While it’s true that someone probably has something wrong with their attitudes about a minority group if they have to preface their remarks about them with “some of my best friends are…”, I don’t think it’s a terrible defense. At least it acknowledges that the sayer recognizes the humanity of the group under discussion and sees the importance of embracing their friendship. And, it shows that they are at least sensitive to the idea that what they are about to say is potentially a bad thing to say, or that they recognize polite society thinks so anyway.
But such a defense is not always adequate to shield every attitude. You can’t say “some of my best friends are black, but I don’t think they should get to eat at the same lunch counter as us”. Well, you can say it, but you don’t get a free pass on the discriminatory attitude just because you used the magic formula.
So it is with what is presumably Rick Warren’s deception about his reasons for supporting Proposition 8: that he is in favor of Free Speech. Just for background’s sake – Proposition 8 did nothing to regulate or deregulate speech of any sort (except the words “I do”). All it did was outlaw same sex marriage. There is no way that, without Proposition 8, a preacher preaching against homosexuality can be classified as hate speech. In fact, there is no such thing as “hate speech” in the U.S. or any state’s legal code, and what is commonly referred to as “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment, just like any other kind of speech.
Ok – I said “presumably [...] deception”. Actually, I don’t think it is deception on Rick Warren’s part. I think it is ignorance. I think it is willful ignorance. I think that he has heard some of the paranoia espoused by the extreme loony right about how gay marriage could turn hateful speech into “hate speech” and figured that such a paranoia would make a reasonable “cover” to keep him on the side of the Proposition 8 issue that he must espouse in order to remain relevant in the modern Evangelical movement. I don’t think he wants to know the truth of that issue, because if he did, then he would have a harder time choosing and defending the Evangelical orthodoxy. And, while Warren has made it a point to lead Evangelicals away from some of their more short-sighted thinking, he knows that some lines can’t be crossed without being sent the way of Richard Cizik.
So, what we are dealing with is someone who is willing to campaign against another person’s marriage based either on a lie or on an ignorance of personal, political convenience. The former is hateful. The latter is so craven that it doesn’t rise to the level of hateful.
My challenge to religious leaders, trying to decide whether and how to advocate on this issue is to be deadly serious about it. The failure to think deeply about the issues before attacking someone else’s marriage rights is to denigrate those people and to insult the institution of marriage itself.
Oh yeah… One other thing. Warren couched what Preachers do in preaching against homosexuality in some pretty neutral sounding terms… I think his words were “views that homosexuality wasn’t the most natural way for relationships”. Others might couch the same notions in terms of “what God knows is best”, etc… where Warren speaks for nature and others might speak for God. The point is that there is this defense that because it is a “belief” … for instance that a homosexual union is dirty while your own is sacred – especially a “religious belief” – a “belief” about what God thinks, or about nature – that there is no offense in holding it. That’s wrong. A person is responsible for their own beliefs and teachings. A belief or teaching that is insulting - that makes others to be of a second class by implication – is a discriminatory belief. It doesn’t matter if you have couched it as a belief about God or about nature. The point is that it is insulting, it asks for discrimination, and you chose to hold it.
So, even if some of Rick Warren’s best friends are gay, even if he is enlightened enough to realize that conservatives generally display a disproportionate amount of outrage against “gay marriage” as opposed to much “greater” (meaning actual) threats to marriage like divorce and it’s causes, he still is without excuse for his homophobia. His defense fails and he shows himself to be a bigot.
And now we learn that he has been chosen to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration. I had hoped Obama would have a little more respect for himself and his own political side than this. You wouldn’t ever catch John McCain or George Bush inviting Jeremiah Wright to do an invocation in order to pander to liberal religion, you know.
“You wouldn’t ever catch John McCain or George Bush inviting Jeremiah Wright to do an invocation”
That is true but that is what I like most about Obama. When it is time to sit around the table then everybody gets a seat around the table. I am not convinced that it is pandering. I think he genuinely wants a place at the table for everybody.
I am terribly uneducated on the gay marriage thing so tell me this.
If I were to wake up tomorrow and find out in the news that my wife and I were not legally married but we did have a “civil union” what is the difference? What does marriage do that a civil union does not do?
I might get around to the question of “what’s the difference?”. But I think the first question that would occur to me would be “who changed it”? And “why did they change it?”
Chances are, when I find out why my neighbors are still married, but I’m not, by then I’ll already know what the difference is.
so says Jane Hamsher
I just don’t know that much about Rick Warren. I know he wrote that book and he was kind of a dick for saying that McCain was in the cone of silence when he wasn’t but hatemonger is kind of a strong word in my opinion.
Grand Wizard of the KKK can conjure up images of hate but some pudgy evangelical preacher spewing the generally accepted truth to his audience just seems to me to be what all preachers do.
Having been raised a southern Baptist I know that things like abortion and homosexuality are supposed to bother me but neither one of them ever has. If I said they did I would be a liar on top of everything else.
Lowery is doing the benediction. I don’t know if Hannity is in a snip about that. I have not listened to him today.
I am still confused about the magical phrase “marriage”. If legal rights is what you are after won’t a civil union give those to you?
Is it the fact that marriage is more a religious thing and civil union is more of a state sponsored thing?
I really am just confused by how pissed off some folks get over this invocation thing. And I cannot see a legitimate comparison of Rick Warren and the Grand Poobah of the KKK.
But again that could be because I really don’t know shit about the guy. He has always come off to me as being one of those self help kind of guys who make damn good money writing sappy books.
Hamsher may be going a little hard on him… but
the “generally accepted” part of his so-called “truth” doesn’t make it more excusable. There are plenty of things that earn that Grand Poobah the ire we direct at him that were once “generally accepted”, including in the pulplit.
And, you know – if Warren’s position on gay marriage were thoughtful… maybe if he, like you, thought that “marriage” should be a church thing and “civil union” should be a state thing (even if he didn’t think that hetero marriages should become “civil unions” according to the state)… Maybe if he did the best he could to make a respectful stand… then his choice to preside over the inaugural invocation wouldn’t be such a slap in the face to gay people. The fact is, that he gave this horrible, phony excuse showing that he is either a liar or just cares too much about himself to give a rat’s ass about somebody else’s marriage. He actually said that gay marriages were in the same category as child molestation and incest. Basically, he made clear that he wants to treat gay people as second class citizens because he thinks of them as second class citizens.
Actually, I am somewhat sympathetic to the civil unions compromise myself, with certain preconditions: such as 1) the full faith and credit clause applies to them and 2) all “state” marriages are converted to “civil unions”.
Because it is the rights that are important.
BUT: to have the “marriage” option for heteros and only the “civil union” for homos begs the question of why. The why is obvious: it’s a label. It’s a label that says “you are not what we are”. And, even if it’s appropriate for God’s self-appointed representatives on earth to do that in their pulpits, it is not an appropriate action of the state.
“He actually said that gay marriages were in the same category as child molestation and incest.”
Well that is inexcusable. And as I have said I know very little about the guy. I heard a fellow on Olbermann last night characterize him as “Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt” and I thought that was pretty funny.
John Cole has a couple of posts up that deal with the issue and I have really enjoyed reading the comments.
What if he had had Lowery do the invocation and Warren do the benediction? Would that have been any better?
Because I am telling you man, Warren represents the majority opinion on the issue and you can’t just pretend that he and they do not exist. You have to try and find a way to deal with them. And you can’t deal with them unless you allow them a part in the conversation.
It is a touchy subject and I have been encouraged that many gays in the comments section over at balloon-juice feel pretty much the same way about it that I do or at least they claim to be gay and claim to have that opinion.
It is just an invocation. It does nothing to do with policy. Gay marriages will one day be legal and seen as no big deal just like interracial marriages are now.
And ain’t it kinda funny how discussions about homosexuality seem to always bring in comparisons to race?
In my attempts to understand why African-Americans are so against gay marriage I think that maybe they get tired of the comparisons and figure that being black ain’t even kinda sorta like being gay and they want to be damn sure everybody understands that.
Well, you know Warren got to be a BIG part of the conversation by hosting the Saddleback Church forum earlier this year. I don’t have a problem with him being a part of the conversation. I have a problem with him being given credibility as a religious leader if he is going to lead immorally. Being given a role in leading prayer is giving him credibility as a religious leader, so I don’t think that someone who claims to be on the side of the angels on this one should give that credibility to the devil.
But, yeah – part of the conversation is fine. I’m for that.
There is a word for it when two minorities treat each other as badly as or worse than society as a whole treats them. I forget what it is. I have known a lot of blacks that don’t want equal rights for gays but want them badly for themselves. Being gay isn’t anything like being (fill in the blank… anything I am or you are)… but that doesn’t mean we get something they don’t.
I never did remember that word, but here’s a paper about inter-minority conflict.
I like this take on it, by the way.
That is a good take on it. I would be willing to bet that Warren softens his stance on gays going forward.
The guy just does not come off to me as being a “hatemonger”. He is teaching what he has been taught and what he has heard without giving it a hell of a lot of thought.
He also has to say what his audience wants to hear else his income drops dramatically.
But I still predict that he will work more towards the center in the future.
Because that is where his audience is headed.
Well, it’s good know that Jane Hamsher is keeping an eye on the hatemongers, especially those who have the same views on marriage as the president-elect, who is judged quite differently and not considered a hater. [I accepted double standards as, well, a standard, long ago]. Maybe she’ll slap a blackface on Warren as an example of credible discourse (while sliming anyone that you disagree with).
Quote/link, pls.
Link from beliefnet.
by the way, I’m almost 100% sure that Obama did not campaign in favor of Proposition 8.
and, of course, there was no horse-dung out of Obama’s mouth about how the CA Supreme Court’s decision which Prop 8 overturned somehow affected preachers’ free speech.
I don’t know if Warren supports civil unions or not. But there is more to a position on gay rights and gay marriage than just whether or not you support civil unions. I tried to make that understood in the opening post.
It’s the difference between being too cowardly to come out in favor of gay marriage and “settling” for civil unions, and actively campaigning against gay rights and repeating falsehoods designed to stigmatize gay people.
You’re stretching to find boogeymen, buddy. This is almost as back-bending an example as when you guys were told to hate Bill Donohue for Amanda Marcotte’s downfall. Besides, wasn’t it only a few weeks ago that you guys were told that the Mormons were the culprit to demonize vis-a-vis gay marriage in CA? Instead of, you know, the voters who voted against it (yep, all those Obama voters)?
Sorry, the stretch to label the preacher as a homophobe & hatemonger, at the behest of PFAW & the other groups, is something that I don’t think many will subscribe to.
Primarily, because it’s false and demeaning. Obama is setting a good example by listening to various points of view instead of the echo chamber. Would that PFAW, Jane Hamsher and many others who hate people like me while claiming that I’m a hatemonger, act in a similar fashion.
Like I said earlier, Hamsher calling him a hatemonger, might have been a little bit harsh. Nevertheless, his actions and statements vis-a-vis homosexuality are unconscionable and destructive, and unworthy of any who is supposed to be a respected spiritual leader.
Then the anger might best be directed at Obama, since he’s the one giving him the green light.
This is going to be a long 8 years…..
Some of mine are too! I’m actually OK with Rick Warren being invited to do the invocation (and am actually somewhat relieved that it is NOT jeremiah Wright), mostly because I believe that Warren is eventually going to see the light and get it right on this issue, just as he has on AIDS in Africa, and seems to be now on the War on Terror and Gitmo, and…well let’s just say that he’s a pretty bright guy, he wants to do right, and he truly BELIEVES in the GOSPEL, and isn’t just mouthing some sort of lame Bible College ideology….enough for now
EC, I hope you’re right, but the impression I get from Warren is that he is bright but not thoughtful, and if he gets on the right side of the issue it will probably be more for the reasons Buck suggests – that he followed the lead of (the younger demographic in) his audience.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he has a heart – it’s just that you see more of it when his influence and money stands to gain from going by it.
RW, I am angry with Obama for the pick. That was the point of the post. It doesn’t go much past that, but I do think Obama sold out on this one in a bad way.
Expecting a preacher to go against the holy bible – which is quite clear on this issue (please, everyone, don’t waste time arguing that point) – is asking quite a lot.
One can be open minded, thoughtful, loving and express decency towards their fellow man while at the same time differing with the PFAW & Jane Hamsher on a certain political issue.
Do you ever worry about stuff like…well I dont know…like…
…Why doesnt the mail run on time??
…Why doesnt the garbage man pickup the crap at the same time?
…If McDonalds brought the McRib Sandwich back by popular demand….then why was it dropped in the first place??
RW – What issue is it that the Bible is clear on? I probably agree with your interpretation that the Bible clearly disapproves of homosexuality. I don’t know anything in the Bible that mandates anything like Warren’s actions on this issue. What is it that requires him to misrepresent the CSC decision Prop 8 overturns? What is it that requires him to compare homosexual marriage to pedophile marriage? What is it that requires him, really, to work against civil marriage for gay people?
Yeah… and by the way – even though I don’t think one has to go against the holy Bible to leave well enough alone and let gay people enjoy the same rights as the rest of us… if it goes against the Bible to do the right thing, I don’t think it’s too much to ask of a preacher or of anyone else. Right is more important than Holy. The other way around is … bad.
He didn’t compare gay marriage to pedophelia.
Take it up with the Democratic party, in power with huge majorities, and the president elect, the Democratic voters in California, etc.
It appears that the liberal interest groups say “get mad at the mormons & Rick Warren” (and include the words ‘civil rights’ as much as possible) and the hounds are unleashed. Why aren’t the voters in CA called hatemongers & bigots, liars and hypocrites?
Could it be that this is manufactured outrage that is pure politics?
Why no fight for polygamists to have ‘the same rights as the rest of us’? Do we have to wait until they have political clout within the DNC?
BTW, Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah (and happy festivus) guys.
Today is Chanukah, so Happy Chanukah to you, too. And, if I don’t talk to you before then, Merry Christmas. And Happy Festivus!
Have you ever considered the fact that the Mormon church believes that the Bible permits polygomy, yet they are not actively seeking or requesting that the law be changed?
Smijer said,
I say that differences exist and whether or not we like that, it is true. The state recognizes this and it is very appropriate. Consider when a law is passed that makes it illegal for narcotics to be sold to citizens on the street, but perfectly legal in a pharmacy or an 18 year old cannot buy liquor, but a 21 and up is allowed. Another example would be that it is legal for a citizen to obtain a drivers license, but not a foreigner.
Strictly your opinion. Even if your opinion was the correct one, “right” must be defined. That is why we have laws. I think it is right for parents to be notified when their underage child seeks an abortion. You probably think that is not right. In a true democracy, the majority rules on these issues.
Marriage is an institution. That means an established law, custom, or practice. Because of this, it has to be defined and in this case it is an institution that is licensed by the state and therefore the state has a right to define it and to regulate it. There has to be a definition and guidelines, such as whether a person can marry their brother or sister or have more wives than one and whether a marriage can be recognized if it is between any two people other than a man and a woman, etc.
While it is true that there is not a “hate-speech law” in our country, there are many countries who already have laws that punish some speech. Why shouldn’t Christians be concerned here? Many of the very things that were feared a few years back are now a reality, such as tax dollars being used to support organizations that promote homosexuality and abortion. Obama is promising to force doctors to perform abortions which will cause many Christian doctors to stop practicing medicine. Parents who accept the teaching of the Bible have already been forced to either allow their children to be taught about homosexuality at a very tender age or remove their child from government schools. Why should we believe that ‘hate-speech’ laws are not just around the corner, especially with a liberal executive and legislative branch in power? Before the next election, it is very likely that all three branches will be controlled by liberals, so convince me there is nothing to fear. .
Now, having said all of that, I will say that it does not mean that Christians hate homosexuals when they want marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman. I do not hate Mormons, but I do not want polygamy made legal. I do not hate people who are addicted to heroin, but I do not want the drug sold legally. For one to take a stand against something that does not seem good for society, is not equivalent to hatred. Many in our society are seeking to have the world believe that Christians are full of hate because they stand by the teachings of the Bible. While it is true that some people claim to be Christians who do hate others, that does not make true Christians hate filled. Yet, no distinctions are made when it comes to the rhetoric.
You’re right. There is a lot of hatred still in this country where it concerns gays, but what you and Rick Warren do doesn’t rise to that level.
On the other hand, Warren thoughtlessly takes a made-up position about what’s “good for society” and considers this un-reflective opinion more important than the good of the people who are actually affected by his efforts to dissolve their families. This shows that he lacks respect for others if they are gay.
I could make an argument every bit as thoughtful and respectful about what is “good for society” that devout Christians shouldn’t be allowed to marry since there is such a greater likelihood of divorce in that group. It would be stupid and thoughtless of me, and disrepectful of Christians. But it wouldn’t be any worse than what Rick Warren is doing to gay people.
That said, he has removed some of the anti-gay rhetoric from his web-site lately, and he may actually be in the process of learning that gay people are no less deserving of respect than others even as we speak. I hope so.