I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Rick Warren needs a simple history lesson.  All of these things have been the definition of marriage until very recently.  Even in the Bible, a man marrying multiple wives is very common.  And it has been common throughout history for old men to marry young girls.  Even sibling marriage has been practiced among royalty.  These aren’t new ideas; they are simply what marriage used to be.  These things are the traditional meaning of marriage.  If Warren wants traditional, biblical marriage, he should support all of these things.  Instead, we have a new version of marriage where both partners enter into it voluntarily, and their roles within the marriage are based on their individual character rather than their anatomy.

What? I can’t stand it when these interviewers don’t bother challenging outright BS like this statement!

To be fair, the interviewer in question is Larry “Softball” King—he’s about as useless as Barbara Walters. That said, most interviewers who land this kind of high-profile interview aren’t much better. Bloggers like yourself may have done their research for them, and interviewers like Jon Stewart or Keith Olbermann may have shown them how to make use of damning quotes and videos, but the fact is that most of them are too lazy and/or too droolingly grateful for access to do more than pucker up like King does.

Actually, it’s rather encouraging that he feels constrained to lie about it.

Rea, not to me, and here’s why. I don’t think he’s lying because he feels he “has” to, I feel he’s lying to deceive the greatest number of people. He can say with fair certainty that the majority of his base won’t watch Larry King and the very few who DO will just assume that the liberal media somehow vut-and-paste those words together rather than him actually saying them.

On the other hand, the moderate folks will hear him and go on thinking he’s just a feel-good moderate mega-pastor (something I assumed, a long time ago, because I incorrectly assumed that a flaming bigot wouldn’t attain mega-pastor status) and that the liberals and gays were just full of it when we objected to his invocation invitation.

I hate, hate, hate “news” people who can’t be bothered to ask a follow-up question. Why not take Larry off the stage and just let Warren monologue to the audience? It’d be faster.

I was about to second rea, but Essie raises a good point. Hmm… and I think I’m going to have to go with Essie because my husband (who grew up evangelical but was out of it before Warren really became a big deal) used to think Warren was alright because he cared about poverty and was pretty shocked when he read all the things he’d said about gays. There is a “for general consumption” Warren and a “Christian” Warren.

In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be

He’s a lying liar who lies.

I’m not even upset with him for doing so, b/c Essie is right: he knows his people aren’t watching, and he knows if any of “his” people do see him being soft on gay marriage on Larry King, he can tell them it’s b/c of the PC pressure Obama’s folks put on him and that he has to move carefully among the unsaved—but note that he did still say marriage should only be between men and women.

As if that statement alone weren’t homophobic.

—————-

Outrage should be directed at Larry King and his producers.  They should be sent links of evidence of Rick Warren’s lies, i.e., it wasn’t the question that equivocated bestiality, incest and homosexuality, it was Warren himself.

They should be ashamed for not doing their research.  Perhaps they could be made to feel ashamed that this guy tricked them—that might be a better strategy than simply telling them that their journalism is a massive FAIL.  They might want to clarify.

How long is it going to be before national personalities: politicians, advocates, celebrities, realize that EVERYTHING they say especially in an interview is recorded?  That most people can read?  That getting away with a soft ball interviewer doesn’t mean you’ve actually gotten away with anything.

Your hate is out there, assholes.  Lying about it makes you look stupid.  OWN IT. 

Rick Warren hates <strike>gay</strike>people.  He doesn’t let people he hates join his church b/c he believes they are evil.  He should own that hatred.  If he really believes that’s what his God thinks his flock should do, then he shouldn’t be scrubbing it from his websites and lying about it.

Put it all in the sunshine.

Nope, it’s slicker than that.

Notice that the quoted rebuttal doesn’t say that he is actually pro-marriage. Just that he is not an anti-gay-marriage activist. Since “activist” is such a fuzzy term, he can claim whatever he wants and be believed by the base. Since the activist label is so flexible - two women just trying to put food on the table for their kids and willing to say so to a reporter are gay “activists” while surely, he is just a right-thinking individual who was asked his opinion. Just because millions of people get his opinion reported to them as the Word of God, that doesn’t make him an activist. Just godly.

Similarly, he can claim that he never put out a statement on Prop 8. This one I’m more skeptical about, but all he had to do was not mention the amendment specifically. “Pastor Rick, what do you think about Prop 8?” “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and we shouldn’t redefine an ancient tradition.”

See - nothing about Prop 8. Just about general principles. Just happened that his general principles came up in a conversation about Prop 8.

And he may even believe that he wasn’t telling people how to vote, just how to think, and that somehow it makes a difference.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the anti-gay blowhard. He’s absolutely anti-gay. And proud of it.

This is the same game played by the sort of people who respond to a question like “What do you think of African American golfers?” with comments like “I don’t think monkeys or dogs should be allowed on the green” and then announce, “What? I never said anything negative about African-Americans!”

Actually, it works out great for him. He makes the very clear condemnation of gay marriage as akin to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, and then his denial only needs to be “I didn’t say they were the same! I don’t believe that!” without having to explicitly state his condemnation of gay marriage as part of his denial. Even his apology to his gay friends and leaders was no doubt “If any of you took offense to that, I’m sorry. I don’t believe they are the same at all and never meant to imply that.”

An actual refutation of the accusation would be along the lines of “No, I stand by my condemnation of incest and pedophilia, but I absolutely believe in the importance and dignity of gay relationships and support public recognition of them.” But then his head would explode, and some poor minimum wage schub would have to mop it up.

Christopher Hitchens is exactly right about Rick Warrren—“a tree-shaking huckster and publicity-seeker.”  He’s got the Hawaiian shirt and the whole purpose-driven business but he’s still peddling the same old bullshit.

BTW, catgirl in the first comment is absolutely right.  These Christers who claim that marriage has “always” been one man and one woman apparently can’t even read their own Old Testaments they claim such loyalty to.

I am not sure whether I should do this, given how much hate has been generated (since the Middle Ages) by Christians taking Jewish religious texts out of context and using them to “show” that we Jews either don’t practice (what said Christians deemed to be “authentic Judaism” ... as if it was their place to do that) or that our religion is misguided from its Biblical roots (a tradition that continues today on both the right and the left)—and Hillel did teach “what is hateful to you, do not do to others”—but I can’t resist pointing out: “We are deceivers, yet true” (II Corinthians 6:8).

But….

Perhaps….

Just maybe….

The wall is cracking just a little.  Maybe.

One of these so-called pastors may actually get an attack of conscience some day.  Be ready for it.  Keep confetti stored.  It’s going to happen.  Iowa happened.  This will happen too.  You heard it here first.

Signed,
Eternal Optimist

DAS, I figure one good turn deserves another ... carry on.

Rick Warren is the worst (well, maybe not the WORST, but he’s pretty damned bad).  I’ve posted here before about what a nightmare it is living less than a mile from Saddleback’s “Main Campus”. The thousands (literally) of people from all over the county that descend on our neighborhood on Sundays fucks over everybody who wants to get out for breakfast/coffee/walk/bikeride.

End rant.

He’s still a bigot, he just won’t come out with it on Larry King because then he wouldn’t sell as many books. He can say all the bigoted things he wants to in the safety of “fellowship” with his fellow fundies, but saying it on tv would scare off the soccer moms who have bought his books. Thank you to all bloggers who continue to expose these hypocrites.

A good sign is that this asshole needs to lie about it. Think about the change in perception of racial bigotry: decades ago you could be proud of one’s intolerance. Now it must be practiced in dark little corners or behind mountains of paperwork. The fact that a fundie, surrounded by fellow fundies, has to lie is a good sign.

I don’t think he’s lying because he feels he “has” to, I feel he’s lying to deceive the greatest number of people. He can say with fair certainty that the majority of his base won’t watch Larry King and the very few who DO will just assume that the liberal media somehow vut-and-paste those words together rather than him actually saying them.

I can’t completely disprove this interpretation, but note that even within it that he still had to hope that his flock wouldn’t see the interview. That tension itself betrays a weakness. And his lies make him very weak in this context. A bigoted politician is very dangerous, because lies about his bigotry can mask legislation that hurts the population he despises. A pastor influences by his words, not his policies, so Warren can’t have it both ways: if he’s not preaching evil because he needs to lie about his intentions, then he’s not preaching evil. He can’t do the wrong he’d like to do. That is good.

catgirl  on  04/07  at  07:58 AM
Rick Warren needs a simple history lesson.  All of these things have been the definition of marriage until very recently.  Even in the Bible, a man marrying multiple wives is very common.  And it has been common throughout history for old men to marry young girls.  Even sibling marriage has been practiced among royalty.  These aren’t new ideas; they are simply what marriage used to be.  These things are the traditional meaning of marriage.  If Warren wants traditional, biblical marriage, he should support all of these things.  Instead, we have a new version of marriage where both partners enter into it voluntarily, and their roles within the marriage are based on their individual character rather than their anatomy.

Conservatism and, by extention, fundmentalism, is never conservative. It creates a false past that is radically different from the present and then takes radical steps to reach that “tradition.” It is a decidedly ahistorical ideology motivated by the cultural desires of its members and it will happily break with doctrine espoused for centuries for a chance at the new, shiny thing that they decide they want.

I was going to leave a comment, but Catgirl beat me to it. I started laughing when reading what Warren said he didn’t believe marriage should be: all of these marriages are quite common in the Bible. In fact Abraham and Sarah’s marriage encompassed all three of these Warren taboos: They were half-siblings, Abraham took Hagar as his second wife or concubine, and Sarah was 10 years younger than Abraham, which means when they married Sarah would have been around 13 and Abraham 23. Warren’s “traditional marriage” of one man with one woman of about the same age and consenting adults is a fairly modern idea.

Well I guess I did leave a comment.