Rick Warren Lies on Larry King

Here Rick Warren lying on Larry King:

I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been. I never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.

YouTube Preview Image

And here is Rick doing exactly what he said he didn’t do in October 2008:

Let me just say this really clearly. We support Proposition 8. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8…. We should not let 2% of the population change the definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and religion for 5,000 years. This isn’t a Christian issue, it’s a humanitarian issue…. So I urge you to support Proposition 8 and pass that word on. I’m going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this, but everybody knows what I believe about it.

YouTube Preview Image

The Internet never forgets, Rick.

(via)

  • Reginald Selkirk

    the definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and religion for 5,000 years.

    Except of course, for the early Mormons. And the Biblical patriarchs. And…

  • LRA

    I’m not surprised. Hypocrisy, like the persecution-complex, is a normal part of religion, especially the christian one.

  • Roger

    He is a bloated imbecile who knows nothing about the very tradition he claims to represent. And he’s a bigot in sheep’s clothing.

  • http://arkonbey.blogspot.com arkonbey

    It’s always damned funny when absolutely blatant lies come out. If he was on the show of a real journalist, the second clip would have been played…

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Why am I not shocked by this?

  • xian-x

    “…there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar…”

  • Tiffany

    It’s scary that people such as he reproduce.

  • Shelly

    I just want one of them to explain their positions. Stop the lying, stop the hating, and just explain why gay marriage is going to hurt them in any way, and without using any bible reference. It seems nobody can even do that. They hate a whole group of human beings with no cause, other than maybe”thinking about gay sex is icky”. Guess they can’t control their own thoughts?

    • c

      Rick is a liar, and as a Christian it is upsetting to see him as a leader cower when there is a little public pressure on him. Just because someone rejects homosexuality, doesn’t mean they are doing so in hate of the homosexuals. God hates sin but loves the sinner… enough so that he took the death penalty of sin in our place. That is love. God created man and woman as a perfect blend of strengths, emotions, physical harmony, interests, and to multiply, sharing in the beauty and awe of creating life together, and nurturing their children into adulthood. To distort His creation and His intent, is to distort or pervert His will.
      Christ makes it very clear that homosexuals, as well as liars and adulturers will have no place in heaven. However, recognizing the sin is the biggest step. Repenting, or turning around, from the sin and asking God’s forgiveness, is key, whether it be for the sin of homosexuality, adultry, or being a liar.

      • christian

        Well said. Hopefully Pastor Warren repents.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    Good grief, a US television priest who’s a liar?! I can hardly believe it!

    /sarcasm

  • Devysciple

    The Internet never forgets [...]

    True, but brainwashed believers in religion do, as well as voters, as we all (or at least most of us) do, as can be seen in the infamous saying “Ahh, the good old times…”

    Sadly, this behaviour seems to be hardwired into us, believing what we want to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (e.g. “God exists”, “Candidate X will surely improve my personal situation”, “Military service was such a great time in my life”, and so on).

    If it were otherwise, religion and politics would be way different today (and people would perhaps be even more depressed, if they had to recall their lives the way they really happened).

  • Question-I-thority

    …the definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and religion for 5,000 years….

    Three problems here:
    1) The definition of marriage across cultures has been anything but monolithic;
    2) Homosexual people and partnerships have been accepted in many cultures. The Lacotas come to mind. Their Spring Sun festival could not take place without gay priests. Also, in pre-missionary Hawaii, men were allowed to set up households together; and,
    3) Just because something has had fairly broad acceptance in the past doesn’t mean it should continue. Otherwise we would be stuck with slavery, women and children as chattel, authoritarian governance, etc.

    In every single culture and religion for the past 5,000 years the definition of church did not have the word mega in it. I say we vote to limit the size of congregations! :)

  • Brent

    After reading the post, I was about to agree with the point until I watched the videos. I think it’s pretty clear that what he was saying to Larry King was that he never endorsed Prop 8 for the two years leading up to the vote UNTIL THE WEEK BEFORE the vote when he was approached by members of his church. Blast him for his position if you’d like, but the Larry King interview doesn’t conflict with his previous statement. Perhaps he misspoke, but this wasn’t an intentional lie.

  • RobotzAreAwesome

    Even when I was a believer, I always suspected this man was a fat money grubbing whoremongral.

  • Niva Tuvia

    That’s twisted. But it’s not like he’s the only public figure to contradict himself embarassingly. It’s not that big of a deal. He just has no idea what he’s talking about. That’s definetely not new.

  • brgulker

    1) God commands Christians to be truthful.
    2) Christians are not always truthful.
    3) Therefore, God does not exist.

    ================

    For the record, big boo boo on Warren’s part, especially with all the media attention he’s received lately.

  • http://endemoniada.org/ Martin

    Why?

    Why, why, why can’t a world-known TV personality with his own TV show and a full team of competent people behind him manage to do what one person with nothing but an internet connection and a vocabulary can do in mere minutes?

    Why is it so hard for media to do what media is supposed to do? Why do we have to write our own news, because actual news organizations have forgotten what the word even means?

    Why do we let media help people like this so transparently, so obviously? Why are people like Rick Warren able to go on TV without being exposed in seconds?

    This makes me so infuriated…

  • brgulker

    I think there might be a bit of flexibility here.

    Warren admits that when approached about the issue, he spoke his mind (put it in a note?).

    If this YouTube video is his response, then he might actually be telling the truth.

    We would have to assume, however, that he misspoke on Larry King and should have said video, not note, and we would also have to assume that the second video was his response to a question, not necessarily volunteered activism.

    From my perspective, it’s unlikely but possible that this all happened. We simply don’t have enough information in these two YouTube videos to know for sure.

    Moreover, it’s entirely possible that Warren thinks that answering a question via flash video is not the same thing as being an activist. Frankly, I’m not sure what activist means sometimes either.

    I have opinions and share them often, but I’m not sure that makes me an activist for any of those ideas/causes.

    Anyway, I think there’s a lot more room for doubt and skepticism about this post that is being allowed, which is sort of ironic given the purpose of the blog.

  • claidheamh mor

    He is a bloated imbecile who knows nothing about the very tradition he claims to represent. And he’s a bigot in sheep’s clothing.

    Why am I not shocked by this?

    Good grief, a US television priest who’s a liar?! I can hardly believe it!
    /sarcasm

    I always suspected this man was a fat money grubbing whoremongral.

    Aw, man, everyone’s already expressed exactly the revulsion I had at this bloated, dishonest dude. So I just have to second the motions in one big homo-commie-pot-jizzporium, because that phrase may be the only laugh I get out of this hypocrisy.

    Dan Savage’s website created especially for Warren

    Christ, he could hear the pronouncements, couched in sanctimonious platitudes made by men like Congdon who concealed filthy decisions under respectable titles.
    -The Matarese Circle
    by Robert Ludlum

  • http://www.theamenheresy.com Bill

    Just another religious huckster making it big by playing off phobia and fear. He”s as two-faced as Elmer Gantry and as phony as the Resurrection.

    Wonder what secrets Pastor Rick has in his holy life?

  • reformedfred

    Anyone noticing how much RW is starting to look like Jerry Falwell? scary.

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    Yes, but he’s not a real Christian…

  • Annie

    Since when is marriage a humanitarian issue? And how ironic that he would advocate discriminating against a group of people by claiming it is humanitarian.

  • http://newref.blogspot.com James

    The government has no place in deciding who is a family, or who can marry.

    At the time President Obama was born, it would have been illegal for his parents to have been wed in 16 of the states. In 1967 bigots said “Protect the sanctity of marriage: No interracial marriage.” In 2009 bigots of the same ilk say “Protect the sanctity of marriage: No gay marriage.”

  • LRA
  • Framtonm

    Cripes, that’s like (Rev.) Ian Paisley saying that he had never made an inflammatory statement in his life. After calling Catholics in Ireland the, ‘Damnable acolytes of the Anti-Christ!’
    Ah, Xtian tolerance – doncha just love it?

  • vorjack

    Well, the blog ‘Pam’s House Blend’ has a post up: “True believers are angry at Rick Warren’s ‘betrayal’”. Seems there’s some backlash from the other side.

    Warren has be trying to walk a very fine line in his quest to be the next Billy Graham. He can’t piss off his base, but he doesn’t want to end up as the next Falwell.

    He should take a lesson from the way Graham tentatively supported, then had to back away from, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Sometimes you can’t have it both ways.

  • Zotmaster

    I guess this is kind of an asshole statement, but if Christian leaders don’t seem to believe in the Bible, why should anyone else?

  • einquisitive

    I don’t see what the big deal is anyway. If we ban gay marriage because it is a sin to sleep with other men, then we should ban alcohol too because getting drunk is a sin. There is no faith if you are forced to be righteous by the government.

    I know Rick Warren knows the truth (how could he not), he just lacks the boldness to say it and to deal with the consequences.

  • Prophetic Cowboy

    False Prophet-Straight to Hell!!!! Yahweh will pour out His Wrath soon!!!!

  • http://blog.christocentric.com Carlotta

    Not a good thing when a Christian and an atheist have similar blog posts – and agree!

    Yep, sadly Rick Warren lied.

    But he’s still my brother.

  • http://blog.christocentric.com Carlotta

    “custador

    If we accept that not all Christians are fundamentalist IDiots and Creatins, will you accept that not all atheists are frothing-at-the-mouth Christopher Hitchins wannabes? Seems a reasonable trade to me…”

    Okay, I accept!

  • http://blog.christocentric.com Carlotta

    LRA

    “Carlotta, I say no thanks to your blog. I gave it a quick skim over and I can tell that you don’t exactly base your opinions on reason. When you throw out terms like “normal family” when discussing feminism, you fail to understand that the norms you are talking about aren’t actual norms (except on 1950s-1980s sitcoms).

    Also, you are a hypocrite. Jesus commanded you to love your “enemies”, not hate them. Further, these “enemies” are your neighbors– and you are commanded to love your neighbor as yourself.”

    LRA, when on a Christian blog, you have to remember when Christians talk about the “norm” it’s always in relation to what the bible considers normal. So, it’s actual norms but from a biblical perspective.

    Besides, if you took the time to go through my blog, you would have found that there are national statistics of the family that support the “biblical norm” of family – biological father and mother as BEST for children. The feminist norm isn’t what’s best for families in other words. (see childtrends.org and Mapping America)

    As far as hating my enemies – where do I say I hate any atheists? I hate your belief system. That’s why I injected the word “ideology” because thats what I hate in atheism. Not the person.

  • Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  • missbombay

    The first marriage that most people around the world have heard about is Adam and Eve. There was only one woman and only one man. Even though polygamy was accepted to a certain extent by majority of the cultures during the time of the Old Testament era and practiced in certain religions after the time of Christ, most civilizations will agree to the fact that marriage is better suited for one man and one woman. Studying history of the polygamy heritage, there seems to be more than its share of headaches and sorrows within this acceptance of lifestyle and choice. It doesn’t take very long to find problems of dysfunctionality within polygamy. It is hard enough with one man and one woman trying to get along with each other but add another individual to the mix and you will get a fine surprise.

    As far as homosexuaity – this lifestyle was looked down upon even though it was practiced by many cultures. Without our modern technology of medicine and science, it would be impossible to procreate without both natural genders. Without in-vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, insemination, procreation would cease to exist between two lesbian partners and likewise with two gay partners. The penis that is made to create life should not be used to put into place that disposes the death of excremenates. That is not natural. Men and women were intended to compliment each other in various ways as well as sexually. If you were to start humanity in an area where there was no people there, would you bring two women or two men to start the population? No, that would be out of the question. You would bring a man and a woman.

    Someone mentioned above that lying is a sin. Well, the author who created that particular commandment was also the one who said homosexuality was a sin and an abomination.

  • mamorrow

    Yes, your right the Author who said lying is a sin also said that homosexuality is a sin. But he also said several other interesting things. “Judge not or ye be judged” “He without sin cast the first stone.” Also, homosexuality isn’t mentioned in the ten commandments, but lying is, which in my way of thinking makes it a much bigger sin….don’t you think?

    Luckily we won’t have the problem of not having procreation, because their are STILL straight people, and to say that somehow having Gays will stop that is laughable. Most people are straight, there have always been Gay people in all society and all times. Allowing them to Marry isn’t going to increase their numbers, and its not going to decrease the amount of straight people who get married and have children.

  • http://maaark.wordpress.com maaark

    Is this discussion about a false minister or about sex and society? Typical of Daniel’s posts it inflames to distort the issues. Kind of a Rush Limbaugh theatrical website and all about “unreason”.

    I’ll comment on sexuality when its in the right context.

  • http://blog.christocentric.com Carlotta

    “Bill

    American Psychilogical Association also disagrees.

    http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

    Annotations include empirical studies.

    You are going to have to do better than the Mapping America Project, which is nothing more that the Family Research Council’s attempt to demonize gay parenting.”

    Bill, is that your only reason for disavowing the statistical data from Mapping America because of their results showing that gay parenting is less effective than biological parenting overall?

    The bottom line is that people are going to support whatever data they can find that agrees with their beliefs. You have two groups of social engineers that disagree with one another so who’s telling the truth?

    This is another topic for another time but feel free to comment on my blog topic: The Negative Effects of Gay Marriage that covers that very discussion, or Daniel can start a discussion here or direct us to a older post to discuss it.

  • mamorrow

    I happen to be Christian. Maybe not by your definition since I support gay marriage. Pointing out Rick Warrens Lie isn’t to judge him but to show that he is being a hypocrite. I think as a Christian people should be worried about their own, individual sins instead of making laws and policy to regulate the sins of others. I also think using the name of Jesus in politics is the definition of using the Lords name in vain. If Christian’s spent less time involved with the GOP on issues like gay marriage and more time helping the poor, hungry and sick, society would be much better off. I think that Christianity’s decline in our society can be directly linked to its involvement in politics.

    • http://tabbiesgarden.wordpress.com Tabbie

      Stephanie, Stephanie, Stephanie…you’re rambling.

      Aside from that, if you didn’t watch what the man said, how can you possibly say he did not lie? You just know? Blind Faith? Well, screw that! Watch and weep, lady.

      Rick Warren clearly stated on Larry King that he did not do exactly what we see him doing in the next video. Period. HE’S A BIG FAT LIAR…unless that is a muppet that looks and sounds just like him there in the second video. =P

    • c

      It’s because Christians have sat on the sidelines for too long acting only on the defense, that our country has slipped into moral depravity. Our freedoms only exist in the first place because God gave us our rights. We as a people recognized that, and our representatives recorded it. The people were given the gift to create our own government. We created the federal and state governments as “part” of the government with specific and limited responsibilities…. we, the people are the government… the government is “of” us. The created thing is not greater than the creator. The chain of command was recognized then as God, the creator of the people, and the people creator of our government. Christians following God’s laws are why we even have a Constitution and Bill of rights…. they were written with God’s laws as the foundation.
      The people designed our government as a republic… not as a democracy. A republic will guarentee one’s rights much stronger than a democracy will, because a republic is set in the written “rule of law”. It is established and can only be changed through legislation. However, a democracy is a simple majority rule, whch means if 51% of the people decide to steal your property, mob rule wins…. No due process.
      So… thank the Christians and their faith in God for our freedoms. Our forefathers got down on their knees and spent many hours in prayer as they put together those documents.They were activists in the faith. Our problem today is that the Christians have bought into the passive atttude while forgetting that their responsibility as a good steward of their gift requires them to be “active” in the government. This government, by design, is “of” the people. We are the government… not just onlookers, but partakers of it.

  • Pingback: Liar, Liar « Defending. Contending.

  • Pingback: Miscellanea Agnostica » The Purpose-Driven Liar

  • http://tabbiesgarden.wordpress.com Tabbie

    Funny this! Yet another Christian minister is caught up in a pack of his own lies. We’ve seen it many times before, and no doubt we’ll see it again.

    The saddest part in most of these cases is not that lies were told, but that when these supposed men of God are confronted with irrefutable proof of their dishonesty, they still cannot admit that they have told a lie. Neither can most of their supporters. Every rationalization will be attempted to rewrite history and twist the truth in order to save face.

    I think if they want to demonstrate even a glimmer of integrity they would realize the best thing to do is to put up their hands in surrender and say, “You caught me. I lied. I admit it.”

  • http://brgulker.wordpress.com/ brgulker

    I recant my defense of Warren, because I finally know (assuming this link is legit, seems to be) the source of the second video posted here. It’s clearly meant to be “public” in that it was meant to be distributed to congregants and apparently the web at large.

    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/13/is-rick-warren-scared-of-george-stephanopoulos/?xid=rss-topstories

    Turns out giving him the benefit if the doubt was a mistake in judgment on my part…

  • Pingback: Miscellanea Agnostica » The Purpose-Driven Coward

  • ProphecyProvesHim

    As a radical Christian, here’s my perspective. I’ve known Rick Warren was corrupt from years back…
    [In fact, I believe, that most (not all) of big Christian leaders (those in the media limelight or leaders of huge megachurches) are corrupt, just as I believe most any politician that makes it as high as President is probably quite corrupt, Obama not excepted--I could also provide video footage of him being caught on DVD clearly lying--and in the most dangerous fashion--VERY convincingly...]
    But Warren is the topic, and any Christian who has truly studied their Bible should’ve known SO much was wrong with Warren’s teachings from The Purpose Driven Life (at least–never heard of him before that) and getting worse in the years since then (his endorsement of the Common Word Document, amongst other things).
    I’m GLAD he was caught in this lie, because he’s hoodwinked SO many “Christians” (some real, many not)… I’ve personally never understood his popularity from ANY perspective but the Americanized, watered down, compromised “church” bought him hook, line & sinker largely because the TRUTH is most “Christians” aren’t real Christians, or at best are Biblically illiterate, often gullible and often also are “following God” more for themselves than truly in obedience to God…
    (and many are tragically legalistic)
    Anyway, Jesus said there were many who would make a mockery of His Name, both “Christians” and atheists…

    I’ve only read through maybe a dozen of this blog’s comments as so little time–to be sure I’ll read any responses to me please email me at michaelsrose1@juno.com. God bless y’all–even those of you who don’t believe in Him!

  • Pingback: Miscellanea Agnostica » More Purpose-Driven Sniveling

  • Stephanie

    He is not an activist with any anti gay group or group working to stop gay marriage. He IS the pastor of a church and does have the right to talk to or give instruction to the members. He does that on a regular basis about a variety of subjects. This was just one of them.

    He brought up what the Bible says and told members what they should do because of that. He did not force anyone to do it tho – he did not demand they leave his church if they didn’t vote in accordance with the Bible. Nor did he require them to tell him how they voted and post a list of names of those members who voted differently.

    i didn’t see the show, so don’t know what all he said, but he is clear that he wasn’t an activist. Talking to the church members
    does not change that.

    that does not make him a liar.

    Some posted about other activities etc in the Bible and things people (Christians) do now. Many of those things were changed in the NT. Also, many people who claim to be a Christian don’t even read the Bible or believe it is true. They would have no idea some of that is in the Bible – or what they are or are not supposed to do or what is in the NT that changes any of it. They might know the 10 commandments – but probably not much else. Probably couldn’t get all 10 correct either.

  • Pingback: LET CONSERVATISM DIE By Coach Dave Daubenmire « ~THE “G” BLOGS - Gunny G Online~

  • dr.R.

    ARGUMENT FROM HYPOCRISY
    (1) I am a hypocrite
    (2) Therefore, god exists

    ARGUMENT FROM HYPOCRISY (II)
    (1) Jesus said in the bibuh there will be hypocrites
    (2) Rick Warren is a hypocrite
    (3) Therefore, god exists

  • cello

    lol

  • vorjack

    When you factor in all the changes that have happened to marriage in the past few centuries, you’re not left with much in the way of tradition.

    Somehow, “Marriage just as it’s always been, since 1967,” doesn’t have much of a ring to it.

  • claidheamh mor

    And he’s flat wrong.

    Even one semester of anthropology, at a community college, had enough reading to cover cultures with polyandry, polygyny, and group marriage. I don’t remember which cultures had polyandry or group marriage, less common than polygyny. But I do remember variations of polygyny, and had an African co-worker who had had two mothers, and said he might like to marry two wives, “only if I could [make a good enough living to] take care of them”.

    I had to explain to an anthropology-ignorant co-worker that that wasn’t as “weird” as she thought; it was like having a biological mother and a stepmother, but at the same time. He said, “Exactly”.

  • brgulker

    Excellent point. Christians who ignore our own polygamous and polygynous roots are curious to me.

  • mamorrow

    Funny, Lying is one of the 10 commandments and being gay is not…….so according to Rick Warren and his actions it is okay to break the 10 commandments, just don’t be gay.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Shellfish? Fine. Clothing with two fabrics? Fine. Working on the Sabbath day? Fine.

    Homosexuality? It’s immoral — look it up in Leviticus!

    Religion is not a valid excuse for their prejudice; it is not even applied consistently. Of course, why should I expect it to be that way?

  • faithnomore

    OH, I so hear you! I asked this VERY question of an in-law of mine and he never answered. Just parroted back what he’s been lectured in church, “marriage is under attack, marriage is under attack.” I asked him to SPECIFICALLY tell me WHAT this attack looked like, felt like, etc. NO answer. End of conversation.

  • Jabster

    I fine it’s applied absolutely consistently — if it changes something that I do it’s not meant to be taken literally; if it changes something that someone else does then it’s immoral.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Working on the Sabbath day? Fine.

    NASCAR in a nutshell.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” Religion is not a valid excuse for their prejudice; it is not even applied consistently. Of course, why should I expect it to be that way? ”

    The selective morality of Christians and other flavor of holy rollers makes me sick to my stomach.

    How come christians don’t display the vitrol towards other sins and sinners as they do gay folks.

    The whole anti gay stance, rhetoric and behavior amount to nothing more than bullying.

  • SuperJesus

    You’re kidding, right?

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Brent, come on. He says, “I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been.” And he says “during the WHOLE prop 8 thing”.

    And then he’s on record telling people to vote against it, get the word out, that gay marriage is bad.

    He says he’s not an anti-gay marriage activist who supports Prop 8.

    The problem is, he’s an anti-gay marriage activist who supports Prop 8!

  • Jabster

    So never now means I’ve never done something except the times that I have?

  • RobotzAreAwesome

    Wow. Just wow.

  • Roger

    Ain’t self-delusion grand?

  • Roger

    Short answer: CNN sucks.

  • Elemenope

    Simple game theory.

    If all news networks go along with the state (the state here being the stand-in for any important entity of whom the press is charged to cover), then all news networks get what they want (access). If no news networks go along with the state, then the state would be hard pressed to deny them *all* access. However, no news network will unilaterally not go along with the state, because they will lose access, and it would be hard for any one news network to convince the others to follow suit, because of the risk of defections (i.e. it is likely that some news networks will not criticize the state, leaving the state able to punish those that do by denying access).

    If all networks criticize Rick Warren for lying, then Rick Warren will still have no choice but to give them an interview whenever he wants to say something to the public. If none of them criticize him, then he is predisposed to continue giving all of them interviews. However, if some do and some don’t, he can punish the ones that do by giving interviews and access only to those that don’t.

  • brgulker

    It’s possible to be opposed to gay marriage without being anti-gay.

    For example, one could believe and argue that “marriage” should be a strictly religious terms that churches could use how they see fit. One could then adopt a “civil union” term that could apply to hetero and homo sexual unions alike.

    In other words, I think it’s entirely possible to differentiate between the two types of unions without being anti- either way.

    But I agree partially with Brent. It’s not clear where this second YouTube video came from. If it’s his personal thoughts that he’s sharing with his pastor friends in response to a question, then I don’t think it’s fair to label that as “activism.”

    And if we don’t label that as activism, then he’s being entirely truthful in video 1.

    I’m not convinced that’s the case. I’m simply suspending judgment either way because I don’t think there’s enough information. I’m being skeptical.

  • Brent

    I still say he probably mispoke. If he had said “…during the whole prop 8 thing UNTIL…” this would have made more sense, and I’m sure he wishes he had put it that way. I believe that’s what he meant. Can’t you give him the benefit of the doubt even if you don’t agree with his beliefs?

    And I would hardly consider it activism for a pastor to make one statement to his church about the issue a week before the vote, especially when he had been silent on it for the previous two years. Rick Warren is no Fred Phelps.

  • vorjack

    “Moreover, it’s entirely possible that Warren thinks that answering a question via flash video is not the same thing as being an activist. Frankly, I’m not sure what activist means sometimes either.”

    activist: one who is active on behalf of a social or political cause. Sometimes “aggressively active” or “person who works energetically”, so just voicing an opinion is not activism.

    Since Warren is using his influence as a Church leader, drawing from the authority of the bible, and specifically advocating that the listener take a certain action, i.e. vote for Prop. 8, I think he fits the category of “activist.” He’s not just some guy on the street corner giving you his opinion. He’s making an argument for a specific political action.

  • brgulker

    I don’t think it’s possible to argue that he definitively misspoke. It’s possible, but we can’t know based on this information.

    I do agree, however, that one comment to a congregation in response to being asked a direct question does not an activist make.

  • Roger

    Yeah, and Alabama governor George Wallace was no Bull Connor–didn’t mean that he was a great friend to African Americans (at least, not before he got shot and found “religion” or whatever).

  • claidheamh mor

    I still say he probably mispoke.

    And I still say he lied.

  • http://www.BlueNine.info Blue Nine

    Can’t you give him the benefit of the doubt even if you don’t agree with his beliefs?
    Can’t Christians give everybody else the benefit of the doubt even if others don’t agree with their beliefs?

  • Slurm

    “In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious, feminist or vegetarian/vegan activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws”

    Stolen from wikipedia’s Activism entry.

    You dont have to go out with a sign held high in front of a building to be an activist.

  • brgulker

    I think your definition sort of disproves your point, actually, because of (how I understand) the tense of the definition.

    In my view, “one who is active” clearly states present activity and at least implies future activity.

    If, in fact, this video is a response to a question, then I don’t think it’s fair to call him an activist.

    But maybe I’m just splitting hairs, and he’s completely guilty of lying on camera. I’m just trying to play the role of skeptic and give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Maybe. But if you’re not supporting equal rights for gay folks, that sounds anti-gay to me. If I supported a law that said Christians can’t marry because that’s not in my definition of marriage, wouldn’t that be even a tiny little anti-Christian? Christians sure would think so.

    Regardless, he says he’s not an “anti-gay marriage activist” yet CLEARLY he is.

    He lied.

  • Niva Tuvia

    Marriage is marriage whether it’s between man & woman, woman & woman, man & man, or transfestite & transfestite.

  • brgulker

    Daniel,

    I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you about what you’ve said in the first part of your statement.

    I’m not advocating that homosexual unions should be denied civil rights — the 1500 or so civil benefits that come from marriage — as they currently are.

    What I am saying is that the link between religious “marriages” and legal “marriages” should be severed. I think it’s hogwash, for example, that Christian pastors have the authority to marry someone using state authority.

    And because I think that link should be severed, I think we should use a completely new word when it comes to legality and civil rights that would be applied to all “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions,” or “fill in the blank” and be applied to all different types of unions (hetero-, homo-, poly, etc).

    My point isn’t to deny rights by not calling it marriage. My point is to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch when it comes to the legal end of things.

    That way, religious people who want the religious ceremony — regardless of orientation — can have the religious ceremony, and it’s not all entangled with the civil benefits. People who don’t care about the religious piece can continue to ignore it.

    In my opinion, it’s a fair compromise that makes makes civil rights equal and allows religious groups to keep doing what they’re doing.

    Regardless, he says he’s not an “anti-gay marriage activist” yet CLEARLY he is.

    My only point of skepticism comes from the fact that you didn’t tell us where that second YouTube video came from. If it was a part of his personal communication with his network of pastor friends in response to a question he was asked, I would not call that activism.

    On the other hand, if that was meant for distribution publicly or meant to encourage other people to be activists, then I suppose it’s a different story.

  • vorjack

    “And because I think that link should be severed, I think we should use a completely new word when it comes to legality and civil rights …”

    How about this: since it took the church about 1000 years to get its head out of its celibate ass about marriage, most marriages were established under tradition and common law. The state – loosely speaking – has precedence over the church in matters of marriage.

    So how about we retain the word “marriage” for the state, and allow each church to pick its own name for whatever ritual or sacrament these choose to perform? How well do you think that will fly?

  • brgulker

    Retaining the word “marriage” for what I envision civil unions to be wouldn’t make a big difference to me, if that’s what you’re asking. I don’t care what terminology is used one way or the other. My concern is that legal “marriage” and religious “marriage” be separate things.

    If your question is, what will the rest of the general public think? Then, I think it’s probably a different answer. Religious groups have been pretty clear that they want to retain “marriage” and force the other groups to adopt a new word, such as “civil union.”

    In short, it doesn’t matter to me, but I think it does matter to others.

  • Shawn

    Thanks, Vorjack! That was my thought exactly. Just because I didn’t have a religious ceremony, why should I have to give up the word “marriage”?

    I’ve been married for 10 years. Why do I have to be the one who has to start saying “I’ve been civil unioned for 10 years.”

    The semantics behind “marriage” and “civil union” are nothing but a new version of “separate but equal,” which is almost always a “polite” delusion that glosses over the fact that the components are never truly equal. Ultimately, “civil union” will become synonymous with “second class”, “exclusionary”, and “discriminatory.”

  • vorjack

    “The semantics behind “marriage” and “civil union” are nothing but a new version of “separate but equal,”

    I think that’s the practical upshot of it. There have already been cases where couples with civil unions have been denied the privileges of married couples, such as hospital visitation rights. The hospital regulations only allowed married couples to visit, you see …

    There are probably a hundred or so places where being married entitles you to different treatment, from the courtroom to the IRS. I think it would be far simpler to expand the legal definition of marriage than to try to enforce an equality between “civil union” and “marriage” in each of those places.

  • gamingguy

    And a goatee that looks like pubes.

  • Niva Tuvia

    What goatee doesn’t?

  • faithnomore

    ROTFLMAO!!!

  • bdemong

    I think opponents of gay marriage must be unaware that there are 1400+ legal and economic benefits to being married. They must be.

  • Elemenope

    Considering that half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, I’m wondering where all the angry Christians are with placards that read: “Protect the sanctity of marriage: No divorce”.

    You know, priorities.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    James: “The government has no place in deciding who is a family, or who can marry”

    Does that mean I can “marry” a dog? Does that mean an 8 year old can marry another 8 year old? I think their argument is that if anyone can “marry” anything, anywhere at anytime, then it cheapens their “marriage”. I don’t care either way but that’s how I see their argument.

  • claidheamh mor

    And the language the new testament is written in… Greek… like, weren’t the Greeks, y’know, like, *known* for making male-male love the ideal? Any history majors here?

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    No, they are aware of that. I was discussing that with a friend and they said that was one of the reasons they didn’t want them to get married — they didn’t deserve those “privileges.”

  • brgulker

    @ custador

    Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994), 307-9.

    If that’s not the article that describes:

    1) duration of sexual unions and
    2) number of sexual partners

    please let me know, and I will continue to look. But, I think that is the article that shows that:

    1) Homosexual unions are much more likely to end prematurely (before death as is said in the vows, so higher divorce rate, so to speak)

    and

    2) Homosexuals have 4-5 times as many sexual partners as heterosexuals.

    Oh, and I should say if this is the study I think it is, then it’s about men, not women. Don’t feel like deleting and making all those corrections.

  • Question-I-thority

    One of the Greek city-states encouraged homosexual bonding in the military on the theory that guys who loved each other would fight harder and be more cohesive. I can’t say for sure but if my memory is correct it was Thessalonia . Also the ideal in Greek culture was for a male citizen to take a boy (future citizen) under his wing. Sex was part of the tradition and the intimacies ended when the boy started to grow a mustache. However, the political and business relationship could last a lifetime.

  • Elemenope

    It was Thebes. The army unit was called the “Sacred Band of Thebes”, and was composed entirely of age-staggered homosexual couples.

  • faithnomore

    Thank you! I was going to cover the very thing you did. BA Anthropology and yes, I distinctly remember learning all the variations of family pairings, groupings, etc. Many varieties, in fact.

  • chester bogus

    It sounds a bit foolhardy, but I posted this very same information with a link to the American Anthropological Association’s website on a RedState thread about Rick Warren. It chapped my ass that he would say something as utterly stupid as “every culture for 5,000 years.” I didn’t mean to insult or troll, I simply thought they should see an official statement made by the AAA.

    Oh my gosh, it was incredible how fast they flamed me, and how absurd it became. Right off the bat, they were telling me that anthropology isn’t science, that an official press release has no bearing on the debate, and lots of other stuff I don’t remember. Basically, they ignored the point by belittling the source.

    The funniest part is that, just by trying to offer them some facts, I had an administrator threatening to ban me within two comments. I guess I was a little inflammatory (called Warren a liar), but nothing deserving a ban.

    I guess that’s how they deal with facts, though. :(

  • Elemenope

    The ethical system that requires everyone to be a member in order to work is already broken.

  • LRA

    Confucianism comes to mind.

  • Elemenope

    My point was more tu quoque-and-so-I-feel-justified-in-being-a-jerk arguments are tiresome, but yeah. Confucianism does come to mind.

  • LRA

    Well, I get your point about the tu quoque, but I’m a pragmatist. I don’t ascribe to any belief that people just can’t abide by. That’s why I get frustrated with people who expound the virtues of…. say, abstinence until marriage… but they themselves have had multiple sex partners before getting married.

    In short, I believe in WW theory (whatever works).

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ LRA

    ” say, abstinence until marriage… but they themselves have had multiple sex partners before getting married. ”

    Ditto on this point, I believe that any politician or activist parading the abstinence until marriage Idea should be required to explain to teen age kids exactly how they were able to wait until marriage.

    That alone would stop so much of the abstinence only crap.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Shorter brgulker:
    “It depends what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

    Knowing Warren, and knowing his positions on homosexuality, do you really believe he’s not knowingly lying into the camera?

    I mean, really you have a choice: He’s either so stupid he’s forgotten he dislikes teh gay, or he’s lying.

    Stupid or lying. That’s it. Though I suppose it might be both.

  • brgulker

    I’m not disputing his opinions on homosexuality. He’s clearly, obviously in disagreement with that.

    However, that in and of itself doesn’t make him an activist in my book.

    Let me put it another way. I am against racism. I’m open and honest about that whenever race comes up in conversation. I’m not afraid to say what I think I should say on the topic when I can.

    But, I don’t consider myself a civil rights activist, and I don’t think anyone else would either.

  • vorjack

    “However, that in and of itself doesn’t make him an activist in my book. ”

    I still think you’re straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, but let’s move one: what about the other statements that Warren made?

    “… never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.”

    Wouldn’t you consider the other clip an “endorsement”? He delivers the usual conservative boilerplate about Prop 8: will of the people, four guys voting to change the definition of marriage, etc.

    “Now, let me just say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8, and if you believe what the bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.”

    Wouldn’t that be considered an endorsement? He’s speaking in the ‘royal we’, so he’s not just venturing his own opinion. He doesn’t appear to be specifically addressing a question, nor does this seem to be a ‘note’.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    When a public figure such as Warren speaks, people listen. That makes him an advocate.

    His positions, especially on matters relating to faith, are a topic of discussion, and his influence goes far beyond Saddleback Church. As such he cannot duck responsibility for proclaiming gay-hate from the pulpit.

    If Obama, to take a glaring example, suddenly said “First thing we do, let’s hang all the bankers,” and bankers started getting lynched, he would bear some responsibility. When Warren proclaims by his actions and behaviour that it’s okay to treat gay folks as second-class, and unworthy, citizens, then he also bears some of the responsibility.

  • brgulker

    Let me be clear:

    I’m not arguing that he did not lie on camera. I am simply saying there is some room for doubting that he did.

    It is possible that:
    1) He understands “endorsement” to mean a public endorsement, ie, one made to the media, in front of a congregation, etc.
    2) The second video was meant to be kept private, in response to a question he was asked. Unfortunately, Daniel did not tell us what the source of that video is, so we have no way of knowing.

    If we grant both 1 and 2 as possibilities, which I think logic dictates we must given the information we have, then it’s entirely possible that Warren is not lying.

    =================

    My perception of this entire conversation is this:

    1) The overwhelming majority disagrees with Warren about Prop 8 and the larger issue of homosexuality.

    2) People are rushing to judgment about whether or not he’s lying based exclusively upon their disagreement with him.

    3) No one has pointed out that we have no context for the second YouTube video. Because we do not have the source of the video, how can we, as rational people, be so quick to make a judgment?

    In my opinion, I have no choice but to be agnostic about whether or not Warren is lying, because I simply don’t have enough information about:
    1) the source of the second video
    2) what Warren means when he says “endorsement”

  • vorjack

    To be fair – well, sort of – Warren has been pretty clear that he opposes divorce. I’ve even heard him say that he’s more concerned about divorce that homosexuality.

    That said, his opposition to divorce often takes the form of evangelical patriarchy: if the marriage is crumbling, it’s because the woman was not properly supportive of her husband. The general response to marital problems – even abuse – is “pray and submit. repeat as necessary.”

  • Slurm

    I’m still clinging to BBC World News for a thin ray of hope. I can’t watch American made news anymore…it’s too reality show, and not enough real.

  • LRA
  • The Wrath of Oliver Khan

    If that actually is their argument, then they have no argument. Nobody is saying anyone can marry anyone or anything. Instead, we are saying that two consenting adults should be able to get married, regardless of whether they are gay or straight. No marrying animals or children or fire hydrants, simply because none of those can consent.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Y’know, my dad, a very rational person most times, Jesuit-trained and painstakingly logical, surprised me by alleging, in so many words, that gay marriage would somehow degrade his own.

    My feeling is that it’s heteros who have degraded marriage as a civil and social institution thus far. In fact it has to be, by definition!

    Gay marriage has been the law here for about half-a-decade now, and my parents celebrated their anniversary again last year. They seem to have survived the scourge.

  • Anon

    You win three internets.

  • Anon

    I heard that homosexuality was in the city of Sparta, also.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    He can’t make secular folks happy, because he’s anti-gay marriage. But he can’t make fundies happy, because he says he’s not anti-gay marriage.

    That’s what he gets for playing the politician. If he thinks gay marriage is wrong, he should speak out about it — not pretend he thinks it is okay on national television, but at church say it’s not okay.

    As the Bad Old Book says, he can’t serve two masters — even though he is trying hard.

  • brgulker

    If it’s on wikipedia, it must be an accurate definition.

  • Slurm

    @ Brgulker

    Yeah, i was tempted to not even use it because I figured someone say that. How about a dictionary definition:

    a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

    I think since he’s speaking to a very large group of people regarding a controversial issue, it still fits.

  • brgulker

    I can second this based on my experience.

  • Niva Tuvia

    That actually sounds like what my friend’s father said to her. He claimed that since she was “a filthy dyke” (*slap him in the face!*), that she had no right to be part of his family. He was extremely close to literally disowning his own daughter. Who ever knew that having a family was a privilage (sarcasm)?

  • brgulker

    That said, his opposition to divorce often takes the form of evangelical patriarchy: if the marriage is crumbling, it’s because the woman was not properly supportive of her husband. The general response to marital problems – even abuse – is “pray and submit. repeat as necessary.”

    I would like a direct quote from Warren to back up your claims. Otherwise, I call BS.

    Considering that half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, I’m wondering where all the angry Christians are with placards that read: “Protect the sanctity of marriage: No divorce”.

    You know, priorities.

    By any chance, are you aware that homosexual unions between men are much, much more likely to end than heterosexual unions?

    If you’re going to bring up statistics like that, then at least paint the whole picture.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    I would like to know the source of your assertion that “homosexual unions between men are much, much more likely to end than heterosexual unions”, please. Otherwise, I call BS.

  • Andrew

    Are you for real? Acting as a champion of logic and rationality, then turning around and doing exactly what you’re harassing others about? I sincerely hope you’re trying to be ironic…

    If you’re not, then even if you were able to follow up that dubious claim about hetero/homo unions with some actual FACT, I would argue it is more or less meaningless when you take into consideration the sizable burden of divorce that married heterosexual couples have to go through, which gay couples are (as of yet) spared from…

    Furthermore, Elemenope’s original point stands regardless of that – if divorce is the real issue, tackle the problem that is occurring NOW in straight marriages rather than worry about the mere potential of divorces from the gays.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    I hate to tell you this, but the BBC has been little but government propoganda since the Dr. Kelly affair. Best avoided. ITN are excellent alternatives, though, if you want news from outside of the US.

  • Slurm

    Thanks for the heads up…i’ll have to look into that. =)

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “But it’s not like he’s the only public figure to contradict himself embarassingly”

    doesn’t excuse his behavior or make him right on gay marriage.

  • brgulker

    The ‘consent’ argument is one helluva slippery slope… as is the term ‘adult.’ Sure, we’ve got clear legal definitions of what those terms are, but can a rational person really accept those definitions?

    In other words, isn’t 18 incredibly arbitrary age to assign to adulthood? A person below that age is legally incapable of consenting. Am I alone in thinking that’s absurd?

    My problem with the argument is that the definitions of “adult” and “consent” are completely arbitrary and ridiculous.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “In other words, isn’t 18 incredibly arbitrary age to assign to adulthood?”

    No not really. For practical reasons a legal line between childhood and adulthood has to be drawn somewhere. Based on experience we know that as a very general rule, people have developed enough maturity to start being treated as adults around the age of 18. Granted it’s not a perfect demarcation, but it’s not a terrible one.

    We might argue that the line could better be drawn a 17 or 20, but I doubt very much that anyone thinks 18 is completely off the mark. I don’t think for instance that many people would say legal adulthood should start at 15 or 25. 18 isn’t perfect, but it’s not arbitrary, and it’s certainly not incredibly arbitrary.

    What do you think is arbitrary about “consent?”

  • brgulker

    My beef with consent derives from my beef about adult.

    I do think 18 is abitrary for adult, and I thought you were going to agree when you said, “For practical reasons a legal line between childhood and adulthood has to be drawn somewhere.”

    18 Seems like an odd somewhere.

    My problem with consent is that I think many 14-17 year olds are mature enough to consent to a lot of things, even sex is a lot of cases.

    It’s not that I dispute what consent means; it’s that I think young people are capable of consent even though the law says the aren’t.

    Does that make sense? I’m not sure I’m being clear.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “My problem with consent is that I think many 14-17 year olds are mature enough to consent to a lot of things, even sex is a lot of cases.”

    In many states they are old enough to legally consent to sex at these ages. (Although 14 is very young – I’m not sure if that one fits in.)

    Usually that consent is related to contact with people at or around their own age though. the problem with sexual consent and minors comes in to play when it involves adults, whose life experience and position of power can often allow them to easily manipulate younger people.

    I’m having a hard time seeing how this fits in to the original point though. Why can’t “consent” and “adult” be applied for gay people in the same way they are for straight.

    Your argument seems to go to legal consent regardless of orientation, not whether consenting adults can marry.

  • einquisitive

    For the most part, the only Christian leaders that make the news are the ones who are looking for attention and through prideful means have manipulated God’s word. The faithful preachers of God’s word rarely make the news because they are not seeking the attention.

    Most Christian leaders do in fact believe in the Bible. There are just a handful of people who for whatever reason are out there to make Christians into hypocrites.

  • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

    Zotmaster: “I guess this is kind of an asshole statement, but if Christian leaders don’t seem to believe in the Bible, why should anyone else?”

    That’s a great point. Look at all the pedophile priests that preached god’s word for many, many years all the while molesting young boys! Or hundreds of muslim mullahs getting upset over a little cartoon of the prophet Mohammed? Imagine that – powerful religious leaders getting upset over ink upon paper! One final note is the absolute joke of a pope right now – what a complete and absurd failure he is! And of course all his stupidity is complete truth because he is infallible!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Infallibility

  • Elemenope

    Okaaaaay.

  • Elemenope

    Not a good thing when a Christian and an atheist have similar blog posts – and agree!

    Why’s that?

  • Niva Tuvia

    It’s better than not agreeing…

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    Because who wants to agree with those filthy evil atheists who are going to burn in hell for all eternity for not having a live-in invisible boyfriend in their hearts?

  • Elemenope

    I was kinda hoping for her answer. (And her blog seemed to be down, so I couldn’t ask her there, :)

  • Roger

    “Live-in invisible boyfriend”…I might have to use that one.

  • http://blog.christocentric.com Carlotta

    You almost had it right Daniel.

    My answer is:

    Because who wants to agree with those filthy evil atheists who are going to burn in hell for all eternity?

    I just left out the invisible boyfriend part!

    Oh, my blog has been slammed since I posted the Rick Warren article. And now you got all your folks going to my blog too…heavy traffic.

    Just keep trying for those of you who are curious to what this atheist (ideology) hating Christian has to say.

  • Roger

    Perhaps that…was…a joke?

  • Elemenope

    I thought so too, until I realized that it could have referred to Rich Warren *or* Daniel Florien (or, I suppose, both).

    It’s hard to tell the serious from the parody, what with the serious being so ridiculous.

  • http://custador.wordpress.com/ custador

    If we accept that not all Christians are fundamentalist IDiots and Creatins, will you accept that not all atheists are frothing-at-the-mouth Christopher Hitchins wannabes? Seems a reasonable trade to me…

  • LRA

    Carlotta, I say no thanks to your blog. I gave it a quick skim over and I can tell that you don’t exactly base your opinions on reason. When you throw out terms like “normal family” when discussing feminism, you fail to understand that the norms you are talking about aren’t actual norms (except on 1950s-1980s sitcoms).

    Also, you are a hypocrite. Jesus commanded you to love your “enemies”, not hate them. Further, these “enemies” are your neighbors– and you are commanded to love your neighbor as yourself.

  • Elemenope

    What’s the “atheist ideology”? I never got that memo.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “….will you accept that not all atheists are frothing-at-the-mouth Christopher Hitchins wannabes?”

    Whoaaaaa – since when is Hitchens frothing at the mouth?

    Other than the drunk/fat part I would love to be Hitchens.

  • Elemenope

    since when is Hitchens frothing at the mouth?

    Other than the drunk/fat part I would love to be Hitchens.

    I think the froth and the drunk are connected somehow. That, and he does have a tendency to slightly overstate his case. (He like a little hyperbole with his brandy.)

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “Besides, if you took the time to go through my blog, you would have found that there are national statistics of the family that support the “biblical norm” of family – biological father and mother as BEST for children.”

    The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees.

    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

    Abstract from 2002 report:

    “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. “

  • Elemenope

    Biblical norms on marriage? How man wives did Solomon have, again?

    And again, what is this “atheist ideology” I keep hearing about?

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    LRA, when on a Christian blog, you have to remember when Christians talk about the “norm” it’s always in relation to what the bible considers normal. So, it’s actual norms but from a biblical perspective.

    Lessee … normal Biblical family … normal Biblical family …

    Oh–So like when your dad offers to let a mob rape you if they’ll just get off of his lawn?

    Or is that the one where your husband works for seven years to marry you, gets scrod in the deal and has to put in another seven years for your sister?

    Is that the one where a your wife gives you her slave girl as another wife?

    Or are you specifically referring to some other type of marriage, maybe one not specifically mentioned as being particularly approved-of by God, but codified in about 1967 as law?

  • claidheamh mor

    @Carlotta

    That “normal family” shit is your fantasy. Last year single people became the majority. And the 2-parent, 1.8 children-and-a-dog family wasn’t the “norm” even before singles outnumbered marrieds.

    That’s why I injected the word “ideology” because thats what I hate in atheism.

    You’re still clueless about atheists. “A-” = “no, without”; “theos” = “god”.

    Get it? Hate away, but other than that definition, which refers to needing more evidence and reason before adopting a god, there is NO ideology.

  • http://blog.christocentric.com Carlotta

    Bill, it was opinion rattled with more opinion with the actual data buried deep within the sources that weren’t linked for any of us to actually see.

    The links I shared you don’t have to dig through opinions, and just go directly to the surveys. I would love to see actual data.

    MappingAmericaProject.org takes you straight to the data.

    I didn’t disagree with some of the reports from APA. Children ARE able to make it families with gay parents. It didn’t say it’s the best for them.

  • Roger

    Hush, now, Elemenope! Don’t you know that God totally approved of Solomon’s many, many wives, concubines and what not, but Jesus totally changed all of that! And Paul totally opposed gay marriage, because first century people living in Palestine totally had the same conception of sexuality and marriage as we do in the twenty-first!

  • vorjack

    “Biblical norms on marriage?”

    I’ve always wondered that. Do biblical norms include Abraham and his wife’s handmaiden? Isaac and his wives and their handmaidens? David and Bathsheba? Lot and his dearly beloved salt-lick?

    Come to think of it, is there a positive example of marriage depicted in the bible? Perhaps that’s why Paul recommends that Christians stay single and celibate in 1st Corinthians.

  • Roger

    Well, wouldn’t it be just PEACHY if every child was in an ideal family.

    Oh, but wait! Not every child is in an ideal family. And if you think that gay parents aren’t “ideal,” you’d have to be able to show some actual evidence–preferably from a group that doesn’t have an ideological axe to grind–that proves such an assertion.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    American Psychilogical Association also disagrees.

    http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

    Annotations include empirical studies.

    You are going to have to do better than the Mapping America Project, which is nothing more that the Family Research Council’s attempt to demonize gay parenting.

  • rodneyAnonymous

    ‘It didn’t say it’s the best for them.’

    That’s weird, I read the quote as concluding “it doesn’t matter”. I guess that’s not “the best”, though.

  • Roger

    Seriously though, Paul (and the early church) assumed that Jesus’ return was imminent–like, REALLY imminent. Further, Paul–influenced by the Stoics–held a view of the body that treated it as something less than the soul/spirit. If the body was weak and vile, then the worst thing that the body could do was have sex. For Paul, the best way to contain those dirty urges was to be married–that way, at least reproduction could occur (and God wouldn’t condemn married people to hellfire for having sex).

  • Elemenope

    Seriously though, Paul (and the early church) assumed that Jesus’ return was imminent–like, REALLY imminent.

    It is my opinion that this fact has shaped the form of modern Christianity more than almost any other. (Not in uniformly bad ways, but definitely in anti-intellectual ways.)

    “Get your shit together, folks. Jesus! He’s coming back!

  • Roger

    Which reminds me of a rather…unfortunate bit of signage I saw on a car: “Jesus…I’m Coming Soon.”

  • vorjack

    Oh, I understand that. Paul was a “don’t start any long books” kind of prophet.

    But if you accept that one of the major tenets of his thinking was flatly and completely wrong, you’ve got a problem. How much of his ethic and theology were informed by his apocalypticism?

  • http://maaark.wordpress.com maaark

    yep

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Wait–wait … Adam and Eve got married? When? Before or after they started living in Original Sin?

    And where’d they find a preacher?

  • Roger

    Epic Logic and History FAIL.

  • LRA

    Actually, this site is a response to the “reasonable faith” site. The point of this site (I believe as I am not Daniel) is to show just exactly how faith is *not* reasonable. In fact, taken to it’s logical conclusion, faith results in absurdities.

    Notice that you are quick to point out Daniel’s demonstrations about Christianity, but you’ve said nothing about the Islamic posts.

  • missbombay

    Its funny how people use the great saying, “don’t judge lest you be judge…” It is almost as though they were trying to cover up something that they know in their heart is wrong. I wasn’t judging. I was adhering to what was already written in the Bible about lying and homosexuality. God abhors lying but he also abhors the act of homosexuality. Before the 10 commandments were ever written, some 500 years before, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because their perversion – sodomy and lust was on the rampage in those cities. The angels of the God blinded the eyes of the men who wanted to have sex with them. That is how messed up the society was and God destroyed the people and the city and only saved three people from that terrible judgment. So in answer to your question, do I think that lying is worse than homosexuality – No, I don’t think so and I don’t believe God sees it that way either.

    And by the way God’s view of marraige was only a man and a woman and that is why he stated in the 10 commandments not to commit adultery. God never viewed two men together or two women together as a marriage.

    There still may be straight people to continue on procreation, but I can’t help but think how much damage homosexuality has done to our society. You look at the Babylonia Empire, the Greece Empire, the Roman Empire and other great prosperous empires that have existed before the USA. What was their downfall? Yeah there was greed and power but when sexual perversion of homosexuality and prositution came into the scene it corrupted the basic foundation of moral standards of that society. The people defiled the very law God objected to. Why do you think we have so many sexual diseases that are really incurable? Where did they come from besides a green monkey in Africa? It is not only because of adulteries that may cause diseases to spread but it is because of sexual perversion that has become so rampant in our society . What is the curse of disobeying laws of morality? America is no better off than all those great empires from the past. And we too will fall because we continue to allow acts and lifestyles that corrupt our very foundation of life.

    I’m sorry that I’m getting carried away with this – I believe from studying the past history of the world that homosexuality along with other immoral lifestyles has caused great damage to everyone. And no I’m not trying to protect Christians who also have contributed to this downfall with their “religious bigotries” and self-righteous acts like the Crusades….

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    One of the best arguments for legalizing gay marriage is precisely your point 1) above. Stabilizing the union and giving it social support will help change that and allow gays to manage at least the 50% success rate heteros have.

    Regarding your point 2–I sincerely hope one can get married once one breaks double digits–Otherwise a large number of my married friends are still living in sin.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    He delivered that comment Poe-faced, methinks :-)

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    So you’re claiming that the “research” of a group whose sole aim is to discredit gay marriage should be accepted as equivalent to genuine researched reporting?

    Just as you would wish us to accept your definition of “Biblical” marriage as opposed to the multiple and wondrous forms actually mentioned and portrayed in that ancient storybook, no doubt?

    The trouble is, we live in a secular society, and religious prejudice isn’t a recognized reason to make law anymore.

    Since the sole reason to oppose gay marriage hinges on rickety theology, outfits like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family have to dredge up credible-sounding secular“evidence” that supports their claims. Hence the need to set up outfits like the FRC in the first place.

    The APA and AAP have no such exigis, and so can simply report facts.

    I know who I’d trust for the data.

  • Roger

    It’s funny how your posts so far have been full of logical and historical gaps and leaps. Please come back when you’ve divested yourself of a bunch of prejudiced bullshit and have actually read something not published by InterVarsity Press or peddled by some godbot in a church.

  • missbombay

    Roger -

    Here on this site you and the other people judge a minister for lying and hold him against his standard of what he believes. Christians aren’t supposed to lie nor are they supposed to support homosexuality – at least that is what the Bible says.

    Isn’t this what you are all arguing about? If you don’t follow the Bible, if you don’t claim to be a Christian what is it you whether or not a Christian makes a mistake? Are you his judge? Why is it that when someone like Rick Warren makes a error everyone jumps all over him and rips him apart. These same people are the ones who states that his beliefs are bogus and that he is a hyprocrite and a bigot. Look another minister has fallen – let’s all rejoice because Christianity is stupid and wrong and belongs in the dark ages of time. We all do what is “right” in our own eyes , we are our own judge. That is the belief system of our society now.

    People who don’t have a standard to live by are the first ones to point to their fingers and spit on those who have fallen. Whatever happened to mercy and forgiveness?

  • http://blog.christocentric.com Carlotta

    Metro, have you actually READ the data? Refuting just using your opinion isn’t what we can call “reasonable” can we? By trusting in their data without really researching other possibilities is showing “great faith!”

    I took the time to read quite a few of APA’s “facts” and here are a few that I’ve found:

    “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills maybe superior to those of matched heterosexual couple.”

    Of course that may be true as there are some pretty dysfunctional heterosexual families! No argument here.

    “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

    Not a single study? That’s a risky statement already!

    “Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

    Whew! Complete denial here! These statements don’t match a lot of statistics regarding stability in the home. In case there are those of you who feel so inclined to check out differing opinions, see MappingAmericaProject.org

    I’ve looked at this data, I challenge any of you to take a look at the actual data from childtrends.org or mappingamericaproject.org. Like this data here for an example:

    “Family Structure and School Performance of U.S. High School Students

    Students who live with their married biological parents carry the highest average combined GPA, or grade point average, for English and math (2.9). Those whose parents never married or who live with cohabiting adults, only one of whom is a natural parent, have the lowest (2.5). Slightly above that group are students living with stepparents, divorced parents, or both unmarried biological parents (2.6).” (found at this link: http://www.mappingamericaproject.org/get.cfm?i=MA08C02)

    I don’t know how you can argue these facts here. These findings are consistent to God’s design for the family as described in the bible: married mother and father are what’s BEST for the kids!

    Faith in God simply means that we are trusting in the Master designer of mankind who holds the manual in how we are to operate in a book called the Bible.

    All of those examples you gave of those polygamous and unbiblical marriages by those mighty men and women of God, all you have to do is keep reading about those people to see the consequences of their actions.

    The bible is a great book of honesty, showing openly the complete failings of mankind. King David was considered a man after God’s own heart, but his family was one of the most dysfunctional families in the entire bible!

    God does have a way for us to live and to stray from it does bring about dire consequences!

    When someone tells me they are an atheist, it only means to me that they have decided what they THINK they know what is best for themselves and that they make their own rules to life. No God = no accountability.

  • Roger

    Your argument is what we would call “fractally wrong.”

  • Andrew N.P.

    “When someone tells me they are an atheist, it only means to me that they have decided that they THINK they know what is best for themselves and that they make their own rules to life.”

    As opposed to Christians, who think they know what’s best for everyone else.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    “Refuting just using your opinion isn’t what we can call “reasonable” can we?”

    Coming from you, Carlotta? I could build a bridge with the irony in that statement.

    The problem here is that you won’t acknowledge that the Family Research Council is the usual Christianity-driven gawdawful hash–A front organization to come up with convincing-looking evidence for their pre-drawn conclusion.

    But then by using the quotes about the word “facts” you clearly show your contempt for the APA–An actual research-based, scientific-curiosity-driven outfit.

    Then you take the APA report and lop off its ears and tail to make it fit your personal biases. And finally you claim:

    “I’ve looked at this data, I challenge any of you to take a look at the actual data from childtrends.org or mappingamericaproject.org. Like this data here for an example:”

    You try to bolster your argument by once again referring to “mapping America”. Did you miss the part where I said I wasn’t going to take purpose-driven research, as it were, on faith?

    How about another source, something without direct ties to a fundagelical pocketbook would be nice.

    And you miss the point when you refer to “God’s design” for the family. It’s just your opinion. There’s no blueprint for that design. The Bible, as I pointed out (and I think you missed the point) contains about eight different marriage types, and God appears to have approved of most of them, at least at the time, or y’know, until he changed his mind, whenever that was.

    And since “arguing the facts” appears to be important to you, let’s see what we discover about “All of those examples you gave of those polygamous and unbiblical marriages by those mighty men and women of God,” since “all you have to do is keep reading about those people to see the consequences of their actions.”.

    Lot: Got away scot-free, with the help of God. His wife gets turned into a lifetime supply of seasoning for no sneaking a look at their old house. The Bible describes this guy, who wanted to hand over his virgin daughters to a mob for rape, as “righteous.”

    Jacob: Got a second wife out of the deal (in exchange, admittedly, for fourteen years’ service). The woman he loved, God either left barren or ignored. The one he got duped into marrying attained the status of valued chattel by bearing Jacob sons through God’s personal intervention.

    Abram: Gets a son. Agar gets to be a slave to his wife. God makes her bear a son to her owner.

    James Dobson would doubtless approve.

    Not one of those people got punished for anything they did. In fact, God personally intervened in order for these people to have “marriages” that differed from His Divine Plan for Marriage.

    So by all means, let’s argue the “facts,” as you call them. But let’s not just make stuff up, eh? And by “let’s not” I really mean “you’re not allowed to.”

  • Roger

    Oh, get a grip.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    “Whatever happened to mercy and forgiveness?”

    Ask Rick Warren, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard … Should I go on?

  • Elemenope

    I generally think giving the benefit of the doubt provisionally is a good policy; very few things are completely what they seem to be at first pass. It is of course important, as you did, to not let the benefit stand if subsequent revelations make it unsustainable.

  • saltforfishes

    I agree – Christianity needs to take the logs out of their own eyes.

    I’m not anti-Warren, I’m anti-porn and I’m concerned over a New Yorker report I read where he took a 2M gift from Rupert Murdoch of Page 3 Girls fame. It is disheartening because it violates Ephesians 5:3. In any event, I think making money from the exploitation of young women is not a noble or honorable thing for a minister.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X