NationStates Jolt Archive

He tried to kill us! HE WAS TRYING TO KILL US!
And you refuse to believe me when I tell you he's done this before, and that I don't want to go to a party where he's the guest of honor.
Yes, actually, he has said that. Read The Audacity of Hope.
You have a quote for me, or at least a page number? I certainly had no way of knowing you were referring to statements from before the campaign even started; he's said nothing of the sort recently.
You keep characterizing Warren as holding this view but you (1) have never answered my request for some evidence of this view
Now that's just a lie. What is the point in providing links when the people who demand them won't even look?
and (2) are deliberately ignoring that Warren has said more recently that he expressly rejects such a view.
That's a double lie. I did not "ignore" but responded in detail to your article on the Melissa Etheridge encounter. And I pointed out that what he was actually denying was that he had ever made the comparison to pedophiles; which was false, since it has been a favorite line of his.
On his advocacy of laws imprisoning us, do you have any source for him "rejecting" or repudiating his former position? To be sure he only advocates that in Africa, but that is presumably because Lawrence v. Texas is in the way of advocating retention of such laws in America: do you know of any occasion when he has endorsed or even indicated acceptance of Lawrence v. Texas? I cannot find a direct statement of his attacking Lawrence v. Texas; indirectly, he does cite as his idea of the "right" kind of Supreme Court Justice all the dissenters from that case (although no doubt he also likes those because of their abortion positions etc.)
As for his "therapy" groups with their talk of "neutering", those remain a part of his "ministry".
BTW, as an athiest, should I be equally outraged at not just the choice of Warren (who would label me a Christophobe, among other things), but the decision to have prayer at the inauguration at all?

Or is that silly?
When Bush had a preacher at his inaugural who said the only real Americans were believers in Jesus, a lot of people DID express outrage-- but that was just silly, right?

To be fair (and this leaves a dirty taste in my mouth since the comments were ridiculous anyways), the quote that's been thrown around a lot was not directly a comparison of homosexuals and pedophiles. He was asked if he saw incestuous marriage, marriage to a child, etc. in the same light as same-sex marriage. It is possible that his point was not that the various actions are all the same, but instead that he would not consider any of them to be appropriate marriages.

It could be sort of like pointing out that murder, theft, and jaywalking are all illegal. Of course, some crimes are worse than others, but they're still all crimes. That sort of thing.

Ugh.

No, the question was explicit:

"Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?"

Operative word is equivalent.

Tmurt, you do realize that Obama already threw you under the bus a while back, when he said that gay marriage is best left to the individual states?

He's not going to ride to your rescue, Warren, Prop 8, or anything else.

He'll speak vague statements of "support" and then the wheels of the bus will go round and round...

Oh dear. Hotwife is agreeing with me. I may have to rethink my position ;-)

Snip.

:rolleyes:

Okay. Let's list the casualties of meanings here.

"Lipstick on a pig."
"Throw under a bus."
"Elitist."
"Socialist."
"Spread the wealth."

Any more I'm forgetting?

You have a quote for me, or at least a page number? I certainly had no way of knowing you were referring to statements from before the campaign even started; he's said nothing of the sort recently.

I might be able to find it at home, where I can have my copy of the book available. It's not too terribly long a book, so there's a chance. The quote is something about how history may put him on the wrong side of the issue.

As for it being from before the campaign, I think more people should pay attention to such things. A lot of "surprises" about Obama weren't surprises to me at all, because I'd taken the time to look past campaign speeches, and into his history.

Unfortunately, reading the book was the thing that convinced me that Obama really is opposed to full marriage equality. Up until then, I was hoping he was saying it because he had to politically, while viewing civil unions as a stepping stone on the way to full equality.

Oh dear. Hotwife is agreeing with me. I may have to rethink my position ;-)

LOL

No, the question was explicit:

"Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?"

Operative word is equivalent.

Not everyone is a math major. Like I said, it could be seen that way. It would be much clearer if the next question in the interview had been something like, "Do you think homosexual sex and sex between an adult are equally wrong?"

Not everyone is a math major.


You dont have to be a math major to know what equivalent means.


Like I said, it could be seen that way. It would be much clearer if the next question in the interview had been something like, "Do you think homosexual sex and sex between an adult are equally wrong?"

"STEVEN WALDMAN: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

RICK WARREN: Oh I do. … "

This is quite clear to me, especially after:

"Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said."
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803281265.html


But I give up discussing this with u, to me, you are going out of your way to defend Warren and Obama.

.

I might be able to find it at home, where I can have my copy of the book available. It's not too terribly long a book, so there's a chance. The quote is something about how history may put him on the wrong side of the issue.
Thanks.
Like I said, it could be seen that way.
Well it's not like he only said it once, either: it was a favorite comparison (though maybe he'll stop coming out with it again).
And I don't think it's like he doesn't know that equating homosexuals to pedophiles is a common justification for assaults and murders: well, possibly he's that blithely unaware, but I really don't think so.

You dont have to be a math major to know what equivalent means.

In general speech, equivalent doesn't mean "the same in every possible way." It just means "the same".

If Warren was specifically thinking about them as being "the same" in that they were all inappropriate marriages, the specific use of that word vs. synonyms wouldn't make much of a difference.

It's important to know how very religious people tend to think on these issues. Often, it sounds like they're equating things, but if you did down into it, they really aren't. They do the same thing with abortion and murder. They'll talk as if the two are equivalent. But then when you dig in and ask more probing questions, it becomes very obvious that they don't see them in the same light at all.

But I give up discussing this with u, to me, you are going out of your way to defend Warren and Obama.

*shrug* Wouldn't be the first time someone was wrong about me. Have fun with that.

In general speech, equivalent doesn't mean "the same in every possible way." It just means "the same".

If Warren was specifically thinking about them as being "the same" in that they were all inappropriate marriages, the specific use of that word vs. synonyms wouldn't make much of a difference.

It's important to know how very religious people tend to think on these issues. Often, it sounds like they're equating things, but if you did down into it, they really aren't. They do the same thing with abortion and murder. They'll talk as if the two are equivalent. But then when you dig in and ask more probing questions, it becomes very obvious that they don't see them in the same light at all.


:rolleyes:

Warren is a best selling author. This isnt an excuse for him. Its also in line with his previous remarks.

It's not an excuse for anyone either.

BTW, as an athiest, should I be equally outraged at not just the choice of Warren (who would label me a Christophobe, among other things), but the decision to have prayer at the inauguration at all?

Or is that silly?Of course it's silly, but we have every right to worry about it just as much as they do. But we don't count as much as they do, because Warren is ANTI-GAY rights, which is much more important than anything else that he is.

That's the message that I'm getting, anyway. Enlighten me if him being ANTI-GAY rights is not the most important thing about him, as defined by a few people in this thread.

Of course it's silly, but we have every right to worry about it just as much as they do.
So, when Bush had a preacher at his inaugural saying that people who don't believe in Jesus aren't Real Americans(TM), people bitched that this was totally inappropriate at an inaugural and predicted that it was a bad omen that the Bush Administration would be full of ham-handed attempts at imposing religion on everyone-- correctly so.
But we don't count as much as they do
Shouldn't we have equal rights to be concerned about such things?

Shouldn't we have equal rights to be concerned about such things?Sensationalism ≠ Worry.

Why are you? Everybody wants to get in one last kick at me, but I am sick and tired of taking insults lying down.Nothing better to do.

Sensationalism ≠ Worry.
Suppose Bush's inaugural preacher said all you atheists ought to be imprisoned. Would it be "sensationalist" to express concern about what that might mean about the direction the Bush administration was going to take?
Nothing better to do.
Well fuck you too.

Well fuck you too.

I'm not telling you to calm down about Warren, but do calm down on the forum, 'mkay?

Suppose Bush's inaugural preacher said all you atheists ought to be imprisoned. Would it be "sensationalist" to express concern about what that might mean about the direction the Bush administration was going to take? You're not expressing concern.
Would you like for me to re-post that analogy about driving that was made earlier?

MODEDIT: <snipped> Give it a rest.

Suppose Bush's inaugural preacher said all you atheists ought to be imprisoned. Would it be "sensationalist" to express concern about what that might mean about the direction the Bush administration was going to take?


George Bush senior said atheists shouldn't be considered citizens or someshit.

Obama ... "reaches out" only to the side that says we're the same as child molestors and should be neutered or imprisoned.

You keep characterizing Warren as holding this view but you (1) have never answered my request for some evidence of this view and (2) are deliberately ignoring that Warren has said more recently that he expressly rejects such a view.

you (1) have never answered my request for some evidence of this viewNow that's just a lie. What is the point in providing links when the people who demand them won't even look?

1. I just reviewed the entire thread. You have never given sources or direct quotes of Warren saying homosexuals are child molestors, should be imprisoned, or should be neutered. You simply haven't. It is NOT a lie to point this out.

2. Although this may fall on deaf ears, I want to reiterate that I don't like Warren. He disgusts and infuriates me. Not just because of his despicable homophobia, but also his misogyny, views on non-Christians, views on abortion, etc. Like Dem1 said, "defending" Warren's statements leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. As I have said before, I think I understand and agree with your distaste for Warren. I think I understand and I agree -- to a point--with your objection to Warren's role in Obama's inauguration.

That said, we still have a disagreement about what all of this says about President-elect Obama and what message, if any, should be derived from Warren's being chosen to give the invocation.

3. I can't help but note that you have consistently made sweeping statements about Warren with little or no support. Originally, your primary complaint about him was that he was a (if not the) pre-eminent leader of Prop. 8. You only dropped that after I proved it was not true. So as much as it may frustrate you, there is some reason to doubt some of your claims.

(2) are deliberately ignoring that Warren has said more recently that he expressly rejects such a viewThat's a double lie. I did not "ignore" but responded in detail to your article on the Melissa Etheridge encounter. And I pointed out that what he was actually denying was that he had ever made the comparison to pedophiles; which was false, since it has been a favorite line of his.

1. You are partially right and I apologize for my mistatement. Here is how you responded to my posting of Melissa Etheridge's open letter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html) about Warren.

Warren is a smarmy git who plays the "some of my friends" card often, and is pleased to be able to do so with a celebrity. He apologized for the pedophilia comparison as if it were a one-time mis-speak, instead of one of his favorite go-to lines, but did not apologize for pressuring gay teens into "aversion therapy" designed to make them sexually dysfunctional for life (he is explicit that neutering us is precisely what he wants done), or for urging African countries to keep their laws that imprison gays. If he were really repentant about the hurt he inflicts on us, he would have a lot more back-pedalling to do, but instead responded only to the line Melissa had heard of.
Melissa is a sweetheart, who wants to see the good in people, but all I get out of this article is that she was suckered.

I must note, however, that (1) you are repeating some of the same accusations over again and (2) you still aren't providing any source for those accusations.

2. In both your new and old post, you claim that calling homosexuals pedophiles is one of Warren's "favorite" or "go-to lines." Yet we haven't seen him make such a statement. (As I and Dem1 said earlier, his "gay marriage is no more marriage than ..." statement is fucking outrageous and indefensible, but it does not equal saying "gays are pedophiles")

3. Warren has made more than one statement that--depending on how you characterize them--have clarified and/or rebutted his alleged equation of homosexuality and child molestation. I quoted one such statement earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14335185&postcount=415):

Warren had backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California, where he founded Saddleback. He had recently said that he opposed any redefinition of marriage, including a brother marrying a sister, or an adult marrying a child.

In his video, he insisted he wasn't equating gay marriage with incest or child molestation.

"I have in no way ever taught that homosexuality is the same thing as a forced relationship between an adult and a child, or between siblings," Warren said. "I was trying to point out I'm not opposed to gays having their partnership. I'm opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship."

4. In fairness, I must concede that in a seperate post not mentioned, you did provide further accusations against Warren -- this time with a source.

Warren's interest in AIDS patients is limited to "keeping them alive long enough to bring them to Christ (http://www.miketidmus.com/blog/2008/12/22/rick-warren-and-aids/)". He fights against condom distribution and sex education on grounds that the only solution to AIDS is convincing people to stop having sex. He is ignorant that in Africa, AIDS has always been predominately spread by heterosexuality, and therefore thinks that part of the solution is to keep the laws criminalizing homosexuality there; he also endorses figures who want to go further, like Ssemba in Uganda (wants to make it criminal to SPEAK against anti-gay criminal statutes) and Akinola of Nigeria (wants to make it criminal for known homosexuals to "meet": apparently two of us can't even have a cup of coffee; also known for advocating schism in the Anglican community on the gay issue, and advocating the extermination of Muslims, running a militia which is known for bashing Muslim babies' skulls against rocks, based on an Old Testament verse).

Although I freely admit there is more than enough truth in what you are saying here to make me loathe Warren even more, your statements aren't all completely accurate.

Warren is not completely opposed to condom distribution. Although he has some objections to some condom distrubution he expressly supports some condom distrubtion and is willing to work with those that distribute condoms freely. linky (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45039)

It is far from clear that Warren opposes sex education in Africa. His view on this appear similar to his view on condoms.

Although Warren advocates a religous-based STOP position regarding AIDS, it is not clear to me that he adovcates abandonment of SLOW programs. Only that he thinks STOP is the ultimate answer. linky (http://www.hivandthechurch.com/en-US/SLOW_and_STOP/How_to_STOP_AIDS.htm)

Perhaps, I missed it but nothing in the link you provided (or the links therein) makes clear that Warren "thinks that part of the solution is to keep the laws criminalizing homosexuality" in place in Africa.

Pastor Martin Ssempa (http://www.martinssempa.com/home.html) is a nasty character and any association between him and Warren is to be condemned. Still, I'm unclear on how closely associated the are and on Ssempa's alleged support for laws making it illegal to speak against anti-homosexuality laws.

Archbishop Peter Akinola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Akinola) is also unsavory with some highly objectionable views and Warren has personally lionized Akinola more than once. It is clear Akinola believes homosexuality should be criminal, but it isn't actually clear (to me anyway) that he supported the rest of that proposed law. linky (http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm) I dont see anything in what you linked or in a cursory search of the web about his support for smashing Muslim babies' skulls against rocks.



On his advocacy of laws imprisoning us, do you have any source for him "rejecting" or repudiating his former position? To be sure he only advocates that in Africa, but that is presumably because Lawrence v. Texas is in the way of advocating retention of such laws in America: do you know of any occasion when he has endorsed or even indicated acceptance of Lawrence v. Texas? I cannot find a direct statement of his attacking Lawrence v. Texas; indirectly, he does cite as his idea of the "right" kind of Supreme Court Justice all the dissenters from that case (although no doubt he also likes those because of their abortion positions etc.)

1. Before I have to show Warren has rejected or repudiated "his former position" that homosexuals should be imprisoned, you have to actually show that is true. Although his association with Ssempa and Akinola shows he supports at least some that would criminalize homosexuality in Africa, he is also associated with others that oppose such laws. So the "guilt by association" thing isn't particularly convincing.

2. I have never seen (nor could find) a statement by Warren re Lawrence v. Texas. Although I am steadfastly opposed to those that support the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court, it is a bit of a stretch to say that everyone who prefers conservative justices wishes to imprison homosexuals.

As for his "therapy" groups with their talk of "neutering", those remain a part of his "ministry".

Although I have heard critics of Warren, including former victims of his "therapy," refer to it as "neutering," I don't believe Warren has ever directly said anything close to his wanting all homosexuals neutered.

In sum: These are all quibbles and I respond primarily because you called me a "liar" twice. I don't deny for one second that Warren is an undesirable and offensive character. I would stongly prefer he not be part of Obama's inauguration. I do not, however, doubt in the slightest that not only will Obama's Administration be much more friendly to LGBT issues than any viable alternative, but it will flatly be very beneficial to LGBT causes.

Further, part of the disconnect here, is that I expect that Obama will do and say some things with which I disagree. He already has, for example, on same-sex marriage. But I expect to be very pleased overall with an Obama Administration and, especially at this stage, I am not willing to disavow my allegiance to Obama over a single mistake (the proportion of which is at issue).

So, when Bush had a preacher at his inaugural saying that people who don't believe in Jesus aren't Real Americans(TM), people bitched that this was totally inappropriate at an inaugural and predicted that it was a bad omen that the Bush Administration would be full of ham-handed attempts at imposing religion on everyone-- correctly so.

To be fair, there is a bit of a difference here. From what I understand, the preacher in question said this during the inaugural. He didn't say it in an interview or in one of his sermons at his own church, but during the actual ceremony.

Personally, I think Warren's comments regarding homosexuality are inappropriate period. But they're his beliefs and he can certainly preach his own beliefs in his sermons or express them in interviews. However, they would be completely and utterly inappropriate, no matter how much he believes them, at the inaugural.

It's sort of like the preacher I saw go into an anti-gay marriage sermon in the middle of a friend's wedding. Ok, we get it. You and your religion don't agree with same-sex marriage. Now what the heck does that have to do with the two heterosexuals standing in front of you getting married? (The bride was pissed!)

I'm not telling you to calm down about Warren, but do calm down on the forum, 'mkay?
Mkay. At the time I was of a mind to just quit this place, without so much as a Drama Queen Goodbye, but I'm a little calmer now.
George Bush senior said atheists shouldn't be considered citizens or someshit.
And people expressed outrage, and concern about what this meant for the direction his administration would take-- and no-one called them crazy for thinking so.
1. I just reviewed the entire thread. You have never given sources or direct quotes of Warren saying homosexuals are child molestors, should be imprisoned, or should be neutered. You simply haven't. It is NOT a lie to point this out.

I have SO given sources. You are moving the goalposts when you demand direct quotes from Warren: you had accused me of not providing anything at all. I did not link to the videos of Warren making the pedophilia comparison since others had done so, but I did link promptly to a source on his conduct in Africa, and when I could find one (very little on his "Celebrate Recovery" groups is online) to a source on his "therapy".
If you do not agree with the information, or with the implications I see, you could have, as you are doing now, argued about it, rather than stating falsely that I had not shown you anything.
2. Although this may fall on deaf ears, I want to reiterate that I don't like Warren. He disgusts and infuriates me... That said, we still have a disagreement about what all of this says about President-elect Obama and what message, if any, should be derived from Warren's being chosen to give the invocation.

That Obama finds him neither disgusting nor infuriating, but rather, worthy of a singular honor.
Originally, your primary complaint about him was that he was a (if not the) pre-eminent leader of Prop. 8. You only dropped that after I proved it was not true.

All you "proved" is that it is a matter of opinion. The people I heard from considered his endorsement of Prop 8 by far the most important one from any church IN CALIFORNIA; your sources consider his endorsement a minor one in the context of that campaign (but do not name any California church as having been more important). In terms of the more objectively measurable matters of money and manpower, nobody in California was very important: about 75% from the LDS, 20% from Focus on the Family. Assessing the relative importance of endorsements is a subjective matter.
2. In both your new and old post, you claim that calling homosexuals pedophiles is one of Warren's "favorite" or "go-to lines." Yet we haven't seen him make such a statement.

Yes we have, multiple times.
(As I and Dem1 said earlier, his "gay marriage is no more marriage than ..." statement is fucking outrageous and indefensible, but it does not equal saying "gays are pedophiles")

It does so equal that. He knows EXACTLY what he is doing when he reaches for that comparison. It is incitement to assault and murder. His "who me?" statements that he meant no such thing just remind me of Arafat's old habit of promising the utter destruction of Israel when talking to Arabic audiences, then denying he ever said any such thing when talking to English-language reporters.
"I was trying to point out I'm not opposed to gays having their partnership. I'm opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship."

Like this for example. When speaking to church audiences, allowing gays to "have their partnership" is something that "absolutely cannot be tolerated." In the BeliefNet interview, he clarified that "civil unions" are out of the question for him.
Warren is not completely opposed to condom distribution. Although he has some objections to some condom distrubution he expressly supports some condom distrubtion and is willing to work with those that distribute condoms freely. linky (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45039)

The link isn't working for me for some reason. I will try looking at this later.
EDIT: never mind, it was a browser crash at my end, not a problem with your link.
EDIT: ewww, I see he is only willing to give condoms to prostitutes because they're going to die anyway and he wants to "keep them alive long enough to win them for Christ". He is totally against condoms for anyone except prostitutes. And-- Worldnetdaily is your go-to source? I have known them to get the date correct, but other than that...
Although Warren advocates a religous-based STOP position regarding AIDS, it is not clear to me that he adovcates abandonment of SLOW programs. Only that he thinks STOP is the ultimate answer. linky (http://www.hivandthechurch.com/en-US/SLOW_and_STOP/How_to_STOP_AIDS.htm)

By "STOP", he means the total elimination of homosexuality.
Pastor Martin Ssempa (http://www.martinssempa.com/home.html) is a nasty character and any association between him and Warren is to be condemned. Still, I'm unclear on how closely associated the are and on Ssempa's alleged support for laws making it illegal to speak against anti-homosexuality laws.

I thought my source was clear on the subject. Warren and Ssempa are very tight, and when Warren endorses him, it is principally his positions on sexuality that he has in mind.
Archbishop Peter Akinola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Akinola) is also unsavory with some highly objectionable views and Warren has personally lionized Akinola more than once. It is clear Akinola believes homosexuality should be criminal, but it isn't actually clear (to me anyway) that he supported the rest of that proposed law.

??? Akinola was the one who PROPOSED it.
Although his association with Ssempa and Akinola shows he supports at least some that would criminalize homosexuality in Africa, he is also associated with others that oppose such laws.

Name one.
Although I have heard critics of Warren, including former victims of his "therapy," refer to it as "neutering," I don't believe Warren has ever directly said anything close to his wanting all homosexuals neutered.

"Neutering" is the term that is used within the groups. I do not know if Warren coined it, but the statement from Warren that I heard (I cannot find the quote online) was "Homosexuals need to learn to do without sex".
I do not, however, doubt in the slightest that not only will Obama's Administration be much more friendly to LGBT issues than any viable alternative, but it will flatly be very beneficial to LGBT causes.

I doubt it very much. We'll see. So far, all we see is that the circle of views that he considers "reasonable" (whether or not he fully agrees) includes Warren's views, but not mine. Nobody in favor of same-sex marriage is invited to take part in the inaugural; only one openly gay person is going to be in his administration (compared with 16 under Bush, about 50 under Clinton).
especially at this stage, I am not willing to disavow my allegiance to Obama over a single mistake (the proportion of which is at issue).
That seems to be the core of it. I am not being attacked from all sides so much for feeling as depressed as I do, but because I have expressed treasonous disloyalty.
To be fair, there is a bit of a difference here. From what I understand, the preacher in question said this during the inaugural. He didn't say it in an interview or in one of his sermons at his own church, but during the actual ceremony.
No, he didn't put it that bluntly or rudely during the ceremony (although what he did say on Jan. 20 was considered a bit over-the-top). But picking somebody known to have those kinds of views was considered a very bad omen for what the Bush administration would be like-- and rightly so.
Personally, I think Warren's comments regarding homosexuality are inappropriate period. But they're his beliefs and he can certainly preach his own beliefs in his sermons or express them in interviews. However, they would be completely and utterly inappropriate, no matter how much he believes them, at the inaugural.

It's sort of like the preacher I saw go into an anti-gay marriage sermon in the middle of a friend's wedding. Ok, we get it. You and your religion don't agree with same-sex marriage. Now what the heck does that have to do with the two heterosexuals standing in front of you getting married? (The bride was pissed!)
I expect Warren to be on his best behavior at the inaugural. That doesn't change the fact that Obama has increased his prominence and thereby expanded his opportunities to spread his bile to more audiences; and this I consider a very unfriendly (to say the least) act on Obama's part.