.
posted by Bobby on
“I particularly don’t worry about whether I’m joining a “club” or not.”
—Neither do I. Although I have to admit that human beings are “joiners” by nature. They need to feel they belong somewhere. Few people can remain independent an unafiliated, or join organizations without such organizations affecting them.