my final disappointment

So Obama his picked Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. For those of you who don’t know him, Mr. Warren is the pastor of one of the largest mega-churches in the land. Depending on who you talk to, he’s either been called the next Billy Graham, or a new James Dobson. Mr. Warren helped lead the charge on Proposition 8. He has compared gay marriage to pedophilia, incest, and plural marriage. And he has compared abortion to the holocaust. I knew this day would come. Just not so soon. Certainly not before the man was actually sworn in. There is no longer any change I can believe in.

36 thoughts on “my final disappointment”

  1. I sent the following message via the inaugural transition website:

    “I am terribly disappointed and thoroughly outraged that you have chosen Rick Warren from among all Americans of faith to participate in your inauguration ceremonies. This is a terrible slap in the face to many of us who spent countless hours and hard-earned dollars working to elect you, only to find that you turn your back on us at the first opportunity by sucking up to among the worst bigots in the land. For shame.”

    Of course I have no idea if anyone will read it, but it made me feel slightly better.

    Like

  2. I’m not ready to wash my hands of Obama over this. After all, Clinton had Billy Graham at his inauguration.

    Obama camp’s statement:

    This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.

    In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world’s most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.

    Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He’s devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren’s leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.

    The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what’s important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America’s promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

    As he’s said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That’s the only way we’ll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.

    The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.

    And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

    Like

  3. sherkat: this reminds me: Warren also called for the assassination of Iran’s president!

    @ 4: I have a hard time buying the “open” argument when, to quote sherkat, Warren believes that being gay, should, “determine the types of jobs you can hold, whether or not you can marry, have children, or discern the future of your own property.” And as for HIV/AIDS, I’m sorry, but I can’t get behind an man who promotes an abstinence program: one that we know fails.

    Like

  4. When I voted for Obama, I was voting (and hoping) for competence and progressive liberalism. I wasn’t especially concerned about the ideological purity of symbolic gestures. As far as I know, Rev. Warren has not been given a role in policy.

    Imagine it the other way round. Suppose Bush at his inaurgural had selected Rev. William Sloane Coffin to deliver the invocation. Would you be high-fiving all over town?

    Like

  5. Ten years ago, they said the same shit about Ted Haggard being a new “moderate” sectarian Protestant, then he sucked up to Bush..and others. I’d bet money Warren voted for McCain. All this crap about HIV in Africa and poverty is nonesense. It’s a ruse to get “faith based” funding for mission projects for his segment of the religion industry. Religious nutjobs love war! The war against communism was a religious holy war against secularism—my dad was in the Mossadeq youth education program until anti-communist warmongering brought an end to democracy in Iran. After that he had to work in slaughterhouses and as a janitor to pay his tuition…and marry a redneck woman to keep from being deported and executed by that Pahlavi bastard.

    Like

  6. During the campaign, Obama clearly and continually asserted that he believed America was one, united country and that it needed a President prepared to see past tired partisan ping-pong. He explicitly, repeatedly, consistently said he was uninterested in what he saw as a tired, hackneyed political discourse of red vs blue, christian vs secular, conservative vs liberal. For reasons that escape me, a lot of people seemed not to be listening to what he was saying, and instead heard him promising a return to some golden-age Democratic Party platform, or even a fantasy of economic and social policy-making directed by subscribers to Shambala Sun and the Utne Reader. Anyone who thought this simply wasn’t paying attention to Obama’s rhetoric or the evolution of his political career.

    I expect the left-wing backlash against Obama to be much stronger than the one that hit the Clinton Administration, because even though less time has passed since the previous Democratic administration than was the case with Clinton, the fantasy-expectations for Obama are much greater. Its racial aspect will be interesting: if we haven’t already, we’ll probably see commentary soon — most likely from people who claimed that the U.S. would never elect a black man to begin with — running the line that Obama’s election really means nothing significant for most black Americans. This argument is the mirror image of the right-wing line that Obama’s election means that Race is Over in America. It is precisely this kind of discourse that Obama constantly claims he wants to transcend. Regardless of whether you think that goal is plausible or palatable, choices like the inclusion of Warren are quite consistent with it, and — more to the point — should come as no surprise to anyone who paid attention during the campaign.

    Like

  7. Thanks Kieran. I was about to make the very same point. Having Warren involved with the ceremony, while not giving him a voice in policy decisions, seems entirely consistent with Obama’s campaign. I’m not surprised or disappointed.

    Like

  8. i agree with kieran, this isn’t terribly surprising and i talked with people a lot during the campaign about this. it still doesn’t feel good.

    i was hoping the first ‘large tent’ dust-up would have been on policy issues surrounding taxes or education or health policy rather than elevating someone who had such a large role in the prop 8 vote in ca and, in general, in the culture wars. people here (and around the country) are still VERY raw on this issue. otoh, perhaps this is precisely why the obama team chose warren in the first place.

    Like

  9. Kieran states it perfectly. I’m also amazed by how quickly people are willing to throw up their hands and write off the Obama administration.

    Like

  10. Let me just add that the reason I’m not disappointed in the choice, although I have a strong aversion to many of Warren’s social views, is because I see the invocation choice as mostly inconsequential to policymaking. If it represented Obama’s views on equality or rights-related issues, I’m sure I would be more outraged. But as a gesture to the right to say that Obama is trying to change the tone of American politics by building on commonalities, even with those who have strong ideological differences, I think the choice makes some sense.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not ecstatic about the invocation but then again I never really have been.

    Like

  11. Ditto Kieran et al, we knew all along (or should have known all along) that Obama was campaigning as a centrist and staked out quite a few positions (including opposition to same-sex marriage) that are unambiguously more conservative than my views. If he’d been White, would people (from both left and right) been so ready to view him as a liberal? For GLBT folks to feel unhappy due to Prop 8 or Warren seems appropriate to me, even as surprise seems unwarranted. The day after the election at a gathering to discuss it, after lots of happy comments, one person brought up Prop 8 as a point of pain, and others agreed, and then a lesbian noted that in his victory speech, Obama specifically named gays and lesbians as people who were part of the nation he wanted to bring together, she said she felt good about that despite prop 8 because that was the first time any president-elect had ever said such a thing. I think this kind of mixture is what Obama campaigned on and what we are going to get.

    I voted for Obama eyes open but also really liking this kind of “coming together” rhetoric, trying to connect to people who really don’t agree with each other. Many evangelicals genuinely do care about the poor — it is, after all, the major theme in the Bible and evangelicals actually read the Bible, not to mention the fact that people who are actually poor or struggling are more likely to be evangelical. One theory of change is that if you bond and get to know each other around the issues you agree on it is easier to influence others on issues you disagree on.

    Again, I’m still in sympathy with the people who are upset about putting any overt anti-gay person on a podium to do anything at all and definitely in support of all the people who are complaining in protest. It is discursively important for the left to demand to be reached out to, too, so the “coming together” happens in the actual middle, not the middle-right.

    Like

  12. It’s not just about LGBT rights, this is a far-right wing sectarian Christian minister, who also advocates the escalation of religious holy wars. It’s like having some mullah who wants to nuke Israel give a blessing for a leader of an Islamic nation. I do not think it is appropriate to symbolically sanctify this radical form of Christianity, even though a sizeable minority of Americans adhere to these exclusivist Manichean beliefs. And to make such a decision during the holy week of Zappadan…

    http://iranianredneck.wordpress.com/

    Like

  13. RE: “This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.”

    This quote from Ezra Klein seems to sum it up:

    “The tolerance Obama is asking for, in other words, is not from Warren. It’s from the LGBT community, and women. He is asking them to be tolerant of Warren’s intolerance. It’s a cruel play, framed to marginalize the legitimate anger of those who Warren harms and discriminates against.”

    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=the_meaning_of_open_and_inclus

    Like

  14. @16.tvol: Amen.

    @9.Kieran: no thanks to the smug, armchair told-you-so. You don’t need to have expected that Obama would be a true progressive to be pissed that he would legitimize, nay valorize, a trogloditic bigot. Sure it’s symbolic — so’s everything else. So what? It’s the WRONG SYMBOL.

    Asking the downtrodden to tolerate the bigot isn’t centrism or fairness, it’s perpetuating oppression, albeit in this particular case not perpetuating it all that much, I suppose.

    When GWB “won” the 2000 election, he made his own mandate by entering office and boldly, crassly assuming power — “assuming” in both senses of the word. That GWB administration turned out remarkably effective (note: NOT “good,” “effective”). Obama should learn from the first GWB administration, not the first Clinton one.

    Like

  15. I am also royally pissed off about the choice of Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture. Four more years of farm policy in the interest of agribusiness. I knew Obama campaigned as an ethanol enthusiast but I hoped that he would choose someone who at least gave a crap about the global food crisis.

    Like

  16. Andy,

    the smug

    Feel free to to put forward any arguments you have for why my comment was mistaken.

    armchair

    But let’s have the tenured Professor who is without sin cast the first piece of furniture.

    told-you-so

    No, that wasn’t my intention. I and many others were saying the same thing back during the campaign, and I don’t think it’s that controversial. Indeed, when people were freaking out in September because McCain was “winning” the daily news cycle and Obama couldn’t be bothered to respond in kind, a lot of commentators woke up and noticed how his post-partisan stance was actually politically very astute, rather than hopelessly naive, as it made McCain seem desperate and old. Beyond that, any clear-eyed assessment of the arc of Obama’s career couldn’t help but notice how — from his law review days forward — his rhetoric was matched by choices and alliances that really annoyed dyed-in-the-wool progressives or left-wingers or identity politics types, and so on.

    You don’t need to have expected that Obama would be a true progressive to be pissed that he would legitimize, nay valorize, a trogloditic bigot.

    Yes, it’s perfectly sensible (as OW says) for the left to make noise about this to try to ensure Obama’s tendency to triangulate and compromise actually lands him close to the actual center, rather than the center-right.

    Sure it’s symbolic — so’s everything else. So what? It’s the WRONG SYMBOL.

    It’s insulting and by all accounts the guy’s a bigot, but politics is a dirty business. What matters is what happens when push comes to shove on policy. My feeling is that Obama will compromise far more than he needs to, because that’s what his (fairly thin) record in the legislature suggests. I hope I’m wrong. My comment was just meant to signal that progressives should not have been surprised at a move like this from Obama, and to suggest that they are going to have a long and very unhappy next two years if something like this really is the “final disappointment” for them, because by that standard there will be plenty more to come.

    In any event, it really isn’t monday-morning quarterbacking to say that this kind of move on Obama’s part is no surprise, and it’s not as if I take much pleasure in saying it.

    Like

  17. Not much to add to this lively discussion from my California vacation, except to add two tiny things:

    1) Bill Clinton was the first president to include lesbians and gays in his “big tent.” He made a direct statement in his DNC speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and then tried and failed to institute some pro-gay policies early in his administration.

    2) My mother is a lifelong Republican who has, in the past, expressed views so racist they would make your toes curl. I asked her what she thought of Barack Obama, and she said, “I like him!” Go figure.

    Like

  18. @19.Kieran:

    any arguments you have for why my comment was mistaken
    If not mistaken, at least not responsive to context. “I’m not surprised” is not an appropriate answer to “I’m angry.”

    let’s have the tenured Professor who is without sin cast the first piece of furniture
    Touche

    What matters is what happens when push comes to shove on policy.
    Here I disagree substantively. Serious cultural outcomes accrue to presidential symbolic actions. (And the symbolic actions of others, but that’s beyond the scope.) Choosing Warren sends a message: bigotry, at least of this sort (meaning, by the way, not just sexual orientation but [ir]religion as well), is within the boundaries of the acceptable. That message will be heard, loud and clear, and it’s quite reasonable to expect that real people’s real lives will really be affected by it.

    Frankly, given the hatchet job the GWB administration has done to the capacity of the current federal state to carry out policy in a fiscal sense, symbolism may turn out to be more important to this administration, not less.

    Like

  19. Just want to add after reading and thinking more about the comments that I do think it is appropriate for people to complain and protest a lot about this. It is appropriate to compare it to inviting an overt racist to speak and perhaps appropriate to remind people that White Southerners were sure that the Bible supported racial segregation.

    Nevertheless, I find some of the rhetoric in this debate thread to be over the top and not helpful as it slides from a valid critique of Warren’s positions into hostile name-calling and questioning the sincerity or intelligence of all religious conservatives and, possibly all religious people — the writers are not making particularly clear distinctions.

    Like

  20. Does anyone esle see a parallel between Obama’s current embrace of Warren’s chuch and his earlier alignment with Jeremiah Wright’s TUCC? My general suspicion (and having just recently re-read both of his memoirs) is that Obama is at heart a pragmatist, material progressive–one who aligns himself with religious/moral movements opportunistically. I think he sees “churches” and “moral folk” as constituencies to mobilize towards more basic/material goals (from community funds to universal health care). And it so happens that the LGBT movement remains too politically unpopular (witness Prop 8) for Obama to draw a line in the sand on this particular issue. I’m not saying I agree with this. Just that it makes sense given Obama’s own practical political sensibility, as I understand it.

    Like

  21. I agree with most of shaka’s comments on Rick Warren, and also support gay marriage. But I’m a bit disturbed by this drawing of the line between gay marriage and poligamy, because it implies that gay marriage is acceptable while poligamy is not. Poligamy is a common thing in several societies, and perhaps we should have a debate about whether it should be allowed or not. Even though among Mormons in the U.S. it is often associated with fundamentalism, child abuse and other things, there is nothing inherently wrong with poligamy, at least for those of us who are not religious. Why should people be required to marry a single person?

    Like

  22. If not mistaken, at least not responsive to context. “I’m not surprised” is not an appropriate answer to “I’m angry.”

    Yes, but what I said was a response to the “I’m disappointed” part (contained in the post’s title) and not to the “I’m angry” part.

    Choosing Warren sends a message: bigotry, at least of this sort (meaning, by the way, not just sexual orientation but [ir]religion as well), is within the boundaries of the acceptable.

    I think Jeff is right regarding the way Obama himself views these constituencies.

    Like

  23. I think Jeff’s analysis makes lots of sense too.

    OW: I hope you don’t see me as anti-religious. My point is that Warren is among those who things irreligion and even difference in religion is intolerable, which IMHO is wrong. I am (somewhat) religious myself and certainly think religion is both good and unavoidable.

    Like

  24. @19.kieran: I’m not sure I agree that it was Obama’s post-partisan stance that won him the election. I’m pretty sure it was the economy. And as for what surprises me about this: well, for one, Obama’s near constant insistence on respect and equal protection for LGBT folks. He articulated this during two of his most important speeches: the first at the beginning of his national campaign during his nomination acceptance speech and the second upon his acceptance of the presidency. So in light of this picking a vehemently anti-gay pastor is surprising.

    @12.trey1: There have actually been a good few moves by Obama that are surprising. So my frustration is not really “quick” as much as it is building. The most obvious among these is his willingness to go with a “same old Washington” selection – his organizational strategy seems quite conservative, and strikes me as running counter to his “new” organizational strategy that helped him win him the election.

    @18.akphd: Yep. And what about the interior secretary? Ken Salazar? Seriously? You know it’s worrying with oil, gas, mining, and agrobusiness lobbyists are lauding the decision.

    @20.tina: I was more radical during the Clinton presidency than I am now (I had a list of places to bring my pick axe during the revolution). But I still have this residual feeling of enormous disappointment with the guy. Don’t ask don’t tell is pretty much where it comes from. I have to say that Kieran (@9) is probably right in suggesting that it will be even worse under Obama (disappointment/liberal backlash). It actually strikes me as great place to revive the relative deprivation thesis. High expectation states (perhaps unreasonably so) and a reality that does not match.

    @22.olderwoman: I have a tough time with this. How do you respect the sincerity or intelligence of a group whose majority, at best, wants to treat you as a second class citizen, and at worst, wants to wipe you off the face of the earth (not the killing, of course, but through “correction” programs)? That’s actually a sincere question.

    @24.socfreak: I completely agree. I don’t think it’s reasonable to throw polygamists under the bus on this one. With one exception: if we’re going to have polygamy, we should have polygyny and polyandry. Otherwise you have quite a gendered system of marriage.

    I agree on the pragmatist piece. But I would also note that one can be a pragmatist with principles. Obama is not so completely rudderless as to simply be pragmatic on every decision, is he? If not (and I believe he is a pragmatist with principles) I feel he’s given up on one with this decision: the respect and dignity of LBGT folks.

    Like

  25. Religion is certainly unavoidable, and not going away. All religions do some good things for some people, but the social influence of exclusivist religious traditions (where the gods like some people and torture other people) is always negative for the others. As a non-religious person, I find the impulse toward toleration unilateral–I have to tolerate them, while they find ways to use the formal resources of the state to indoctrinate my children, subvert scientific progress, oppress my friends and relations, and use the collective wealth of our nation to try to bring about their perverse religious prophesies. It’s not just symbolic. A large portion of conservative Christians would have me fired from my job for not believing in their gods–and especially for pointing out why. It’s impossible to be polite when you have to tell people that their religious beliefs should end at their nose, because the type of beliefs religious conservatives hold require actions in this world that harm others–including me. Not all religions do that, but Warren’s does.

    Like

  26. I’m mostly in agreement with OW, Brayden, and Kiernan. That said, Obama should have shown his commitment to reaching across the ideological divide by choosing a conservative religious figure that is less polarizing — and who has said less repugnant things about gays & lesbians — than Warren. Bad move on his part.

    Now that Warren’s praise for Syria, and his attempts at covering up these comments, have been uncovered, I wonder if this will be the tipping point (in addition to the outrage expressed over his GLBT comments).

    Like

  27. Shaka: I know yours is a sincere question. And I understand where Sherkat’s (and others’) angry divisive rhetoric is coming from, even as I find it to reveal so much hostility and prejudice that it is impossible to imagine how one could even begin a sane conversation on the topic. So let me stick with your question. Of course you feel angry and bruised and ought to be sticking up for your rights, and ought to be expecting me to stick up for them too. Expressing your sense of outrage is important, and people of conscience ought to hear that voice and stop and listen. You did make me stop and listen. The trouble is that the best way to get others to listen to you is to be in the same room with them and listen to them. The tactical question is how to get them to agree to be in the room seriously engaging the question of human rights. A lot of people are trying to broker peace in ethnic conflicts by bringing combatants together and seeing if they can come to see each other’s humanity and find a basis for living together. That’s my image. De-escalating conflict, not with the goal of letting the other guy win, but of trying to broker a peace that everyone can live with. I think that is what Obama thinks he is doing.

    Regarding the language I objected to, I’ve sat here for an hour, writing and erasing comments. I can’t do justice to what I think about this without writing four or five pages. I’ll just say it makes me think of wars and the way opponents get demonized.

    Like

  28. @30.olderwoman: If you had a good answer to my question, there’d be a Nobel prize in your future… The issue is that either group (them or me) has to give up something. Is it fair to ask them to give up what they believe (especially when it’s at the core of who they are)? Is it fair to ask me to not be me? Neither seems particularly tenable. One of us has to give up who we are. Neither is willing.

    I agree about “being the the room.” The problem is that my experience suggests that being in the room creates exceptions to rules, and not a rethinking of the rules themselves. Even in four or five pages there’s no good answer. I wish I could argue about a distinction between existence (who you are) and belief – but unfortunately those categories aren’t so pure as to make the argument robust. My sense is that in the end it’s going to be a highly contentious political struggle. And there will be losers.

    Like

  29. Shaka: The closest I can come is what I wrote last year http://sociologicalconfessions.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/symbolic-dominance-culture-and-religion/

    I went through a series of meetings in the 1990s where religious leaders tried to agree on a statement about treating each other with civility after weeks of escalating incidents in which anti-gay activists were aggressively picketing gay-friendly churches and, in retaliation, the Lesbian Avengers were targeting the homes of anti-gay ministers. A lesbian Unitarian minister and an anti-gay conservative minister (along with a third from somewhere in the middle) gained respect and even affection for each other in the process of meeting together to draft a statement. This personal connection did not change their policy positions. Eventually, the conservative minister withdrew from the group when he realized he was blocking consensus: from his religious standpoint, he could not be at the table with the rest of us, even though he had gained great personal respect for the lesbian minister and the others he had worked with in the group. No “happy ending” here, except that the human beings were able to be in the same room together and really talk, despite realizing from the talk where they still had fundamental differences. You cannot compromise on who you are and your core values. If you are going to try to cross boundaries, you have to do it carrying your true self into the new setting. Sometimes you just become appalled at what other people really believe. But I still think it is better to know them than not to know them, and better to see them as human beings, not cartoon characters.

    Like

  30. This came to me from a friend, posting for others’ benefit:

    For those of you uncomfortable with the idea of Rick Warren delivering the invocation at the inauguration, here are two was to make your voice heard:

    This one came directly to me. It’s a letter to which you can add your name.  It’s from a California progressive organization, “Courage Campaign”, to Rick Warren, inviting him to debate same sex marriage with Rev. Eric Lee:

    Dear Rev. Rick Warren,

    As Americans who believe in equal rights for all, we
    would like to invite you to a debate about Proposition 8
    and same-sex marriage.

    The Reverend Eric Lee, President of the Southern
    Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) of Greater Los
    Angeles, has accepted our invitation to debate you at a
    time and location to be determined.

    While we strongly disagree with your views, we also
    strongly believe that your views must be debated in a
    public forum.

    We hope you agree and accept this challenge to debate
    Rev. Lee as soon as possible.

    The undersigned,
    http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/RickWarrenDebate

    This one is from “People For The American Way”.  This is a petition to Obama:

    Dear President-elect Obama,

    We were gravely disappointed to learn that Rev. Rick
    Warren has been selected to deliver the invocation at
    your inauguration. Rev. Warren was a poor choice to lead
    the invocation due to his long history of hateful,
    divisive rhetoric on important cultural and civil rights
    issues. It’s not just that we disagree with him on the
    issues–it’s that he uses his powerful platform to
    marginalize those who disagree with him. He is not the
    sort of leader who can help unite Americans. We agree
    with you that everyone should have a seat at the table,
    but only those who treat others with respect should get a
    seat of honor.

    http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=xhtgpcCaMyNUnfv5xu0dxA

    No reason not to do both if you like. 

    Like

  31. Melissa Etheridge blogged about Warren at the HuffPost. Here’s an excerpt:

    I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say “In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him.” They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife’s struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

    When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

    Like

  32. While it might be convenient for “Pastor Rick” to be friendly to the odd gay celebrity, his church is clearly not. It explicitly does not welcome “unrepentant homosexuals”. If you’re gay, you can go to the Church. but you have to repent for your sexual practices. The church also runs a group that “cures” gays. A good PR campaign that Melissa Etheridge has become a part of? Yes. But the practices say far more.

    See here: http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-explicitly-bans-unrepentant.html

    Also note that this has been pulled from the website, as part of the PR campaign: http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-pulls-anti-gay-language.html

    And Yes, I mean PR campaign.

    As for the program curing gays, it’s based on a 12-step model of curing alcoholism. See here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/19/warren-celebrate-recovery/

    If the past few days have changed Rick Warren’s mind, I welcome that. But call me cynical. I think what it’s changed is his view of his own potential as “America’s pastor” – Melissa Etheridge and some quick website deletions helped him on his way.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s