Rick Warren Lies… To Himself?

(For those few who care, I’m blogging again after a really long party celebrating Obama’s win. What a hangover. But what spurred me back into typing mode is that perpetual look of stupidity on Pastor Rick Warren’s face. Many Christian leaders appear to be infected with plastic smiles and looks of mental vacuity.)

Bozo-the-pastor Rick Warren was recently caught lying about his previous support of proposition 8, the anti-gay-marriage proposition which passed last November. But what’s most bothersome to me here is the lying, not his misguided feelings on gay marriage. What interests me is his mindset. Is he lying to us, or is he lying to himself? Part of being a religious drone seems to be the ability to lie to oneself, to twist reality into convenient shapes. He may actually believe his own propaganda, or he may be an opportunistic sleazeball who sees that most Americans are more tolerant than he supposed. Me thinks he’s a sleazeball.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Christianity

14 responses to “Rick Warren Lies… To Himself?

  1. I am sick of people making the statement that Prop 8 was “anti-gay-marriage”. It was a “Pro-marriage” bill. It defined marriage in terms that conform with what has been the understanding of marriage for all time. Prop 8 does not remove any rights from homosexuals, anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex.

    Stop twisting words to drive an agenda.

  2. P.S. Rick Warren does not represent Christians.

  3. thedarwinreport

    “Rick Warren does not represent Christians.”

    Perhaps you should address that comment to Warren.

  4. thedarwinreport

    It defined marriage in terms that conform with what has been the understanding of marriage for all time.

    That’s really an indefensible argument. You’re cherry picking history. Historically, marriage was also an unequal union. Men could kill their wives and treat them as property. Men could marry multiple women. Men could sell their wives. Men could marry little girls. (An 8-year-old girl was recently forced to marry in Saudi Arabia.) I’d prefer not to have our laws determined by the traditions of long-dead, or present-day, savages.

    The supporters of prop 8 have yet to explain how gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriage. I’m heterosexual, and I don’t feel threatened in the least by the idea of two men or two woman marrying. Gays exist, and they’re not going away. Preventing them from marrying isn’t going to change that. They already live together and raise children together. Is granting them legal status going to destroy the world? Over 50% of marriages already end in divorce. You can’t blames gays for that.

  5. Sorry, should have clarified… defined historically in the United States of America.

    It has nothing to do with hurting heterosexual marriage, it is about securing the definition we have in America.

  6. thedarwinreport

    defined historically in the United States of America

    It makes no difference. In the United States, married women were prevented from owning property in their own names until 1900. And they were prevented from having credit in their own names until 1975. Until the 1990’s it was legal for a man to rape his wife.

    You say it has nothing to do with “hurting heterosexual marriage”, but that’s not what the proponents of proposition 8 said. Most of them supported it for that very reason. Bill Clinton signed the “In Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996. The words “in defense” were used because conservatives thought gay marriage would be harmful to heterosexual marriage.

  7. thedarwinreport

    Sorry, mcoville, I didn’t realize who I was debating. Now that I’ve checked out your creationism blog, I’m aware that you’re uninterested in facts. Anyone who looks to AnswersInGenesis for actual science is trying to seal themselves inside a bubble of ignorance.

    Also, your glowing praise of Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” is indicator of your novice status. The number of errors and omissions in Behe’s work is so enormous, it’s perfectly understandable that his own university disavowed him. Behe was shown to be an incompetent fool and a liar at the Dover trial, which was presided over by an ultra-conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush. I suggest you read some real science books.

  8. Thank you for stopping by my blog. I understand your criticism of creationism but fail to see how that has anything to do with Prop 8. What law allowed the rape of wives in the United States?

    There is more in your second post I would like to discuss with you but I would rather stay on topic. There are people that push their own agenda with every issue and the rhetoric needs to be ignored. What part of Prop 8 removes civil rights from homosexuals? If the answer is none, then it can not be called “anti-gay-marriage”.

  9. thedarwinreport

    Sorry for drifting off topic.

    What law allowed the rape of wives in the United States?

    Up until the 1990’s a woman could be raped by her husband in the sense that no law existed to prevent a man from forcibly “taking what what his”.

    it is about securing the definition we have in America.

    My point was clear — the definition of marriage has changed dramatically in the past 200 years, so it’s cherry picking history to pretend Prop 8 is about traditional marriage. What’s traditional marriage? You want to ignore the horrific parts of the tradition.

    What part of Prop 8 removes civil rights from homosexuals? If the answer is none, then it can not be called “anti-gay-marriage”.

    I think the right to marry the human being of one’s choice is pretty fundamental. The civil rights arguments are overplayed on both sides. The legality of marriage is granted by the state not the church. If two adults want to enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, then no law should stand in their way. One can attach all the civil rights or moral arguments one wants, but the basic issue is really about a contract between two adults.

  10. 1. I can not find a law that allowed rape at anytime in American history. If you know of one, let me know.

    2.How has it changed? The rights of a women does not change the definition of marriage that has always been between a man and a women.

    3.I would agree with you that if the state wants to allow homosexual marriage it has nothing to do with the Christian Church. But homosexual activists have already tried forcing Christian Churches to perform the ceremony. All though I can not condone something that I find immoral, if the law was passed by congress to allow homosexual marriage I would live with it. But the law would have to clearly define the ceremony has to include the right of freedom of religion to be protected from performing a ceremony for someone out side their given beliefs. Wold you agree that a Church should not be forced to perform the ceremony if it goes against their religious beliefs?

  11. thedarwinreport

    I can not find a law that allowed rape at anytime in American history. If you know of one, let me know.

    Are you intentionally being dim on this point? No laws existed (until the 1990’s) that made marital rape illegal. So up to that point, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to forcibly take his wife sexually. I can’t make it any clearer.

    How has it changed? The rights of a women does not change the definition of marriage that has always been between a man and a women.

    I think I destroyed the notion of following a tradition blindly when I pointed out several of the horrible traditions. You’re cherry picking history. You follow the traditions you like and discard the ones you don’t. Have you ever worked on the sabbath?

    But homosexual activists have already tried forcing Christian Churches to perform the ceremony.

    This is completely untrue. Some activists may have voiced this desire, but under the proposed equal rights no church would be forced to perform gay marriage. The right would be for the recognition of gay marriage under state and federal law, not for a ceremony in a church.

    Religions still have the right to discriminate according to their doctrine: examples, the Catholic church is not obligated to ordain women priests, or to perform Jewish weddings. Some churches may allow gay weddings.. it’s their choice. The issue under contention is recognition of gay marriage under the law.

  12. So your morals are based on human laws? Just because you can do something does not make you right in doing it. Can you point to any written material in America that said it was acceptable for a husband to rape his wife, without reading your conspiracy into it?

    The law was eventually written because it was never acceptable for a husband to rape their wife but men where doing it. Are you being so ‘dim’ that you will plug in your interpretations of history just to justify your own beliefs?

    I am not the one ‘cherry picking’ history. You have not once showed how American marriage has ever not been defined as one man and one women. There has been, and will be, unique groups of people that make up their own traditions but they do not represent the American tradition.

    And as for the homosexual couples trying to force their life style on Churches read this. And someone else wrote about it here.

  13. thedarwinreport

    The law was eventually written because it was never acceptable for a husband to rape their wife but men where doing it.

    The law was eventually written because women fought for their civil rights. And immediately prior to the law, many wives who had suffered spousal rape, reported “the crime” and were told that nothing could be done about it. Men of the time, in fact, did not consider it wrong. The bible even endorses it:

    Corinthians 7:3-5 – Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    But back to the real issue:

    You have not once showed how American marriage has ever not been defined as one man and one women.

    You miss the point entirely. The definition of marriage has changed. As a society we don’t get our morals from long dead fools. Otherwise slavery would still be legal.

    There has been, and will be, unique groups of people that make up their own traditions but they do not represent the American tradition.

    Perhaps you’re ignorant of American history. If you stepped back to the early 1800’s you wouldn’t recognize the world and its backward ways. Public hanging was a strong tradition. Do you follow all the bible’s traditions? Few people do. (And you have failed to show how gay marriage would injure marriage in general. If marriage is so important why isn’t adultery illegal? It’s a sin in the bible.)

    I already acknowledged that some gays groups want gay marriage in all churches. But they’re NOT going to get their wish. The separation of church and state protects both church and state. A church has the right not to discriminate on those grounds. I gave the example of women Catholic priests.

  14. thedarwinreport

    One final point — the legality of a marriage is determined by the state, not the church. Just as a divorce is granted by the state. A couple can be married in a courthouse in a civil ceremony without any religious connotation whatsoever. So, it follows that under the law marriage is defined as a secular legal contract. Therefore, religion has no business deciding its definition.

    One religion may not recognize another’s marriage ceremony. But if the state calls it legal, then it’s legal. The Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce according to the bible, but a Catholic couple can indeed get legally divorced regardless of church policy. You may think the sanctity of marriage is granted by god, but its legality is granted by us humans. And that’s all there is to it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s