AMERICAblog: Rick Warren pulls anti-gay language from his Web site
Hardy Haberman
· 11 months ago
Maybe, just maybe he is having an epiphany? Tis' the season after all!
Arthur
· 11 months ago
That would be Jan. 6th
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
So soon after the circumcision!
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
The fact that he pulled it means he is feeling the heat. Good work John, keep it up. And thank you for now backing down when calling a bigot a bigot.
Craig
· 11 months ago
Exactly right. He knows this looks bad. Good pressure.
magster
· 11 months ago
Silver lining: A spotlight is shining on Rick Warren, and its making him squirm. Also, when people see that the same guy who condemns non-Christians to hell is against gay marriage, it might make some people reevaluate whose side they want to be on.
Scratching my head
· 11 months ago
Right on Magster. My partner and I were talking over the weekend and were thinking the same thing. This may be what this bigot needs--exposure!
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Exactly. His stance on abortion might give some pause as well.
mirth
· 11 months ago
As I have written several times, I think it is vital for us to broaden our objections to Warren. Not only is he opposed to abortion, and states that this is "non-negotiable," he also condemns stem cell research with the same absolutism. While they may feel less passionately about Gay civil rights, the majority of citizens do not agree with these stances and they do not want them a part of the dialog for the next 4 years.
BTW: I try to never miss reading your great comments.
Jennifer
· 11 months ago
A fundamentalist snake oil peddlar that's willing to tell any lie or put in place any obfuscation to get what he wants. I'm SHOCKED! lol
RainbowPhoenix
· 11 months ago
John, you're going a bit overboard with Warren. You're paying so much attention to him that the other bigots are starting to get a free pass from you. It's been weeks since I've seen anything on here about the mormons, and I'm suprised you don't have anything to say about the pope's latest pile of shit. I'm not saying you should stop talking about Warren, but don't let the other bigots hide behind him.
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
I think this has to do with striking while the iron is hot. We really need to put RW in the hot seat, and we need to see if BO (right now he stinks) will admit that he has essentially given the LGBT Community the finger and pull RW ASAP. Barry is very Bushlike in that he is very stubborn. Picking RW is to the LGBT Community what picking David Duke would be to the African American Community. If that had happened, all hell would have broken loose.
The RW issue is relevant because it clearly illustrates the disparity between the treatment of gays and the treatment of ANY other minority group.
RainbowPhoenix
· 11 months ago
I said we should keep talking about him, but who's talking about what the other bigots are doing.
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
You are right, we still need to keep the heat up on the other bigots.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
It's good that we are so unaccustomed to hearing African Americans maligned by preachers and politicians. I'd sure like to see us become as sensitized to the stuff constantly spewed about gays. But for now in order to make our point we frequently have to replace the word "gay" with "black" if we want to make people realize that something outrageous is happening.
Gridlock
· 11 months ago
whynot, he's wide enough.
*nyuck nyuck*
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
more bigotry.....is warren rubbing off on you?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
It may have something to do with the fact that in less than a month this particular bigot will be delivering the invocation at the inauguration of our new president.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 11 months ago
Haiku for the Obama Administration (#21):
The Gays got Rick-Rolled He'll never give Warren up-- They clicked on a punk
cool blue reason
· 11 months ago
Awesome. Hope Rachel covers this tonight.
The full statement on homosexuality is still up, but it does not say anything about membership:
"I’ve heard it asked, “Isn’t being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?” First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that’s obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle."
Alcoholism is now a lifestyle too? Can't wait until A&E comes out with "Drunk eye for the straight guy" series.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 11 months ago
We know that some people can develop a stronger physical desire to make love to beautiful women, but that's obviously no excuse for living a heterosexual lifestyle. You're a beautiful woman, Miss Curry, so I would love to make love to you but, unlike the homosexuals, I can, with God's help, contain my desires. I love it when you bark accusatory questions at me. Ann, did I say how much you could fit into my heterosexual lifestyle if I had a strong addiction to beautiful half-Asian ladies, but thank God I don't . . .
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Well Joel, first of all not every one of those studies has been proven wrong unless you limit your reading to Christo-fascist rags. And secondly, who cares if homosexuality is a sin to people of certain religions if you don't belong to those religions? Just so long as those misguided churchgoers don't try to force their beliefs on me, they can believe whatever nonsense they want. And finally, George Bush is an alcoholic who has done enormous harm to the world, while Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was fun for a while and actually did some good.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
from my point of view, heterosexuality looks more like alcoholism. i see very little restraint or willingness to get better.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
wtf?
ndtovent
· 11 months ago
I'd be happy to refer the good reverend (and anyone else for that matter) to an excellent book entitled "Living with our Genes: Why They matter More Than You Think" by Dr's Dean H. Hamer and Peter Copeland. This was just the first comprehensive study published on the subject. There have been several others completed since then.
sigh
· 11 months ago
Well, if Obama is going to use this to tame Warren and the flock, then let's be there pushing Obama to do it and making the conditions so that Warren must ameliorate his stance.
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
Yeah, that is what Barry is doing. He works in mysterious ways. He is inviting the raging homophobe, a person with whom he has had a deep and long friendship with to teach him that being a homohater is wrong.
Denial.
JayR
· 11 months ago
Deep and long?
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 11 months ago
Obama's relationship with America's Pastor dates from a coulpla years ago, when Obama probably read about Warren in an airline magazine.
JayR
· 11 months ago
That's neither deep nor long.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Hey, can't Obama get the person who wrote "The Secret" to do the invocation? That's just as airline-magazine substantive as America's Pastor. And I think "The Secret" empire may been raking in more dough than the "Purpose Driven" empire, darn them.
Or is that "Celestine Prophecy" guy still around? Is he on his 17th revelation at this point?
fredndallas
· 11 months ago
Denial ..no freaking kidding. While I would be thrilled to see any REAL progress on their homophobia, I suggest that perhaps it is Warren who is learning from Obama: be very slick and cautious that you don't ever reveal your REAL intention, motivation and sentiments about those homosexuals. Keep the focus on lofty rhetoric of "fairness" constructed in such a way as to always give you a multitude of "outs" (pun unintended), like: it's just not the right time, we have other priorities, but we have to be inclusive of those who have moral objections, we've got to preserve society's institutions ... and in your case Warren: you just can't deny scripture but you love the sinners anyway.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Let's push Obama to examine his relationship with bigoted pastors like McClurkin, Wright and Warren.
Psyche
· 11 months ago
I'm not sure why you included Wright in that bunch. Wright is a liberal minister in a liberal denomination (largely white) where he's well respected. Wright is also not anti-gay. Don't forget that the battle against him was by conservatives who were trying to damage Obama.
Arthur
· 11 months ago
Damn, Obama's good!
JayR
· 11 months ago
That sort of seems like a bit of progress....
FunMe
· 11 months ago
Keep it coming!
The pressure is what gets to these "straight males".
gizmo
· 11 months ago
It occurs to me that Obama and John Aravosis are both right on this one. Obama extended his hand to Warren, jump-started the conversation, Americablog and others joined the fray, and already we see progress. The fact that Warren changed the language on his website doesn't necessarily mean that he has altered his views, but this is progress nonetheless....
JayR
· 11 months ago
Alinsky agitation Obama style.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 11 months ago
Given Obama's stumbling, halting performance at the presser on this question last week, it's not very apparent that this was Obama's Plan All Along.
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
Exactly!!!!!!!!!
JayR
· 11 months ago
Stumbling and halting? Funny stuff.
JayR
· 11 months ago
I should clarify why I think that's funny. The right-wingers have been describing his style of speaking as meaningful for some time now. He sounded unsure and not strong enough about the Blago issue so there must be something there! But there isn't. It's just how he talks.
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
The credit belongs to John and others who have put the heat on RW. RW took it off his site because he is feeling that heat. I really doubt Barry had anything to do with this. Remember, Barry and Ricky have been buddy-buddy for ages. Barry even wrote about him lovingly in his book "The Audacity of Hope". All these years Barry knew of Ricky's homohatred. Do you really think that NOW he is telling him "Hey Ricky, stop being such a meanie to those dogfu- I mean those gays. You still want to play in my sandbox, dontcha'?"
Nope, RW wants to be an international superstar. He is one of the three douches Oprah shoved down our throats, the other two were Barry and Dr. Phil. The deleted text has been used all over the internet to illustrate the truth about Ricky's homohatred. It makes him look bad and image is everything.
Anyways, I know that the Obama cultists will take any change and see it as a sign that Obama has worked his magic in his mysterious ways . It reminds me of how the religously superstitious see miracles in mere coincidences and ordinary events.
Mikado
· 11 months ago
Who's Barry?
chowderSF
· 11 months ago
This is great, John, and done just before Christmas, when A LOT of people will be home, talking about all of this with family and friends, and a lot googling about Warren and his views.....love the timing. Keep up the great work!
Greensburg
· 11 months ago
Progress or pandering?
JayR
· 11 months ago
In this instance that's the same thing. A right-wing preacher backs off some of his anti-gay rhetoric. The right-wing is already splitting over Warren. This'll widen that split.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Just so long as we recognize that deleting the mention of an inflammatory and embarrassing policy from a website is not the same as changing the policy.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Yes.
I'd like a snapshot from that original website up on a billboard, or on a t-shirt, by the way.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Along with a topless photo of Rev. Warren that highlights the tan line created by his bra.
willnyc
· 11 months ago
ewww!
TimRusso
· 11 months ago
greatness.
Indigo
· 11 months ago
Someone in Dr. DICK's office reads AmBlog. That's cool.
Tom
· 11 months ago
Rick Warren = Moral Relativist. The invocation is more important than his beliefs.
mauro7inf
· 11 months ago
You say "moral relativist" like it's a bad thing. I don't believe he IS a relativist, since if he were, he might be OK with gays marrying so long as he didn't have to perform the wedding. Religious people are generally absolutists, not relativists, which is the problem. If he turns out to be a relativist, we should all be pleasantly surprised.
Tom
· 11 months ago
I was using the religionists terminology that they use on us against Warren.
Gary SF
· 11 months ago
OK, let me go out on a limb here. I think that everyone who has seen my posts understands that I am really pissed about the selection of Warren. BUT. . .assuming that the disappearing membership policy is not an accident and is not replaced with something worse, I do see this as progress. Putting this another way, I have read some of Warren's speeches and when he doesn't get hung-up on us or abortion and a handful of other issues, he has a pretty good message.
So if he isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing, maybe his anti-gay stuff is due to his evolving understanding of the Bible COMBINED with the need for fund raising issues COMBINED with just being male (we males seem to have a greater propensity to say stupid-ass things and then become entrenched even when we realize we were wrong). Maybe this is his first step toward enlightenment, based upon being beaten-up by the blogsphere, his need for acceptance in order to do the 'greater good' and the positive reinforcement that being invited to do the invocation is.
Regardless, everyone needs to recognize that none of this is taking place in a vacuum. Proposition 8, the subsequent demonstrations, the marriage issue in the press everyday, the suit to dismiss Prop 8, the Pope's disgusting statement today, the apparent change in Warren's membership policy, etc all are part of the same 'bigger picture.'
2009 is going to be a VERY interesting year.
Lolis
· 11 months ago
I agree. Even if Warren is just realizing this is bad PR and nothing more, this is a step in the right direction. It also shows we are winning and he is on defense. The choice, as always, is between the future and the past. If Warren wants to move forward with progressives, we should welcome him and his millions of followers to our side.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I do understand what you are saying, but I highly doubt this deletion on his website represents any change in policy or attitude on the part of the Rev. Warren. Instead I highly suspect it further demonstrates what kind of smarmy, cynical politician Mr. Obama has selected to give the invocation at his inauguration. But that he is on the defense is a good thing as you say.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I'd be more impressed if he changes the actual policy of his church, and not just the statement on his blog. I've seen no proof that this is anything but a PR move arising from all the exposure his elevation by Obama is bringing to the hatefulness he has thus far shown gays. I'd be even more impressed if he worked to undo what he helped to do in California. But unfortunately, as of now that still stands.
Gary SF
· 11 months ago
I can't tell you that you are wrong about this. But I hope that you are. We'll have a better idea about it in the weeks ahead. Another way of looking at this is to ask these questions, if we need to assume that this 'transformation' is not motivated by doing what is right: Is Warren willing to sacrifice his 'popular appeal' outside of the Evangelical community by adhering to his anti-gay stance on everything? Or is he willing to sacrifice his credentials as an Evangelical by acknowledging that we aren't the sickos that he says that we are? He can't have it all. I am guessing that the Evangelicals are going to be thrown under the bus.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I agree with you that we can't really tell yet what is going to happen. If I'm not reading you incorrectly, it looks like you and I both see Warren's actions and motivations in very political terms. But what interesting questions! Or could he try to play both sides? And would that any longer be possible? It was interesting that his support for Prop 8 was only revealed ten days before the election, and only on his church's website for the benefit of his followers.
Is that a bad thing, John? You have a leader of the religious right now toning down his anti-gay rhetoric to please Obama. In that sense, you could argue that Obama is doing the right thing, right?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Wrong.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
difficult to admit you're wrong, eh? lol.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 11 months ago
Barney Frank this afternoon on Obama-Warren : "I'm suffering from post-partisan depression."
Brilliant word play! (But then everyone knows how witty the gays is . . . )
Scott
· 11 months ago
Obama told Warren to give him something for taking all the heat for his inclusion.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
And whose idea was it to remove the anti-gay language? Warren's, or Obama's?
Or was it the idea of his book publisher or Reader's Digest, who just signed Warren to make his own monthly magazine?
Heaven forbid we'd endanger any book or magazine sales.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
For some people, including Rick Warren himself, there is money at stake here, make no mistake. Look up "Purpose Driven" on Wikipedia. Rick Warren has been steadily building a Purpose Driven empire. Purpose Driven is a registered trademark, even. It is a brand.
SCLiberal
· 11 months ago
They are actually living a Fear Driven life. Sad.
mauro7inf
· 11 months ago
This is a good thing, though, regardless. Better that bigots are closeted than gays. They are on the wrong side of history, and maybe Rick Warren -- who's a good guy, generally, even if he may be somewhat of a wingnut -- will eventually come around. That would put a very happy ending on this whole thing.
The thing is that Warren is experiencing PERSONAL attacks. It's not a disagreement on issues; we are genuinely offended by him and what he believes, and his very presence is offensive to us. He is personally a problem to us, and we have been quite clear about that. I'm sure he realizes that he's hurting people, and I'm also sure that he doesn't feel good about this at all; gays are not his enemies, just a people prohibited by his religion. I'm not optimistic that Warren will turn around and become a civil rights leader, but it's plausible that if we keep up the pressure, he'll at least be more accepting of our rights as human beings whether we are gay or not.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
People used their religion to condone slavery. I'm sure none of those people were all bad either. A lot of them did eventually "come round", but it took a war to do it.
Psyche
· 11 months ago
Suspect one of the things that Warren is coping with is the fact the most virulently homophobic and anti-abortion folks are getting older and less influential - and they'll die off.
The younger ones are less conservative generally and more accepting of gays. If Warren wants to hold on to them, he's probably going to have to modify his views - with or without Obama.
Greensburg
· 11 months ago
When I see Warren on national television crying his little biggoted eyes out and saying I'm sorry to all the gays in this world, the way Jim Baker cried and said he was a sorry sinner to his church people when caught with a hooker, I will believe change and progress is being made with this pig. Until then, its all show time and politics.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 11 months ago
Right. Stealthily pulling down controversial material off a website is hardly a demonstration of a humanist epiphany. No, Warren, Inc. does it what needs to stay "marketable" in the face of controversy.
smiling_dog
· 11 months ago
Well, Aren't most religious leaders anti-gay and just not quite as open about it as Warren? Certainly the Catholic church is quite anti-gay. Can you really expect sincerity from them? The best you can hope for is that they tone down the rhetoric.
Me
· 11 months ago
actually, you're wrong.
I know a lot of christians and a lot of catholics who couldn't give a rat's ass who you sleep with as long as you're a decent human being.
I know a catholic priest who actually defends the gay community and the few gay members in his church on a regular basis, his logic... he is not God to judge anyone so why should he?
smiling_dog
· 11 months ago
And have you been to a lot of gay weddings performed by Catholic Priests? I'm assuming, by the way, that you didn't grow up Catholic.
Me
· 11 months ago
Actually, I did grow up catholic, in a church where a priest encouraged my cousin to come out to his family instead of living a double life. This priest also helped my family deal with my cousin being gay and told us God made us all different and there was nothing wrong with that.
What's your point?
I have seen a lot of racism and discrimination (towards non-gays) within the gay community, yet I know better than to lump all gays in the same group as those who've discriminated against others based on race and/or sexual orientation.
Would it hurt to think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone in the christian or catholic faith agrees with everything their faiths preach?
Most think that those in the muslim faith hate everyone else who isn't muslim, yet we know that isn't necessarily true... (I hope you at least realize that it's not true, if you do think that's true then this conversation is pointless and we shouldn't continue it any further).
jcgraham77
· 11 months ago
Your experience is a rare thing.
Me
· 11 months ago
ha ha! perhaps... but then I didn't necessarily grow up in a cookie cutter type family either.
What part is rare? The priest being supportive of my gay cousin or the fact that I am honest enough to acknowledge the blatant racism and discrimination that goes on in the gay community?
It does exist except not many want to admit it does, or even are aware of it (because they've never been on the receiving end).
RobertSanDimas
· 11 months ago
Mine was too. A Catholic priest helped me come out at the age of 52. He was truly marvelous and saw and felt my anguish. He left the Church, I found my life mate and when Jerry Brown gets Prop 8 nullified, we'll get married. :) We're pushing 70 now. Wish us luck.
Webster
· 11 months ago
Good luck, Robert and beau--and warmest best wishes.
RobertSanDimas
· 11 months ago
Sweet of you. Thanks from Raymond and me. Mmmwwwwaaaaaahhhh.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Many religious leaders, both nationally and locally, might be anti-gay. But there's a difference between being a religious leader and getting embroiled in politics, like actively campaigning on Prop 8 and courting both presidential candidates to come debate at your church, and religious leaders who stay away from politics and let people vote their conscience.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Me too. As for Warren being a pig, it's true. But we have no reason to believe Jesus despisd pigs. He did however despise hypocrites and the self-righteous. He said so over and over again.
tigergrrldc
· 11 months ago
I doubt that his policy has changed. Just took it off for people that will go on his site to do more investigating. I also doubt Obama had anything to do with it. If it's okay to agree to disagree, then why would he disagree about something that he had to have known was on the site. Even if he didn't know that it was on the site, he knew that's what Rick thought. This is a pure pr move.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Does Rick Warren stand by his own convictions, or doesn't he?
whomod
· 11 months ago
Rev. Rivers on MSNBC was spot on a few minutes ago.
barts
· 11 months ago
Obese Rick only did it for the 'media's sake.'
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
A little deception for the sake of political expediency. Oh yes. This is definitely the kind of thing Obama should elevate on the day he takes office.
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
Trying to mitigate your bigotry, Mr. Warren? (I also doubt the diversity shown in the photographs as well, as the most segregated buildings in the US are churches...)
Gridlock
· 11 months ago
Well, I'm glad nobody here listened to all the bitxches screaming "omg, this is so overdramatic, i'm bored, move on, wahhh"
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Very sadly, I suspect that straight folks were overrepresented in the "omg, this is so overdramatic, i'm bored, move on, wahhh" comments. That tells me that gay folks need to continue to tell our stories, and describe our histories and experiences. My theory is that because some of our stories and experiences are crazy painful, that some otherwise sympathetic people emotionally defend against really understanding.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Right on! And considering how many straight folks take marriage lightly I suppose it is hard for them to imagine our outrage at Rev. Warren's support for invalidating 18,000 of them.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
lol, dude, the only whining going on here were you guys... :-/
chowderSF
· 11 months ago
Dang, you clearly live a small live there PF. Very small. Who are you really talking to? Do you actually think anyone here respects a word you write? Just thought you should know....but then, that isn't why you post here anyway......huh? u r creepy.
dacaesar
· 11 months ago
I find it a little amusing that John and many people on this site were so vociferously against Hillary during the primaries. At that time, Obama could do no wrong. Well, I wonder if Hillary would've given a forum to such a hate-monger such as Rick Warren. We'll never know now, but I doubt it.
tigergrrldc
· 11 months ago
Hillary lost. Get over it! Saying what Hillary would or wouldn't have done is a waste of your brain cells. Find something else to use them on.
johnosahon
· 11 months ago
probably NOT, she may have instead focused her energy passing homophobic policies (you know the ones that actually affect us) like her husband did with DADT and DOMA
TampaZeke
· 11 months ago
You're right, we'll never know, but I don't have any reason to believe that she would have done anything differently considering her and her husband's record of "triangulation" and throwing gays under the bus whenever it was politically expedient to do so,
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I think regardless of whether we loved Hillary or hated her, she likely would not have made such a foreseeable political blunder. Sure she made political mistakes, but I don't believe she would have chosen to give the invocation at her inauguration an anti-choice homophobe who worked to pass Prop 8 and thinks Jews are going to hell.
fredndallas
· 11 months ago
First of all WHICH Hillary? She was such an assortment of personalities and policies and pronouncements, who knows for sure. Seeing as how, as John pointed out, the record showed that she had enormous difficulty forming her lips to even utter the sounds G A Y, I think it is a pretty damned good bet she would have followed this path (and worse) in a homophobic minute.
I was not an Obama supporter during the primaries but it just amazes me how commenters here are still slamming John for his support for Obama. On the other hand pro-Obama people that are just stunned with his homophobic actions simply were NOT paying attention.
chowderSF
· 11 months ago
Wow, you really have something there,,,,,,,what would Hillary have done.....why haven't we all wondered about that???.......Hold on,,,,,,wait.......oh, yeah......because SHE LOST.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
it's really funny to see pie in your face....you guys were so voraciously for Obama...and look now.
TampaZeke
· 11 months ago
Kudos John, your determination, passion and persistence is paying off in exposing this man, and others like him, for who they really are.
When you turn the light on the cockroaches they scurry to hide. We need more people like you to turn on some more lights and expose the hatred that right there for all to see but no one knows where to look and too many look the other way.
THANK YOU, for being such an unapologetic pain in the ass to these people. Thank you for sticking to your mission even when people in the comments, including me, say that you have gone too far.
We need MORE, not fewer, people like you with courage, conviction and determination to fight injustice even when it means fighting in the minority and even fighting against those who should be natural allies on our side of the political divide.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Amen, Amen, Amen.
This is about things like truth, fairness, and justice.
Rick Warren should be cornered: So does that mean, now, that a self-accepting gay person can become a member of Saddleback Church?
And, by the way, no politician should be above reproach or criticism. Supporting any politician blindly or unconditionally is silly. The American citizenry shouldn't be like Scientologists are to L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige, refusing to entertain the notion of their leader(s) having any flaws, much less fishiness (or severe corruption).
I thought Obama's Donnie McClurkin business was loathsome; and I thought Clinton's Bosnia airport bold-faced lying was loathsome. Et cetera. In a healthy democracy, no leader is above reproach. If the emperor ain't wearing any clothes, we need to tell him or her.
And not calling out despicable decisions, or lies, will cause more of them to happen. It is, quite simply, an accountability loop.
Thank goodness for John Aravosis and all others who are speaking out.
Psyche
· 11 months ago
I think we should send John to Congress. He's doing what they're afraid to do there - standing on principle even when it's unpopular.
Hope those damn Dem's are at least paying attention. I'm getting a feeling we'll have to spend some time holding Obama's feet to the fire on a number of issues. We're just getting in shape!
Sam
· 11 months ago
Let's see how fast the anti-gay language gets put back on his website AFTER he speaks at the inauguration! My guess is about 2 seconds.
An_American_Karol
· 11 months ago
It is because of John and activists like John that Warren is having to reevaluate his language. Warren may or may not believe the language was destructive, but the fact it was taken off his site shows the power in repeated protest. Gays are constantly asked to look at the big picture and to forget about their Civil Rights until later, always later. I would suggest later is now. No one in 2008 -09 should have to be fighting for the Rights every other citizen in the country enjoys. Good work, John.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Yes, if another clueless person says, "Oh, John, you are over the top...think of the big picture...blah blah blah," point out the change in Warren's website.
This is an important fight.
Professor_Farnsworth
· 11 months ago
Oh, John, you are over the top...think of the big picture
monitor
· 11 months ago
You've made your point, Professor. Again and again.
Fair warning...
sitemonitor
Steve
· 11 months ago
Again, this whole Rich Warren thing just boils my potatoes, for lack of better words. And non-gay society pats us on the shoulders and says, "Oh, we can't please everyone all the time, Obama is just trying to reach out to the other side here..."
Bullshit.
RobertSanDimas
· 11 months ago
Well it burns my biscuits, too!
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
It deflates my soufflé!!
RainbowPhoenix
· 11 months ago
THAT is too much information.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
;0)
Webster
· 11 months ago
And posts my Toasties.
iamevolved
· 11 months ago
"Saddleback" sounds like an unspeakable sex act. "I gave her (or him) the Old Saddleback last night."
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Lol. Brokeback Ministries
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
Or maybe Bareback Ministries.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
That sounds more like the Catholics. Lol
Rider
· 11 months ago
If I weren't otherwise occupied in a menage a trois with my brother and dog, I'd engage in some bareback Saddleback with the good reverend; Give the rev exactly what his twisted fantasies conjure.
chowderSF
· 11 months ago
Unspeakable? I personally think that speaking about sex acts would be a good thing, and take the 'shame' and 'unspeakable' aspect out of sex, after all, it is a good thing......the christionists even think it's holy. But, I know what you mean, and I thought the same thing. ;)
Catman51
· 11 months ago
Mr. Warren is a dangerous whack job.
chowderSF
· 11 months ago
beautifully put.
Rob Mule
· 11 months ago
Heat and a fat guy...I smell bacon!
Maybe Rick picked up a copy of "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies" by James Neill and freshly published by McFarland & Co. and now regrets his unfounded heterosexual imaginings???
NGLTF
· 11 months ago
Two things the media hasn't mentioned:
Rick Warren's church specifically bans lesbians like Mary Cheney and gay males like Mark Buse (McCain's Chief of Staff) from membership because she has not renounced the "gay lifestyle" nor repented from embracing evil.
Also, Rick Warren specifically called our glbt military vets child rapists when he compared gays to pedophiles. Even Fred Phelps didn't go that far. Where is the fucking media?
samiinh
· 11 months ago
You mean when Mary gives her daddy a hug?
MotorCityBadBoy
· 11 months ago
I don't think all progressives HAVE TO be in total agreement with everything that the author says in order NOT to be bigots. I'm a straight, 39 year old, Christian man and I have mixed feelings about homosexuals based on my upbringing/background and I'm man enough to admit it. I'm not going to beat around the bush and BS anyone, I'll just lay it out there. When it comes to this issue I ask myself these questions... Is someone born gay or is it a choice? I don't know, maybe 50/50. Does seeing two gays kiss or make out in public seem offensive to me. Yep. Does the thought of gay male sex repulse me... Yeah. Would I look at my fishing buddy or my b-ball team mate differently if they came out to me? Probably. Is this the same as the civil rights movement? Not at all. But on a higher level, do I think it's any of my (or the government's) business who someone sleeps with in the privacy of their home? Nope. Do I think people should be allowed to marry the ones they love? Yep. Do I think Gays should be given equal rights that protect them from all forms of discrimination? Yep. So, for me this is a tough and complex issue, and I think/feel all of these things. If this section of the progressive movement thinks I'm homophobic for having conflicting thoughts on this issue, so be it. But calling me a bigot for not being in total agreement with you just makes me less receptive to the message that you're trying to get across. So flame away...
NGLTF
· 11 months ago
"I'm a straight, 39 year old, Christian man and I have mixed feelings about homosexuals based on my upbringing/background and I'm man enough to admit it."
Some people are brought up in the deep South and their parents instilled values that the White man is to be respected, and the Niggra looked at with a suspicious eye (especially when he dares look at your wife or girlfriend). Now mind you these are just the values and faith these people were raised in. Some are from a different era. Who are we to judge them or their faith? Don't they deserve respect? Certainly if you call someone like that a bigot, they are not going to suddenly embrace the Coloreds.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
i would agree that prejudice is a tough issue on a personal level, but it's rarely "complex". i would point out, too, that most people don't choose to be bigots; but they do choose not to quit being bigots. i say this because there's plenty of guidance and support out there if you choose to avail yourself.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Thanks for your honesty. In my own case, I just started becoming attracted to males as puberty, and as puberty continued, the attraction became unambiguous and not something I had any control over. It just happened: There was no more "choice" involved than the attractions you experienced towards females at puberty, and have experienced all your life since. The attractions and feelings for both me and you just "are". I've never met a gay men or lesbian who felt that his or her homosexuality was chosen. It seems to be a matter of wiring. By analogy, people don't choose right-handedness or left-handedness. It's a characteristic, like other characteristics of individual physiology, that just happens.
MotorCityBadBoy, you know what you need? A cool gay or lesbian friend. I'm a cool-gay-friend to several straight guys. I have never came on to any of them, and would never do so (even the good-looking ones!). I know they're not into that. I respect that, and they respect me. Our not being the same can be the source of very interesting conversations. Sometimes it's enriching to hang with people who aren't your own "kind."
I play b-ball, too, by the way. But most of my b-ball buds don't know that I'm gay. Some would be fine with it, some might not be -- and that stinks.
In fact, you probably already personally know, and like, gay or lesbian people, who are afraid to tell you that they are gay or lesbian.
Again, I appreciate your honesty.
SCLiberal
· 11 months ago
"Does the thought of gay male sex repulse me... Yeah." How about two lesbians? That usually turns straight men on. The homosexuality issue doesn't revolve around homosexuality itself as much as it does around homosexual men. Somehow, they are perceived as a threat.
Is someone born gay? Turn it around. Is someone born straight? When did you make the decision to be sexually attracted to females? It is a MAJOR part of someone's life so you must vividly remember the occasion. Was it a difficult decision?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
That one always gets me. If gays choose to be gay, then straights choose to be straight, which means they could have chosen to be gay, but at some point made the other choice. Perhaps this explains why so many straight people worry about homosexuality and worry that their kids going gay, etc. They think it's a choice. Well, I'm here to tell them that no choice was involved. In fact, for some considerable time I made the misguided chose not to be, but it didn't work.
Catman51
· 11 months ago
I know for a fact that I did not choose to be gay, I was born this way. If I did have a choice, I would have taken the easy road and not have to put up with the assholes that try to tell me what to do with my life.
Sean
· 11 months ago
"Is someone born gay or is it a choice?"
Does it matter? As far as I am concerned the "is it a choice" argument is only used because it is a question that cannot be definitively answered. It is a cowards question.
Who cares if it is a choice? What about the ex-gays? Are they divinely saved? Mentally cured? Or is it a choice? No one seems to ever ask that question. You should.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I greatly respect your viewpoint that one person's viewpoint should not get to determine how another should live. I try not to flame away, but occasionally I realize that I'm acting a bit swishy.
Midlander
· 11 months ago
Whether your swish is on or off, or left or right, you are freakin' BRILLIANT, RitornaVincitor. I'm glad you are here. I hope you are posting on other blogs as well.
I was hoping that with the election of Obama, after 8 tortuous years of being led by poorly-spoken, proud C-student Bush, our country would return to valuing and honoring intelligence and intellectualism. Obama's appointing real scientists to departments where science is inestimably important is encouraging. However, granting a spot at the inauguration to this Rick Warren person, who expressly discourages science, open inquiry, and thinking for oneself, is fantastically disappointing, just on the basis of his anti-intellectualism.
Webster
· 11 months ago
It's just Warren wising up. After all, he follows the teachings of his Chri$t.
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
"Well, I wonder if Hillary would've given a forum to such a hate-monger such as Rick Warren. We'll never know now, but I doubt it."
Well, I don't think that Hillary deeply hates gay people but for many reasons I think that Barry does.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Based on Bill's eight years in office, I don't think Hillary would have been any different. They're politicians and see Gays as a donor base and voting block that's triangulated against another group of voters.
gary
· 11 months ago
Makes me wonder if he pulled the offensive "jews are going to hell" bs off as well?:
"What does it mean to be a chosen people? Question: Our small group met last night and we had a question we thought maybe you would help us clarify. If the Jews are God’s chosen people and they follow the laws as handed down to Moses, yet they do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah, how then can they be saved and ensure their place in heaven?
Answer: When you think about how those who have a Jewish heritage come to salvation, the best answer is in looking at the first followers of Jesus. The first disciples were all Jewish men, but their salvation came through their relationship with Christ, not their Jewish background. The same is true of the Apostle Paul and every other Jew who came to Christ in the New Testament. The truth of the Bible is, we all come to salvation in the same way ... through our faith in Christ.
When God calls the Jews his chosen people it does not mean that they are all automatically chosen for salvation. It means that they were chosen to be the nation that would follow him and teach others what it meant to follow him. That is why Jesus went to the Jewish people first when he came to this earth. Through the Jewish people (Jesus himself was a Jew), he brought the blessing of salvation to the world.
Of course, today there are not as great a number of Jewish believers in Jesus as we would expect. If they are God’s chosen people, why aren’t more choosing faith in him? The Bible tells us in Romans 11 that there will be a day when this will change – a day when there will be a great revival of faith in God through Jesus among the Jewish people. Obviously, this is a day that we, as believers in Christ, want to pray for! "
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Obviously you are unaware that Jesus was not the first "savior of the world" to be born on December 25th to a virgin in a cave attended by shepherds and wise men. Nor was he the first to be baptized by a man who was later beheaded. Nor was he the first to be crucified between two thieves, rise from the grave three days later and ascend into heaven. For this and 200 other exact similarities, check out the Egyptian god Horus and the Indo-Persian god Mithra. Both predate Jesus by more than a thousand years, and both were widely popular in the Roman Empire a century before Jesus was supposed to have been born. It's good to know who your gods were borrowed from.
gary
· 11 months ago
RitornaVincitor, My above comment was a quote from the saddleback website. It was a question, NOT MY OPINION.
Sorry if that was confusing?
john_was_an_arrogant_ass
· 11 months ago
John, when the Homophobe Donnie McClurkin was brought into Obama's campaign and we pointed it out to you - you trashed every non-Obamahead person that was upset. John, when Obama refused to meet the mayor of San Francisco and have his picture taken with him - you trashed every non-Obamahead person that was upset.
Now that you've gotten Obama elected, you act surprised and upset? That just shows how stupid you were and how vicious you were during the primaries to anyone that tried to point out the obvious to you! Obama is not the progressive god, he's not even a progressive on most issues! He's a conservative black man, and thanks to his candidacy and his unwillingness to campaign for gay rights - prop 8 passed in California - congrats! You had a direct impact on the rights of gay people, you helped take them away by supporting the homophobe for president!!!
Now it's too late, and Obama really doesn't give a damn about you or your opinion since he's elected just as we who were dissatisfied with him pointed out! Obama is about Obama - end of debate! If you're lucky enough to be on the same side of an issue great, otherwise he'll give you platitudes and do whatever he wants! That's how he was in the state house, and what every sane person pointed out to you in the primaries! But you were too busy carrying water for the GOP and spreading Clinton Derangement Syndrome among other diseases... Now we all just get to make the best of it, and I get to spend 4 more years yelling at the news!!! Thanks - asshole!
chowderSF
· 11 months ago
Well, I guess I will say it if no one else will........bug off, creep, and take that charming attitude as well.
SCLiberal
· 11 months ago
These people aren't too smart about the internet, are they?
samiinh
· 11 months ago
Well here's the biggest queen of them all:
Pope likens "saving" gays to saving the rainforest Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:46pm GMT
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.
"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."
The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."
The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."
He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."
SCLiberal
· 11 months ago
Do that many people really care what the pope has to say anymore? Church attendance is dropping worldwide, a good sign in my opinion.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Prior to his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger had been since 1981 the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was known as "God's Rottweiler" for the manner in which he went after his enemies and destroyed them. In previous centuries the Congregation of which he was Prefect was called the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and the Prefect was called the Grand Inquisitor. The Inquisition was responsible for the torture and execution of heretics, Jews and homosexuals by burning or strangulation. The last person to be executed by the Inquisition was Cayetano Ripoll, a schoolmaster from Valencia,Spain, who was garroted to death on Jul 26, 1826 for allegedly teaching the heresy of Deism. Deism is the belief that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason rather than supernatural revelation. Deists believe that reason can be superior to dogma. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. Ripoll's last words were, "I die reconciled to God and to man."
Prior to becoming a priest, young Josef was a Hitler Youth, but he maintains that he was only following orders.
bayhuntr
· 11 months ago
If the Pope starts hating again the church might start growing. I'm starting to think it is the only way the less educated will do anything.
Webster
· 11 months ago
The only difference between the Pope and Rick Warren and James Dobson is their couturier.
Marie
· 11 months ago
This may be the first baby step in bringing a change of heart to Rick Warren.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Possibly. Or possibly just a PR move to avoid further criticism and embarrassment for himself and Obama. When Warren starts working to undo the damage of Prop 8 that he supported, I'll be impressed.
ChrisSF
· 11 months ago
I only wish that were true, but I really doubt it. Not much attention has been paid to this but on Dec. 15, Warren sent in a bunch of "clarifictions" to his answers in the beliefnet interview that got him into hot water in the first place. His clarifications were, if anything, even more inflammatory and offensive than his original answers -- for example, using the word "incest" as something gay marriage should be compared to.
BraydenWicker
· 11 months ago
I think this was Obama's plan all along. Obama thought this out but some people overreacted. He changed the mind of a very influential pastor. This is huge.
Sean
· 11 months ago
People are missing the larger issue in this debate. It is not simply that Warren has these views. It is not about giving a platform of differing opinions. The world will be watching this inauguration. The world, where in many places gay people fear for their lives, will receive a message that they are correct. When you parade the Warrens of the world onto the world stage, you legitimize the illegality of homosexuality and the subsequent death penalty associated with it.
In no uncertain terms, Obama will KILL GAYS with this decision. Just as the decision by the US to join Islamic countries and the Holy See in opposition to the UN resolution. http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2008/12/on_t...
This act, like McClurkin, is indefensible. This is my life. This is the lives of gays and lesbians all over the world. We are not a political statement. Using us is just as bad as Bush and Co using the troops for their political statements. Despised and dispensible.
Gary SF
· 11 months ago
Obama is not the president until next year. How is he responsible for the UN vote? This inane logic is usually seen only in Clinton supporters.
Sean
· 11 months ago
I invite you to read what I posted again. I did not even imply that Obama was responsible for the UN vote.
"In no uncertain terms, Obama will KILL GAYS with this decision. Just as the decision by the US to join Islamic countries and the Holy See in opposition to the UN resolution."
I was equating his actions inviting Warren to the world stage to the actions of the current administration at the UN. The point being that there is little difference.
Gary SF
· 11 months ago
Thanks for the clarification. I still think we need to keep the heat up on this issue - but also give Obama a chance to act upon his LGBT campaign promises - by July 1. Six months seems fair. After 6 months, we can declare war upon Obama.
fredndallas
· 11 months ago
If you think that international leaders are paying no attention now to what BO is doing on ANY issue, you have inane logic.
Sean
· 11 months ago
If you think the world is not watching this President and this inauguration you are naive. This selection is world news.
What a superb point, Sean. This point somehow needs to get into the mainstream dialogue on this issue.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 11 months ago
Sean this is well put. I had that same thought the other day. The world is watching the USA. That's right, that USA. The junior high playground USA. That's the same USA where people giggle giggle titter titter about ANYTHING sexual. The ignorance in America about us is appalling and truly egg on our face. That the nation allows people like this fat slob with the very homo goatee to get up and say ANYTHING at a Presidential inauguration. I am heartsick at Obama for doing this. Heartsick. And sorry folks but many of us think that Ricky Warren sets off our gaydar. We are just wondering when his Ted Haggard moment is coming.
Boycottutah
· 11 months ago
Maybe Barry and Ricky have had a few Haggard moments together. Both of them seem very gay to me. Those tabloid stories about Michelle living with a lesbian in college may hold some key to the truth. Maybe they both repented from their evil lifestyles. Who knows.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I remember hearing so many comments from friends in Europe about how America was viewed when Bush won his second term. I had hoped that the embarrassment phase was over. And yet here we are honoring this vicious buffoon. Another intellectual midget offered up as America's finest. Another homophobe for progressive societies to shake their heads at. And yes, how often we've seen that those who go on the most about repressing homosexuality are actually repressing their own.
RainbowPhoenix
· 11 months ago
Did you tell this to the inauguration team?
Free speech
· 11 months ago
This is a free country and everybody is entitled to his opinion including Rick Warren who has the right to think whatever he thinks about homosexuality as long as he does not discriminate against other people based ont heir sexual orientation or choice. There are a lot of people out there who think that it is dumd to believe in God or to be a christian, I don't feel offended as a christian, it is their opinion. I have muslim, hindu friends, in fact, my best friends are not christians, even thought I disagree strongly with their religion. The point I am trying to make is that Gay/lesbians are the one who are intolerant, because they want everybody to "accept" agree with their lifestyle and don't tolerate different opinions on this, that to me is intolerance. I don;t care what people think of christianity and I dont expect everybody to view christianity the way I do. That does not mean that they hate me. They just have other views. To expect people to embrace my views or belief is intolerant, i am sorry but to me, those ar the intolerant one. And please stop comparing being Gay/lesbian with being black back in the days, you people are ot going through one tenth of what these people have to go through. At some point one has to draw a line. And yes this is a free country and everybody is entitled to his opinion includint that they don't believe that Sexual orientation is not inheritated. If you want to take this as a hte language, go ahead, you are the intolerant one
Cratze
· 11 months ago
If you study the Google cache and compare it with the revised version it is easy to see that his decision to modify the list of Small Group Questions had nothing to do with homosexuals. He changed ALL 52 questions to a list focusing more on Small Groups. Saddleback does not forbid homosexuals from attending, just from obtaining a membership. The "offending" script that you mention also states that unwed couples are not permitted to become members. Yet, the unwed couples aren't flapping their wrists over the requirement. Anyone that considers obtaining a membership to such a Church will actually need to think about their current lifestyle. If the gay community doesn't like that Church then look elsewhere. It is no more discriminatory than denying a girl membership with the Boy Scouts. The group just has a defined set of requirements. There is quite a large percentage of people attending that are not official members. Get over it.
Gary SF
· 11 months ago
Then why were the membership requirements removed? To hide? I didn't seek to change the membership requirements of his church - but he sought to impose his religious beliefs upon me by his campaign for Proposition 8. Oh, and your comparison of us to unwed couples is nuts BECAUSE UNWED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES CAN GET MARRIED.
We are not going away and I promise you that this is going to get ugly if Obama does not act on his LGBT campaign promises by July 1. You better get over it.
gary
· 11 months ago
Also interesting that they have to quote THREE different versions of the "bible" to make their hairbrained point, and ironic that since teh gayz can't get married, it's two strikes: "In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives. "
chowderSF
· 11 months ago
If you don't like gay blogs discussing our issues, by all means, move on, bud, and as you say, GET OVER IT.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
girls are barred from boyscouts because they like sex with their brothers and assorted old men. lol. comic relief. thanks.
bayhuntr
· 11 months ago
Did anyone really think an evangelical church would except an active queer into it's membership? Rick Warren is just a newer version of a power and money hungry glutenous man who figured out how profitable dehumanizing gay people is.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
In the end very few care about the poor deluded fools that seek membership in Warren's church. But for those of us who do not wish to be members, living by his rules is unacceptable. If you don't like gay marriage, then by all means don't marry a gay person. But Warren sought successfully to legislate his lifestyle on others. He doesn't just reject gay marriage. He rejects it for all Californians. Unacceptable.
Yes the good reverend Warren might be a righteous bigot, however as Ms. Etheredge's ecumenical tone and outreach through her posting illustrate, it is to the betterment of all to invite those who hate to our table. It is a most christian thing to do. Even if I'm not one.
He adds in the comments: I love how progressives are supposed to be civil now. Warren goes on TV and says vote against equal protection for gays. Here's the spot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0 But that's not hateful?
But he does it with kindness and love so that's OK? OK, I lovingly say he should stay home Jan. 20.
And as for abortion: "If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted," Warren said.
"They would call that a holocaust, and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier
I wonder if any of you would be faking your outrage at me if Warren spoke against Blacks or Jews the way he speaks against gays. Or if he spoke against Christians, denying them a right to marry.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Once again, I'm impressed by this man's lack of intelligence. He uses the same tired old arguments without bringing anything new or remotely intellectual to them. He misstates traditional marriage as something that for 5000 years has been between one man and one woman. Doesn't he even read the Old Testament? Has he never heard of polygamy? Has he heard of the Mormons? Does he respect other marriage traditions like the husband's ownership of the wife? Is he unaware of other cultures? I'm amazed at his lack of intellect and education. Yet another reason to be stunned that Obama would choose him.
And this indefensible, brain dead idea that rights are determined by numbers. No wonder he grossly understates the percentage of gays in California. He believes that the smaller the size of a group, the smaller their claim to basic rights. I'm sure the phrase "tyranny of the majority" would have to be explained to him. I wonder if he would have sided with the majority of Romans against the early Christians. I'm not saying he's truly stupid. He's just not smart. How embarrassing that he will be delivering the invocation. And of course how outrageous.
GaryBrush
· 11 months ago
I think this is a step in the right direction. I think this fiasco may end up being a good thing for it has opened Warren's eyes to his own bigotry.
Al
· 11 months ago
Are you insane, or just stupid? Keep living in La La Land where bigots become civil rights defenders overnight. God.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
I think it's opened his eyes to being more careful about what he says in public to keep his books in the marketplace and to get a place of political influence. The man's an opportunist from what I can tell.
Have you read any of his books? He's sort of like the Thomas Kinkaide of evangelism - really good at marketing and branding himself as a business, but there's no "there there".
Travis
· 11 months ago
Took off the section about dinos coexisting with humans, too. Must be kinda embarrassing
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Don't you just love that one? Such a conundrum. Dinosaurs managed to squeeze on the arc with all the other animals and then became extinct later. Or dinosaurs were destroyed in the great flood because God just forgot to invite them aboard. Or dinosaurs never existed at all and Satan just planted dinosaur bones to test the faith of Christians. They are so desperate to take every word of the bible literally. So how many angels were there at the tomb of Jesus? One? Two? A multitude? None? Correct answer: all of the above. How long did Jesus's ministry last? Three years? One year? Correct answer: both. When was Jesus born? The bible says Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Herod died in the year 4 BC. But Cyrenius didn't become governor of Syria until the year 6 AD. It goes on and on and on.... The bible is full of contradictions. The book has been around for ages, yet biblical literalists still don't know what it says.
Dale Lazarov
· 11 months ago
Maybe the dinosaurs were gay.
Scott
· 11 months ago
There were!
Haven't you heard of the Lickalotopus?
Lolly
· 11 months ago
Aha! So that's why they became extinct!
reboho
· 11 months ago
I worry that Obama thinks that Warren is a reasonable man because Obama's world view is that we are all rational actors. Warren is not a rational actor. No one who believes (or exploits the belief) in an omniscient, omnipotent being is rational. Obama thinks that by including Warren he will convert him when in fact Warren is thinking that if Obama is including him he can exploit him. By including him Obama can illicit a temporary change in behavior but I hope he is crazy like a fox and understands that Warren needs Obama more than Obama needs Warren and is giving him a taste in order to help Warren understand that he needs to join the rest of us under the big tent. Probably won't work but he tried.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Or maybe Obama is including Warren because they are friends.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Or Obama may be including him because Warren's a pop culture phenom, the "hit of the moment" that's sold some books and has the attention of a certain demographic at the moment. I don't see any evidence that Warren is a personal friend of spiritual advisor of Obama. Obama seems to want to win political points with the Religious Right, that's all.
If this were the 1920s, Obama probably would have invited Bruce Burton, an evangelical who had a best-selling book called "The Man Nobody Knows". It's a little like Warren's writings - Burton's take on Christianity is that Jesus was a "salesman" and that, to be a good Christian, you had to be a good salesman like Jesus!
Tawdry Christian self-help gurus are nothing new and have their brief moment of fame until something new comes along. They're like the authors of dieting books.
maurice
· 11 months ago
It's really tiresome to see the knee-jerk reaction of the left to everything Obama does that seems unprogressive . I think Obama is more savvy then most people think. What's that old line, Sunight is the best disenfectant? So Obama gives this guy a few minutes at the inaugeration. For weeks before the event Mr. Warren now has to defend his beliefs. Obama' s already President. What's he got to lose? Christians feel like they won something with this choice, but it focuses the attention on them, their leaders, and an out of touch belief system. So Rick Warren is know softening his web site rhetoric I think it was a brilliant move on the part of the President-elect. Get ready to be dazzled.
Al
· 11 months ago
Warren is hated by the Right and Pro-Lifers. If this idiot said anything about blacks, you'd be foaming at the mouth.
Obama is justifying bigotry.
Learn how to spell "inauguration" before posting again. Thanks.
Scott
· 11 months ago
I'm sure Warren changed his website in the same fashion Ted Haggard was rushing to clean up the meth pipes, used condoms and lube bottles before the wife and kids got home.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
The "unprogressive" aspect pales for me in light of the knowledge that the man who called me a pedophile and worked to invalidate my marriage will be honored by the new president.
Mark me Puzzled
· 11 months ago
Got it, but who cares? This seems to me like a Nero syndrome. The world is falling apart and all what some of you people are worried about is your hurt feelings.
I would focus more on the fact that the majority of Californian voters stated that gay marriage is not their cup of tea. Does this mean that every Californian is potentially your enemy and a questionable presidential choice?
Thank you for reading. Now if you will excuse me I'll go back to worry about how to pay my medical bills, keep my place worm and see if I can find a job .
Marie Burns
· 11 months ago
I was pretty surprised by the news Warren has also taken down the dinosaur stuff. He still has links to his wife's teachings about how the theory of evolution denegrates God's love, or some such thing -- I couldn't listen to much of it -- it was really awful.
The revulsion to Obama's choice of Rick Warren has, probably rightly, concentrated on his unconscionable anti-gay remarks, but I find his anti-science stance just as -- or more -- dangerous.
Why did Obama choose Rick Warren to give the invocation in the same week he announced his scientific team? One or the other has to be a joke. You can't be Fred Flintstone AND Steven Chu. To me, placing Rick Warren on a pedestal isn't just an insult to rational people; it sends the terrible message that creationism is a plausible scientific theory -- just as Kay Warren teaches. It says science is opinion, not even educated opinion. In fact, it's the WRONG opinion. What is the point of pouring my tax dollars into our educational system on the one hand if on the other, you place delusional nonsense on a podium and give it a big ol' mike?
Rick Warren's thinking is dangerous on many levels, but the dangers it poses for our future is debilitating. The nation will get over being anti-gay in the same way it's getting over being anti-minority and anti-feminist -- the old bigots are dying off. But it won't get over being dumb if we keep on teaching new generations that the charming Biblical myths of Genesis are scientific and historical fact.
When are you going to post this on Huffington Post? Or are you too chicken shit?
Today, the big blog from a fellow gay was: Gay marriage is stupid.
Everyone on Huff Post agrees, and gays are nothing more than a bunch of harpies.
bavb
· 11 months ago
1) I love the idea of gay harpies 2)i'm sure sadback church is like "what's a Google's cache?" duh
Esho
· 11 months ago
Yeah, as a gay atheist who likes science, Warren offends pretty much all my sensibilities. He's anti-gay, he thinks Christianity is the one true religion and that a non-believer can't be president, and he rejects evolution.
Not sure which of these is worse really. They're all an affront to intelligence, decency and freedom.
afafkd
· 11 months ago
it's kind of nuts trying to decide who is gifted with grace
NoFriendofMine
· 11 months ago
It really, really scares me how so many of you folks (referring to readers of this blog) are just planning on Obama letting "you" down. You're planning to wage a war against a man that has SO, SO, SO, SO much more on his plate than piddly LGBT issues. What the hell, guys? Really, our economy is in shambles and needs to be repaired. Our health care system is archaic and needs to be mended. Same with schools. Same with unemployment and illiteracy, etc. I could go on and on. Point is - you guys are acting flat out MILITANT about "waging war" upon him.
I've read so many entries and comments filled with such distaste and ANGER. Many of you are so damned angry! Why aren't you focusing on the positive? Obama has been elected, and thus, positive changes are on the horizon. Maybe you guys won't be able to get married right away. So what? How about having jobs to pay for the damned weddings you want? Fuck, you should read the things that you post - it's illogical and many of you appear to have on blinders.
You know, your collective group is worse than the bigots and homophobes that you spit your own venom rhetoric at with such haste.
Sean
· 11 months ago
Excellent. Please list for me which of your civil right you are willing to give up to help us solve all these problems.
Maybe we should just stop all weddings. I mean it's not like any part of the economy depends on weddings. I fail to see the logic in your argument. If anything you would think that gay weddings would only add to the economy. Then again, what do I know about shopping.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
I think that many Gays and Lesbians (and others) are offended and angry because they feel duped and have gotten something of a "bait and switch".
Again, this isn't just about marriage. The rhetoric Warren espouses is much the same as the junk people like Falwell were spewing out very publicly a few years ago. This kind of talk - and a "blessing" of it by the "powers that be" - makes it appear just okay dokey to go out and bash Gays. There's also issues like employment discrimination that's gotten lost in all the hoopla the Religious Right is making about Gay marriage. Warren's equated being Gay with pedophilia; it's kinda hard to get a job if folks think all Gays are predators.
No one's talking about taking away the guy's freedom of speech or doing what he wants in his own church. Where there's a problem is Obama's support of Warren's public pronouncements by giving the man a prominent place in what has traditionally been an apolitical celebration.
I've been around long enough to remember the Gay community's euphoria after Clinton was elected and the bitter disappointments we saw in that administration. The Warren choice seems to say we're in for much of the same - nice words, but no action to back up what he's saying.
And the Democrats wonder why progressives and Gays keep toying with third parties.
ashbar
· 11 months ago
Warren is arguably not the best choice....but then who? The sad fact is that Warren reflects the feelings of the majority of this country. Many right-wing & left-wing folks--and even Obama--do not support special rights for gays, including the right to marry. Obama has a long history of being able to find the common ground with people, rather than focusing on the differences which lead to the divisiveness we see in politcs today. He may not approve of Rick Warren's opinions about homosexuals, but he probably does see Warren as a way to both bring in a faith component and not completely alienate the extreme right wing. If Obama tried to force the homosexual agenda down the throats of the country, it would practically ensure that we'll have another right-wing Republican in the White House in 4 years.
alma j
· 11 months ago
Obama said he was against gay marriage. I don't support him, but he didn't lie. So if you voted for him knowing that, that is on you. I don't think he really is against it. He has to say he is. Give him a chance.
dula
· 11 months ago
It is interesting how Obama has divided the Democratic Party by trying to be inclusive to divisive, extremist, Right Wing bigots. I thought his political vision was one of unity.
nogo postal
· 11 months ago
"And whose idea was it to remove the anti-gay language? Warren's, or Obama's?"
Yep...every time, John i give you credit for moving beyond the village...you say something like this...so hey...you want to push this point? Cool. me...I remember Rev wright and when Obama sent a message to a wider audience but hey..Obama is clueless ..does not have any understanding,,, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
Just one day before giving the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, Rick Warren will be the keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King Jr. Annual Commemorative Service, officials at Saddleback Church said. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warren-obama...
How quickly Warren leveraged his new "openness" to get a place at the power table. He just out-played Obama in one swift move. I worry about the next four years.
dschicago
· 11 months ago
willnyc....don't fret, the game has just begun. have faith that O knows what he's doing, so far he seems to have made some seriously accurate moves. poor ghetto child = president of the united states.....have faith.
Gary
· 11 months ago
And how their invitation sttaes that Rick Warren "embraces diversity." Bullcrap. Obama threw the gays under the bus. They've been rick-rolled.
willnyc
· 11 months ago
Just one day before giving the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, Rick Warren will be the keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King Jr. Annual Commemorative Service, officials at Saddleback Church said. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warren-obama...
How quickly Warren leveraged his new "openness" to get a place at the power table. He just out-played Obama in one swift move. I worry about the next four years.
keyyan
· 11 months ago
Isn't this good? If he removes language and concepts that cut across human cooperation and collaboration, aren't we better off? Or are we more concerned with showing we were "better" than someone else earlier than they were? Are we all so intent on "partisan blows against the foes" that we have lost sight of our objectives?
Ohio_Dem
· 11 months ago
Don't you want to know if gays are now allowed to be members of the church before you begin declaring that this is "better". Removing words doesn't mean anything if it's still a rule for his church.
Coloradem
· 11 months ago
You can scrub a website, but you can't scrub an attitude.
I wonder how these people are going to react when they get to heaven and find that God has admitted for gays and lesbians. Heaven, as I understand it, isn't as exclusive as Saddleback Church....
RickDerrig
· 11 months ago
keyyan, As "Ohio_Dem" said, taking it off the site (if it is completely removed) doesn't mean that gays are now accepted -it just means that the bigotry isn't advertised. How many KKK members proudly wore their sheets yet stayed "closeted"? No, I don't think we're really better off.
Rick
Walt
· 11 months ago
How many klan members hid like cowards under those sheets?
more
· 11 months ago
Other archives, because the google cache will eventually expire as well:
I don't know about webcitation.org, but archive.org will remove all references and caches of your pages if you put some code in your robots.txt file.
For a permanent record of this, someone really needs to do a series of screenshots and keep them on their hard drive.
Bill
· 11 months ago
Actually the information is still there....if you did more looking you would have found that it has been moved to another section of the website.
Gary
· 11 months ago
No Bill it is gone.
The paragraph about membership at Saddleback being banned to gays if they are "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle" is now gone. You can do a text search on that exact phrase. Their own cache still matches that phrase which proves that it was there but when you click on the search results, it is gone.
Bill, if you found that it is still there and has moved, please cut and paste the current location in your reply.
aratina
· 11 months ago
No Gary it is still there.
The exact same paragraph about what "judging others" means and an even more disturbing paragraph about how gays are just like alcoholics is above it here ( http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/maturity/fullst... ). Don't tell me that is not anti-gay. It is disgusting.
J
· 11 months ago
Warren stated, "I am naturally inclined to sleep with every attractive woman I see, but that doesn't mean it's okay."
Clearly, he is not saying homosexuality is any "worse" than sleeping around. In fact, he's saying that it's ONE of his many beliefs.
I think people need to just let him speak his mind. When you turnaround and point fingers you are doing exactly the same thing that you are saying he's doing.
dick c
· 11 months ago
What about those who are unwilling to repent of gluttony? Shall they be seated at the head of the table? In other words, why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the pork belly that is in thine own eye?
Johnson
· 11 months ago
I don't agree with Rick Warren but if they're not willing to reach out we have to be b/c we will never get things solved. That doesn't mean that you give up your own principles, but we have to be bigger people. It's always the underdog that has to be the bigger person to show the oppressor the error of their ways, it make take a day or 400 years but it eventually happens
Kate
· 11 months ago
I would prefer that the one giving the invocation was not a public spokesperson for any religion.
However, when Obama said he was going to reach out, build bridges, find common ground, etc. folks applauded. Then when he actually does, all hell breaks lose.
Chill out. Let the guy govern. It's much too soon to render a final verdict.
Steve
· 11 months ago
IIt's not too soon to say "strike one; two more and Obama's out."
Ohg Rea Tone
· 11 months ago
my mother is eighty-five years old and has some practical commons sense about the issue of gay marriage. .................
You actually think Obama has ideas about Warren's website, and then tells Warren about them? No way I think that.
T
· 11 months ago
Very possibly - yes. Obama is very calculating. I don't think he asked Warren without thoroughly thinking it through. Just wait and see what happens....
dschicago
· 11 months ago
willnyc....don't fret, the game has just begun. have faith that O knows what he's doing, so far he seems to have made some seriously accurate moves. poor ghetto child = president of the united states.....have faith.
Gene in Durham
· 11 months ago
If Obama wants a true diversity of opinion and beliefs represented at the inauguration, will he include someone who opposes civil rights for black Americans? or someone who opposes marriage between blacks and whites, or between Jews and Christians? If Obama is going to reach out to bigots, why show preferential treatment to antigay bigots?
Kate
· 11 months ago
Gene, do you know of any such groups from whom Obama could chose a spokesperson with a national identity?
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
How about Fred Phelps? David Duke?
Ed
· 11 months ago
Why doesn't Obama be inclusive and invite the grand wizard of the KKK to speak?
Lee5
· 11 months ago
HuffingtonPost.com has posted a message by Melissa Etheridge after her experience of meeting Warren. Warren needs to renounce publicly and on video to his congregation his hateful words. And also renounce his church's 'conversion therapy' clearly and fully in words, in public. Etheridge did not say this.
Boston02121
· 11 months ago
We all have short comings. Which one of you out there blogging against what Mr. Warren believes have other beliefs that he may disagree with. None of us are perfect, therefore all of our opinions are valuable to us. Understand we were all created by God and He is our judge, not we judge each other.
lance romance
· 11 months ago
haven't we had enough of evangelecals and all the hate and stupidity that thay have tried to inject into normal sane peoples lives? imagine even a stupid moron like bush managed to snooker them into believing that he would change america to suit their insane agenda, but then didn't because he may be stupid, but he's not crazy. rick warren should not have any part in the upcoming events. i'm dissapointed in barry.
tweetchiezine
· 11 months ago
SO Just Maybe the Obama inclusiveness has softened a classic self righteous knucklehead! tweetchiezone
LtWorf
· 11 months ago
Ya think? Master move, no?
J. White
· 11 months ago
I think Obama's` invitation to Rick Warren, as offensive at it is to the gay community, is far less egregious than Bill Clinton's passage of the "don't ask-don't tell" policy in the military. One was an insensitive blunder by a president-elect who now realizes that he is far less in tune with gay issues than he presumed. The other was a POLICY that has compromised the military, and deprived it of much needed man/womanpower. Many of the Arabic translators who would have helped the troops after we invaded Iraq were rejected because of their sexual preference. Incredible policy blunder which has lasted for more than a decade. Clinton's POLICY caused a lot of harm...Obama's Inauguration will come and go. And hopefully, Rick Warren will crawl back in his neo-con cave.
Obama says he wants to overturn "don't ask-don't tell." Let's give him a chance to make good on that word. He believes in civil unions, but not gay "marriage" per say. This is nothing new. He was consistent in his campaign. As an agnostic straight person, I believe that couples (gay or straight) should be allowed a civil union (a civil marriage, which would entitle couples to the same legal rights, adoption rights, inheritance rights, etc.). "Marriages" should not be up to the government to define anyway. They have no business interfering. It should be up to one's church. We're getting hung up on terminology here. Don't forget Bill Clinton also signed the Defense of Marriage Act - another slap in the face to the gay community. It's going to take time and patience to fight for its reversal. And we should all put pressure on Obama to do so.
We need to chill about the Warren invocation, and concentrate on the Rev. Lowery benediction (which the media has conveniently ignored!). Obama isn't perfect and never pretended to be. We all WANTED him to be the savior of the progressives, the gays, the environmentalists. He'll do some good, but he'll be sure to disappoint one or all of these groups on specific issues. I'm trying to focus on the bigger picture.
He got off to a shaky start with the gay community,but I believe he'll make up for it as he settles in to office............He's no dummy.
LtWorf
· 11 months ago
Sorry, but I think Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he invited Rick Warren.
He put gay issues front and center for those to see and dialogue has begun. When you have someone as well respected in the gay community as Melissa Ethridge saying reach out to him, that's progress.
He has NOTHING to make up for.
coolcatdaddy
· 11 months ago
Bono of U2 reached out to Jesse Helms later in his life and they did some work around AIDS in Africa. It didn't necessarily erase Helms's decades long record of bigotry.
Laer
· 11 months ago
The passage on the web site means that gays can attend Saddleback as a non-member, and if they repent their sin - including the sin of living a homosexual lifestyle, along with whatever other sins they're actively engaged in - they can become members of the church. This policy isn't different from the church's other sin-related policies. For example, straight couples who "live in sin" better not plan on getting married at Saddleback because they can't - unless they repent and change their ways. The church is still open to them, the teachings are available to them; only membership isn't, because membership requires repenting.
Readers of this blog may still find this offensive; they may find the entire concept of sin offensive. But to a conservative Christian, these policies are not surprising at all - and certainly are not "anti-gay," any more than the church's policy regarding marrying people who are sleeping together is "anti-straight." I have friends who have repented their gay lifestyle and joined Saddleback. This doesn't mean that they say they're not gay - it means they repent the lifestyle (i.e., "acting out") and try to remain pure in a way that is no different from adulterers or alcoholics who do the same thing.
To us Christians, sin is sin. Greed, lust (gay or straight), materialism, rage, self-aggrandizement, forsaking God - they're all sins and they come from living in a fallen world. Christ offers forgiveness, and if we repent he will draw us near to God.
David
· 11 months ago
"straight couples who "live in sin" better not plan on getting married at Saddleback because they can't"
Oh, I'm sure a greedy, materialistic, angry hetero Christian couple can still get married at Saddleback without too much hassle. If Ricky Warren up and decided to deny those people membership, where would he be getting his millions of tax-exempt dollars?
J
· 11 months ago
i'm pretty sure the church doesn't pay him millions. however he does donate 90% of his book sales to help the poor.. or so he said on dataline-- and dateline acknowledged that.
john
· 11 months ago
You cannot truly imagine the crap Warren is getting and has gotten from the hard Christian Right. Routinely his faith is questioned because some think his focus on helping the poor and his and the church's involvement in the movement to stop AIDS is the "social gospel" and as such is not true gospel.
I know Rick. I Worked at Saddleback. I attended there for 20+ years. I have a very close gay friend that I met at a Christian college who later came out. He is still a very close friend. I am nauseated when some churches make homosexuality seem like the unpardonable sin, You might not believe me but Saddleback is not that kind of church,
Yes, they believe the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. I agree. However, that does not mean I hate my friend. That does not mean I hate other gay men I have known having once worked with many in the airline industry. My friend totally understands my position and respects me. He has told me this is not something he chose and I do believe him. I feel great pain for him that he if he chose to accept the stricture of the Bible as I see them that he would have to live a celibate life. That is so unfair. I honestly cannot imagine that. It sounds flippant I know to say that we all have things in our lives that seem unfair, some more than others. And yet I look around and see some are born into abject poverty and some into great wealth. Some into perfect health and some into a lifetime of continual health problems. And no, I am not saying gay people are "sick". I am simply saying that we all have a cross of some type to bear and readily admit that I could not imagine having to live a life of celibacy. But nor do I like as a single man having to live a life of celibacy either.
I wilol time out shortly but let me quickly say the reason this question is on the Saddleback website is because so many Christians make this a litmus test and ask the question. As I said, you just can't imagine this person you call hateful recieves so much crap from "Christians".
A person "living in sin" would face Biblical church discipline just as a gay person. There is no special punishment just for gays,
Patrick
· 11 months ago
Let's just cut through the bullshit....ok? There us no god, guilt, as to holding onto remourse for a period of time because of a bad choice is an illusion, the bible is a manual for men to control other men....move on, help the poor!!
anon
· 11 months ago
if God created me to love people of the same sex, is it a sin for me to act on the love God gave me?
How would you feel (assuming you are straight) if someone told you that you had to either marry a person of the same sex or spend the rest of your life resisting the urge to "act out" on your prohibited heterosexual desires.
I understand that Rick Warren isn't a bigot, and he's not evil, and he doesn't hate gays and lesbians. But his philosophy is still deeply offensive to many people who only want the same chance to pursue happiness with a partner in life that straight people get.
Rich K
· 11 months ago
Your question is defective. God did not create you to have sexual desires toward the same sex. God created you to love Him. The corruption of sin in the world distorted your desires for an illegitimate replacement for a true joy. Every one of us has some sort of distortion.... it is called sin working in our body. I have a sin problem and it's symptoms manifested somewhat differently than yours. I had sex with many different partners, it is still sin if they are male or female. God has a plan for sexual joy and it is in marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Turn to Jesus for salvation and he will let you see the truth for the first time. God is not looking for people good enough to save.....He is looking for people to turn to Him and trust that what He tells you is right.
K. Porter
· 11 months ago
Obama has wisely taken the long view. His invitation to RW to deliver the invocation has prompted an incremental change in the mission statement of his church. We ought to understand that most of the bloodless changes that occur in our society are incremental. People expecting Warren to make a 180 degree turn must understand it. Obama took the first step by extending an olive branch, and already there are signs of change. We needn't be ungracious about it. He is employing the strategy of inclusion to initiate a mindset change.
Just as the accession of a non-white to the highest office in the land did not happen overnight but is the result of many stages, so will these gains be. I expect that if the President elect employs these same strategies in his foreign plicy we would have less conflict with those we now call our enemies.
J
· 11 months ago
I have never met Mr. Warren nor have I been to his church. However, just because he's not supportive of the gay lifestyle doesn't mean he is anti-gay, he's just not pro-gay. He seems to make it clear that he does welcome gays. He stated clearly in his interivew with Dateline that he has gay friends and is supports gays who've been affected by HIV/AIDS. So give the guy a little break. I actually support him for exercising his free speech. Saying that he's anti-gay just because he doesn't agree with the gay community regarding certain issues is as illogical as saying that people who are pro-choice are anti-life.
MarkD
· 11 months ago
Rick Warren has compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. Isn't that in and of itself anti-gay? I mean both incest and pedophilia are crimes. His HIV/AIDS work has all been Africa related. This is not a man worthy of respect. He's a charlatan preaching hate and intolerance.
Just me
· 11 months ago
Yea right, my father-in-law is a member of the staff of this church. On this subject his statement was "we make the gays feel welcome." Get that, we don't actually welcome them just make um feel that way. What rubbish!
J
· 11 months ago
By the way, I find it very ironic that the so-called inclusionists preach inclusivity as long as their definition of inclusion is practiced--- this very thing makes them exclusive, just like they claim those who practice judeo-christianity are.
ironic.
Tracie the Red
· 11 months ago
The language is still there.
What he has now is a series of questions and vocal responses to them that visitors to his webpage can listen to - the only thing he changed was the written text, but not the statement that unrepentant gay people cannot be members of his church. Search a little deeper on his site and you'll find it.
So the substance has not changed - only the form.
L. Brown
· 11 months ago
Yeah for Warren, that's what i believe Jesus would do. It's the love of Christ that provides hope and is our motivation, not condemnation. In reading Ms. Etheridge's blog about her interaction with Warren she was drawn enough to him to ask others to help out at his church. She was drawn to the love of Christ through Warren. Sounds like Warren was also motivated by love to remove any barriers to his church. That's God!
dan
· 11 months ago
As the pastor of a small Protestant church what I find interesting are the churches that want to name the sin that is exclusionary for membership! Are there any other sins that are named on the Saddelback website or was it just homosexuality that was specifically named? If those of us who are Christians are to follow the example of Jesus as we have it in the Gospels then we accept one another unconditionally. It doesn't matter if they are crude fishermen, those doubtful of Jesus merely because of his home town, a horrid tax collector, a woman caught in adultery, or even the member of a hateful mod that wants to stone said adulterous woman. In all those instances the worst thing that Jesus said was, "Whoever is without sin throw the first stone." But in every case Jesus spoke and acted out of love. Can we do less? Even if it means having someone who is a member of our church who thinks, behaves, acts in ways that are (gasp!!!!) different from me?
With that said, however, if someone wants to start a church and restrict membership to heterosexuals, or brunettes with green eyes, or any other sort of restrictions they can do that - was not that one of our founding principles? But if that is the case then don't turn to that particular church expecting to find a broad cross section of beliefs or believers!
There are a couple of parables that tell me that when it comes right down to it we as faithful people of God must simply share our beliefs with others and leave the final choosing up to God. No one can make heavenly reservations!
Rich K
· 11 months ago
As Christians, we are to call sin what God calls sin and help our brothers avoid it and new believers to come out of it. Too many Churches/people have their own brand of Pharisaical crap about drinking, smoking, dancing, music etc.... Too many people coddle people in their sin and call it love. YOU ARE NOT LOVING SOMEONE IF YOU LET THEM DESTROY THEMSELVES OR MOCK GOD'S PATIENCE!!!! The message Jesus, Paul, Peter preached was "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" not "coddle them and they might change". Too many false prophets are sending people to hell with an empty, false message about Jesus loves me, but don't give them the whole message. True Biblical faith generates repentance and will change you in spite of your stupidity.
floyd
· 11 months ago
So Saddleback Church excludes sinners from membership. It must be lonely there.
David C
· 11 months ago
Perhaps the "views" he is embarrassed by are just those ignorant perceptions of gay people as somehow "bad" for society and not worthy of fair treatment. Time for evangelicals to find another whipping boy. The anti-gay industry has been exposed for what it is: greedy liars, megalomaniacs, and money-hungry crackpots.
Charles
· 11 months ago
This is not true! All the language is still there! I checked at 3:30 pm CST today. Just type in "homosexuality" in the Saddleback search and you will find all the awful stuff still there. Who said it was it was removed? This is incorrect.
attend saddleback in force
· 11 months ago
so if saddleback is welcoming to gays, then i recommend folks attend his services in force. show our support and let him minster to all. his true colors will come out just like the fall of racist trent lott. as for the black church, we as a gay community need to move on -- their support will never follow. we need to align our cause with strong vocal groups who are comfortable with their sexuality.
Milkbrother
· 11 months ago
From what I gather from my man's sister, Tammy has quite the sewer mouth, but like Warren has cleaned up her site recently. She's farmgirl, but I'd say farm manure from all the shits she writes. And, she's also doubled checked her honey and Warren blog...usually it is really gobbly gook.
robert
· 11 months ago
He didn't remove it, he just moved it. Homophobia still on saddleback site, just moved to a differant location
Note that Saddleback's homophobic position has moved to:
I would not want to be accepted at that church. Rick Warren and his follower's need to repent
JoeW
· 11 months ago
I could care less. Averosis's views on smokers is identical to Warren's view on gays. When an anti-smoking fascist decides to wage war with an anti-gay fascist? Color me bored witless. I guess I hope that the best fascist wins. It's like watching wresting. You hope both can be humiliated to the core, but you know it's never gonna happen.
Colin
· 11 months ago
There's kind of a flaw in your thinking, see, because there's a difference between being anti-gay and being anti-smoking.
If you're anti-smoking, it means you're against behavior that an individual chooses to partake in which has a negative effect on the health of everyone around him. Being against behavior like that doesn't make someone a fascist...it makes them logical. Aren't we all protective of our health? If someone was walking around and randomly firing bullets in our general direction, wouldn't we want it stopped? (The only difference is that the bullets work faster to kill us than the cigarette smoke we walk through every day.)
If you're anti-gay, it means you're against someone for being born the way they are. (Similar to racism or sexism, in which people are persecuted for being who they are.)
jkweiser
· 11 months ago
That's wrong. The website today says you can't be a member of the church unless you want to stop being gay.
Let me apologize in advance for the length of this but I hope you read through it completely.
You cannot truly imagine the crap Warren is getting and has gotten from the hard Christian Right. Routinely his faith is questioned because some think his focus on helping the poor and his and the church's involvement in the movement to stop AIDS is the "social gospel" and as such is not true gospel.
I know Rick. I Worked at Saddleback. I attended there for 20+ years. I have a very close gay friend that I met at a Christian college who later came out. He is still a very close friend. I am nauseated when some churches make homosexuality seem like the unpardonable sin, You might not believe me but Saddleback is not that kind of church,
Yes, they believe the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. I agree. However, that does not mean I hate my friend. That does not mean I hate other gay men I have known having once worked with many in the airline industry. It means I take a viewpoint that I think is shown in the Bible. My friend totally understands my position and respects me. He has told me this is not something he chose and I do believe him. I feel great pain for him that he if he chose to accept the strictures of the Bible as I see them that he would have to live a celibate life. That is so unfair. I honestly cannot imagine that. It sounds flippant I know to say that we all have things in our lives that seem unfair, some more than others. And yet I look around and see some are born into abject poverty and some into great wealth. Some into perfect health and some into a lifetime of continual health problems. And no, I am not saying gay people are "sick". I am simply saying that we all have a cross of some type to bear and readily admit that I could not imagine having to live a life of celibacy. But nor do I like as a single man having to live a life of celibacy either.
A person "living in sin" would face Biblical church discipline just as a gay person. There is no special punishment just for gays, Part of what I did at Saddleback was work on a team called "Membership". No, it wasn't like a country club making sure people had the "right color" or pedigree. We organized the baptisms, a symbolic act of those joining the church if they had not already been baptized, followed up on the baptism cards people signed indicating they wanted to "join the church as members". As Baptists, we practiced what is called "immersion" meaning that we believed based on what we believe the Bible teaches that when you are baptized you are fully immersed into the water as opposed to sprinkling as do some other Christian churches do. We don't question one's salvation because they were "sprinkled" but because we are a Baptist church, that is the way we believe and it was necessary for membership. Some people would say, "I was baptized as an infant" and might feel it was a bit dishonoring to their parents to be re-baptized. We were very gracious but still required baptism as an act of the will of the individual following a salvation experience as opposed to a decision made by the parents. Now we did not "hate" these people. Some where already volunteering in different aspects of the ministry. We wanted them to join the church and they wanted to join but there were just certain creeds, or core beliefs, that had to be followed. By being a member they agreed they would choose to live peaceably with one another, support the doctrines of the church, support the leadership, and affirm their salvation and baptism and as such they were now eligible to have a teaching or leadership role in the church.. I am going through all of this to say that believing in a core principle of what we believe the Bible teaches does not make a hater. Where legitimate differences lie one cannot just dump their core values for the sake of pleasing others.
I have had to remove people from leadership due to issues of breaking the church covenants for adultery. If a staff member is divorced WHILE ON staff for what is not considered Biblical grounds (abandonment, abuse, and immorality by the other party) they will be given a generous amount of time to seek new employment. The church does not teach that drinking alcohol is a sin but rules require that staff cannot while in the employment of the church. The staff is held to different,and tougher standard. Married staff members of the opposite sex cannot be alone if they are not married to each other. It is so to avoid the appearance or the temptation for impropriety. This was a rule that Billy Graham started as a new pastor and continues to this day. Again, these are not "gay issues". Rather this is what the church believes. You can disagree but we try to disagree and not be disagreeable. That is what I love about Saddleback. I was tired of divisive fundamentalist Christianity that would call gays derisive names from the pulpit. It made me sick and I'm certain it makes God even more sick.
I know this is long but I will add one more point. Many lump Warren with the ubiquitous "TV evangelists" we have all seen too many of (although not EVERY one of them is a charlatan) but Rick decided very early on in his ministry he did not want to be in a TV ministry because it becomes the tail that wags the dog and the constant fundraising is unseemly and exacerbates the caricature of the money-grubbing evangelist. When Rick's book, The Purpose Driven Life, came out in like 2001 it shot through the roof in book sales. It has sold over 30 million copies. At that point Rick gave back the salary he had already received from Saddleback for the previous 23 years and declined to take a salary in the future. He made a decision to live on 10% of the money he made from the book and set up three foundations with the remaining 90% of the royalties. One of those includes a foundation to fight AIDS. The other is for relief, AIDS prevention and missionary work in Africa. To date over 8,000 members from Saddleback have gone on short term mission trips in the last 5 years. Some of these were paid for out of the foundation itself. Warren still lives in the same modest house by Orange County, CA standards he has lived in for the last 20 years, still drives a Ford SUV and still dresses terrible.Warren is not about money.
By now some of you are saying I no doubt drank the kool-aid. I haven't. I have seen Rick up close. He is the real deal. Oh, and one other thing, I was fired from the church for crossing the line sexually with my girlfriend while on staff. Yet Rick was very gracious and very encouraging to me. He gave me a big old hug and told me how much he loved me and appreciated me as person. That's the guy that some of you are vilifying. I understand you are hurt. I understand you don't agree. I understand some Christians are idiots and have treated gays very poorly and outright sinfully. Rick will not change what he believes to be the biblical position in order to be liked or for political expediency but he is someone who will champion the call among conservative Evangelicals to be respectful and disagree without being disagreeable. We can disagree without hating. Just as conservatives need to learn tolerance so do those who advocate tolerance. But tolerance doesn't mean capitulation.
If you've read this far....thanks. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or just have a good week.
George Worley
· 11 months ago
Your are right I don't believe you... this believe comes from Rick Warren's statements on national TV and from having on his web site until recently the above -- "gays are not welcome to become members" I thank and pray to God everyday that I have found a church home where I don't have to hide or listen to anti-gay rhetoric or bashing of another human being for being what God created them to be.
I hope that you have a Merry 12 days of Christmas.
George
nunya
· 10 months ago
It is not Rick Warren's place...it is not ANY human being's place to use God to try and make me feel as though I am less of a human. Period. End of story.
john
· 11 months ago
I just wanted to add one thing. Other than the fact Warren has given all of his salary for the first 23 years as pastor and no longer takes a salary but he also does not accept fees for any speaking engagements he makes. Any proceeds of his new book will be given to oversees pastors. The dude really is not about money.
Terry
· 10 months ago
He may not be about money but he's all about FAME and being seen.
RIck
· 11 months ago
FUCK HIM!
Nick
· 11 months ago
That's precisely what he's afraid of :-)
Sebastian
· 11 months ago
I think its fine to be a member of this "church" , it isn't fine to practice thier "faith" however. Just remember, America didn't get thier freedom by whining. Do what the English did to the colonials, lock and board these churches up with thier members in it. Then fire and lots of it! Show them the hell they speak of.
john
· 11 months ago
I hope you will excuse me for saying that you are not showing tolerance that you ask for.
I actually work with Christians around the world who face what you describe and yet still believe in the face of death. They are not terrorists. They are killed simply for their beliefs. You won't see many Christian suicide bombers. Yes you get the very extremely rare wacko that blows up an abortion clinic but they are reviled by believers as well.
Merry Christmas.
JollyRoger
· 11 months ago
The Jesusistanis are trying a kindler, gentler face after their shellacking in the last 2 election cycles.
It doesn't matter. We all know how Rick Warren actually feels and thinks, because he's said it all before. There is no 11th hour conversion here, just a little window dressing.
Mike Grello
· 11 months ago
People do not grow all at once, allow the man to find his own way. He appears to be trying.
Tom
· 11 months ago
I'm a straight guy, wife and kids and all, whose life was saved by two gay med students in Chicago, back in '83. I didn't have a problem with that, then and I don't now. How this form of bigotry persists astounds me. How it is expressed and expounded by so-called religious leaders is beyond me. My kids had the opportunity to visit churches of every stripe when they were young, a head-nod I gave to my mother who raised me Catholic. I should add that I was unsuccessfully "attacked " by a pedophile priest when young. They chose instead to think about and practice just being decent, inclusive humans. This whole notion and lexicon of "tolerance" bothers us- a straw man argument for bigotry. The problem is with the reality that we are Social Animals! When you refuse to acknowledge either part of that, you wind up with Religion in it's worst manifestations. When, however, you embrace that phrase, we become humans.
Manfred
· 11 months ago
This is just more of the same - Rick Warren wanting to please men more than God. It's the pattern of his church building program - survey lost folks to find out what the goats want in a "church:" and build what suits them. Twist scripture to make it sound biblical. Robert Schuler's seed did not fall far from the tree,.
Alyse
· 10 months ago
You know what irks me the most about the whole "the bible says homosexuality is a sin" thing. The world, the concept, homosexuality did not originate until 1890-1895. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BIBLE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONCEPTUALIZED YET!
Phxsunman1
· 9 months ago
You've GOT to be kidding me? "The concept of homosexuality did not originate until 1890-1895?".......... There were these people.....they were called....the ROMANS.......the GREEKS.......the EGYPTIANS......... History Books...try them.
keith davis
· 10 months ago
rick warren is all about money and power. he is not about the true word od god. don,t be fooled by him.
CLAUDE
· 7 months ago
I THINK WARREN IS TRYING TO REACH OUT TO ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS. JESUS REACHED OUT TO SINNERS AND THE HYPOCRITS AS WELL. TOO LONG WE AS CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN KNOWN JUST TO BE ANTI-EVERYTHING OUR MESSAGE IS A POWERFUL CHANGE OF HEART AND REPENTANCE TO BECOME A BELIEVER AND A FOLLOWER OF JESUS CHRIST!...CHANGE OF HEART WILL CHANGE THE ACTIONS AND BELIEFS! QUIT FINDING FAULT WITH WARREN WHEN HE IS TRYING TO WIN THE LOST AND CONFUSED "GAYS" THAT NEED THE MESSAGE OF GOD'S FORGIVING LOVE EXEMPLIFIED ON THE CROSS WHEN JESUS PRAYED "FORGIVE THEM, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!" CLAUDE PITTENGER
monitor
· 7 months ago
ALL CAPS is a no-no. More comments in all caps will be deleted.
All Comments
Tis' the season after all!
BTW: I try to never miss reading your great comments.
The RW issue is relevant because it clearly illustrates the disparity between the treatment of gays and the treatment of ANY other minority group.
*nyuck nyuck*
The Gays got Rick-Rolled
He'll never give Warren up--
They clicked on a punk
The full statement on homosexuality is still up, but it does not say anything about membership:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/maturity/fullst...
Alcoholism is now a lifestyle too? Can't wait until A&E comes out with "Drunk eye for the straight guy" series.
Denial.
Or is that "Celestine Prophecy" guy still around? Is he on his 17th revelation at this point?
The pressure is what gets to these "straight males".
Nope, RW wants to be an international superstar. He is one of the three douches Oprah shoved down our throats, the other two were Barry and Dr. Phil. The deleted text has been used all over the internet to illustrate the truth about Ricky's homohatred. It makes him look bad and image is everything.
Anyways, I know that the Obama cultists will take any change and see it as a sign that Obama has worked his magic in his mysterious ways . It reminds me of how the religously superstitious see miracles in mere coincidences and ordinary events.
I'd like a snapshot from that original website up on a billboard, or on a t-shirt, by the way.
So if he isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing, maybe his anti-gay stuff is due to his evolving understanding of the Bible COMBINED with the need for fund raising issues COMBINED with just being male (we males seem to have a greater propensity to say stupid-ass things and then become entrenched even when we realize we were wrong). Maybe this is his first step toward enlightenment, based upon being beaten-up by the blogsphere, his need for acceptance in order to do the 'greater good' and the positive reinforcement that being invited to do the invocation is.
Regardless, everyone needs to recognize that none of this is taking place in a vacuum. Proposition 8, the subsequent demonstrations, the marriage issue in the press everyday, the suit to dismiss Prop 8, the Pope's disgusting statement today, the apparent change in Warren's membership policy, etc all are part of the same 'bigger picture.'
2009 is going to be a VERY interesting year.
Brilliant word play! (But then everyone knows how witty the gays is . . . )
Or was it the idea of his book publisher or Reader's Digest, who just signed Warren to make his own monthly magazine?
Heaven forbid we'd endanger any book or magazine sales.
The thing is that Warren is experiencing PERSONAL attacks. It's not a disagreement on issues; we are genuinely offended by him and what he believes, and his very presence is offensive to us. He is personally a problem to us, and we have been quite clear about that. I'm sure he realizes that he's hurting people, and I'm also sure that he doesn't feel good about this at all; gays are not his enemies, just a people prohibited by his religion. I'm not optimistic that Warren will turn around and become a civil rights leader, but it's plausible that if we keep up the pressure, he'll at least be more accepting of our rights as human beings whether we are gay or not.
The younger ones are less conservative generally and more accepting of gays. If Warren wants to hold on to them, he's probably going to have to modify his views - with or without Obama.
Aren't most religious leaders anti-gay and just not quite as open about it as Warren? Certainly the Catholic church is quite anti-gay. Can you really expect sincerity from them? The best you can hope for is that they tone down the rhetoric.
I know a lot of christians and a lot of catholics who couldn't give a rat's ass who you sleep with as long as you're a decent human being.
I know a catholic priest who actually defends the gay community and the few gay members in his church on a regular basis, his logic... he is not God to judge anyone so why should he?
I'm assuming, by the way, that you didn't grow up Catholic.
What's your point?
I have seen a lot of racism and discrimination (towards non-gays) within the gay community, yet I know better than to lump all gays in the same group as those who've discriminated against others based on race and/or sexual orientation.
Would it hurt to think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone in the christian or catholic faith agrees with everything their faiths preach?
Most think that those in the muslim faith hate everyone else who isn't muslim, yet we know that isn't necessarily true... (I hope you at least realize that it's not true, if you do think that's true then this conversation is pointless and we shouldn't continue it any further).
What part is rare? The priest being supportive of my gay cousin or the fact that I am honest enough to acknowledge the blatant racism and discrimination that goes on in the gay community?
It does exist except not many want to admit it does, or even are aware of it (because they've never been on the receiving end).
I was not an Obama supporter during the primaries but it just amazes me how commenters here are still slamming John for his support for Obama. On the other hand pro-Obama people that are just stunned with his homophobic actions simply were NOT paying attention.
When you turn the light on the cockroaches they scurry to hide. We need more people like you to turn on some more lights and expose the hatred that right there for all to see but no one knows where to look and too many look the other way.
THANK YOU, for being such an unapologetic pain in the ass to these people. Thank you for sticking to your mission even when people in the comments, including me, say that you have gone too far.
We need MORE, not fewer, people like you with courage, conviction and determination to fight injustice even when it means fighting in the minority and even fighting against those who should be natural allies on our side of the political divide.
This is about things like truth, fairness, and justice.
Rick Warren should be cornered: So does that mean, now, that a self-accepting gay person can become a member of Saddleback Church?
And, by the way, no politician should be above reproach or criticism. Supporting any politician blindly or unconditionally is silly. The American citizenry shouldn't be like Scientologists are to L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige, refusing to entertain the notion of their leader(s) having any flaws, much less fishiness (or severe corruption).
I thought Obama's Donnie McClurkin business was loathsome; and I thought Clinton's Bosnia airport bold-faced lying was loathsome. Et cetera. In a healthy democracy, no leader is above reproach. If the emperor ain't wearing any clothes, we need to tell him or her.
And not calling out despicable decisions, or lies, will cause more of them to happen. It is, quite simply, an accountability loop.
Thank goodness for John Aravosis and all others who are speaking out.
Hope those damn Dem's are at least paying attention. I'm getting a feeling we'll have to spend some time holding Obama's feet to the fire on a number of issues. We're just getting in shape!
Warren may or may not believe the language was destructive, but the fact it was taken off his site shows the power in repeated protest.
Gays are constantly asked to look at the big picture and to forget about their Civil Rights until later, always later.
I would suggest later is now. No one in 2008 -09 should have to be fighting for the Rights every other citizen in the country enjoys.
Good work, John.
This is an important fight.
Fair warning...
sitemonitor
Bullshit.
Maybe Rick picked up a copy of "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies" by James Neill and freshly published by McFarland & Co. and now regrets his unfounded heterosexual imaginings???
Rick Warren's church specifically bans lesbians like Mary Cheney and gay males like Mark Buse (McCain's Chief of Staff) from membership because she has not renounced the "gay lifestyle" nor repented from embracing evil.
Also, Rick Warren specifically called our glbt military vets child rapists when he compared gays to pedophiles. Even Fred Phelps didn't go that far. Where is the fucking media?
Some people are brought up in the deep South and their parents instilled values that the White man is to be respected, and the Niggra looked at with a suspicious eye (especially when he dares look at your wife or girlfriend). Now mind you these are just the values and faith these people were raised in. Some are from a different era. Who are we to judge them or their faith? Don't they deserve respect? Certainly if you call someone like that a bigot, they are not going to suddenly embrace the Coloreds.
MotorCityBadBoy, you know what you need? A cool gay or lesbian friend. I'm a cool-gay-friend to several straight guys. I have never came on to any of them, and would never do so (even the good-looking ones!). I know they're not into that. I respect that, and they respect me. Our not being the same can be the source of very interesting conversations. Sometimes it's enriching to hang with people who aren't your own "kind."
I play b-ball, too, by the way. But most of my b-ball buds don't know that I'm gay. Some would be fine with it, some might not be -- and that stinks.
In fact, you probably already personally know, and like, gay or lesbian people, who are afraid to tell you that they are gay or lesbian.
Again, I appreciate your honesty.
How about two lesbians? That usually turns straight men on. The homosexuality issue doesn't revolve around homosexuality itself as much as it does around homosexual men. Somehow, they are perceived as a threat.
Is someone born gay? Turn it around. Is someone born straight? When did you make the decision to be sexually attracted to females? It is a MAJOR part of someone's life so you must vividly remember the occasion. Was it a difficult decision?
Does it matter? As far as I am concerned the "is it a choice" argument is only used because it is a question that cannot be definitively answered. It is a cowards question.
Who cares if it is a choice? What about the ex-gays? Are they divinely saved? Mentally cured? Or is it a choice? No one seems to ever ask that question. You should.
I was hoping that with the election of Obama, after 8 tortuous years of being led by poorly-spoken, proud C-student Bush, our country would return to valuing and honoring intelligence and intellectualism. Obama's appointing real scientists to departments where science is inestimably important is encouraging. However, granting a spot at the inauguration to this Rick Warren person, who expressly discourages science, open inquiry, and thinking for oneself, is fantastically disappointing, just on the basis of his anti-intellectualism.
Well, I don't think that Hillary deeply hates gay people but for many reasons I think that Barry does.
"What does it mean to be a chosen people?
Question: Our small group met last night and we had a question we thought maybe you would help us clarify. If the Jews are God’s chosen people and they follow the laws as handed down to Moses, yet they do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah, how then can they be saved and ensure their place in heaven?
Answer: When you think about how those who have a Jewish heritage come to salvation, the best answer is in looking at the first followers of Jesus. The first disciples were all Jewish men, but their salvation came through their relationship with Christ, not their Jewish background. The same is true of the Apostle Paul and every other Jew who came to Christ in the New Testament. The truth of the Bible is, we all come to salvation in the same way ... through our faith in Christ.
When God calls the Jews his chosen people it does not mean that they are all automatically chosen for salvation. It means that they were chosen to be the nation that would follow him and teach others what it meant to follow him. That is why Jesus went to the Jewish people first when he came to this earth. Through the Jewish people (Jesus himself was a Jew), he brought the blessing of salvation to the world.
Of course, today there are not as great a number of Jewish believers in Jesus as we would expect. If they are God’s chosen people, why aren’t more choosing faith in him? The Bible tells us in Romans 11 that there will be a day when this will change – a day when there will be a great revival of faith in God through Jesus among the Jewish people. Obviously, this is a day that we, as believers in Christ, want to pray for! "
Sorry if that was confusing?
Now that you've gotten Obama elected, you act surprised and upset? That just shows how stupid you were and how vicious you were during the primaries to anyone that tried to point out the obvious to you! Obama is not the progressive god, he's not even a progressive on most issues! He's a conservative black man, and thanks to his candidacy and his unwillingness to campaign for gay rights - prop 8 passed in California - congrats! You had a direct impact on the rights of gay people, you helped take them away by supporting the homophobe for president!!!
Now it's too late, and Obama really doesn't give a damn about you or your opinion since he's elected just as we who were dissatisfied with him pointed out! Obama is about Obama - end of debate! If you're lucky enough to be on the same side of an issue great, otherwise he'll give you platitudes and do whatever he wants! That's how he was in the state house, and what every sane person pointed out to you in the primaries! But you were too busy carrying water for the GOP and spreading Clinton Derangement Syndrome among other diseases... Now we all just get to make the best of it, and I get to spend 4 more years yelling at the news!!! Thanks - asshole!
Pope likens "saving" gays to saving the rainforest
Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:46pm GMT
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.
"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."
The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."
The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."
He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."
Prior to becoming a priest, young Josef was a Hitler Youth, but he maintains that he was only following orders.
In no uncertain terms, Obama will KILL GAYS with this decision. Just as the decision by the US to join Islamic countries and the Holy See in opposition to the UN resolution. http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2008/12/on_t...
This act, like McClurkin, is indefensible. This is my life. This is the lives of gays and lesbians all over the world. We are not a political statement. Using us is just as bad as Bush and Co using the troops for their political statements. Despised and dispensible.
"In no uncertain terms, Obama will KILL GAYS with this decision. Just as the decision by the US to join Islamic countries and the Holy See in opposition to the UN resolution."
I was equating his actions inviting Warren to the world stage to the actions of the current administration at the UN. The point being that there is little difference.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008...
It is world news and it matters.
We are not going away and I promise you that this is going to get ugly if Obama does not act on his LGBT campaign promises by July 1. You better get over it.
"In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-karel-bou...
Nails Warren and Barry!!!!!!!!!
Yes the good reverend Warren might be a righteous bigot, however as Ms. Etheredge's ecumenical tone and outreach through her posting illustrate, it is to the betterment of all to invite those who hate to our table. It is a most christian thing to do. Even if I'm not one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-karel-bou...
He adds in the comments:
I love how progressives are supposed to be civil now. Warren goes on TV and says vote against equal protection for gays. Here's the spot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0
But that's not hateful?
He then compares same sex marriage to incest here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZMf9mPB_nE
But he does it with kindness and love so that's OK? OK, I lovingly say he should stay home Jan. 20.
And as for abortion: "If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted," Warren said.
"They would call that a holocaust, and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier
I wonder if any of you would be faking your outrage at me if Warren spoke against Blacks or Jews the way he speaks against gays. Or if he spoke against Christians, denying them a right to marry.
And this indefensible, brain dead idea that rights are determined by numbers. No wonder he grossly understates the percentage of gays in California. He believes that the smaller the size of a group, the smaller their claim to basic rights. I'm sure the phrase "tyranny of the majority" would have to be explained to him. I wonder if he would have sided with the majority of Romans against the early Christians. I'm not saying he's truly stupid. He's just not smart. How embarrassing that he will be delivering the invocation. And of course how outrageous.
Have you read any of his books? He's sort of like the Thomas Kinkaide of evangelism - really good at marketing and branding himself as a business, but there's no "there there".
Haven't you heard of the Lickalotopus?
If this were the 1920s, Obama probably would have invited Bruce Burton, an evangelical who had a best-selling book called "The Man Nobody Knows". It's a little like Warren's writings - Burton's take on Christianity is that Jesus was a "salesman" and that, to be a good Christian, you had to be a good salesman like Jesus!
Tawdry Christian self-help gurus are nothing new and have their brief moment of fame until something new comes along. They're like the authors of dieting books.
Obama is justifying bigotry.
Learn how to spell "inauguration" before posting again. Thanks.
I would focus more on the fact that the majority of Californian voters stated that gay marriage is not their cup of tea. Does this mean that every Californian is potentially your enemy and a questionable presidential choice?
Thank you for reading. Now if you will excuse me I'll go back to worry about how to pay my medical bills, keep my place worm and see if I can find a job .
The revulsion to Obama's choice of Rick Warren has, probably rightly, concentrated on his unconscionable anti-gay remarks, but I find his anti-science stance just as -- or more -- dangerous.
Why did Obama choose Rick Warren to give the invocation in the same week he announced his scientific team? One or the other has to be a joke. You can't be Fred Flintstone AND Steven Chu. To me, placing Rick Warren on a pedestal isn't just an insult to rational people; it sends the terrible message that creationism is a plausible scientific theory -- just as Kay Warren teaches. It says science is opinion, not even educated opinion. In fact, it's the WRONG opinion. What is the point of pouring my tax dollars into our educational system on the one hand if on the other, you place delusional nonsense on a podium and give it a big ol' mike?
Rick Warren's thinking is dangerous on many levels, but the dangers it poses for our future is debilitating. The nation will get over being anti-gay in the same way it's getting over being anti-minority and anti-feminist -- the old bigots are dying off. But it won't get over being dumb if we keep on teaching new generations that the charming Biblical myths of Genesis are scientific and historical fact.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
When are you going to post this on Huffington Post? Or are you too chicken shit?
Today, the big blog from a fellow gay was: Gay marriage is stupid.
Everyone on Huff Post agrees, and gays are nothing more than a bunch of harpies.
2)i'm sure sadback church is like "what's a Google's cache?" duh
Not sure which of these is worse really. They're all an affront to intelligence, decency and freedom.
I've read so many entries and comments filled with such distaste and ANGER. Many of you are so damned angry! Why aren't you focusing on the positive? Obama has been elected, and thus, positive changes are on the horizon. Maybe you guys won't be able to get married right away. So what? How about having jobs to pay for the damned weddings you want? Fuck, you should read the things that you post - it's illogical and many of you appear to have on blinders.
You know, your collective group is worse than the bigots and homophobes that you spit your own venom rhetoric at with such haste.
Maybe we should just stop all weddings. I mean it's not like any part of the economy depends on weddings. I fail to see the logic in your argument. If anything you would think that gay weddings would only add to the economy. Then again, what do I know about shopping.
Again, this isn't just about marriage. The rhetoric Warren espouses is much the same as the junk people like Falwell were spewing out very publicly a few years ago. This kind of talk - and a "blessing" of it by the "powers that be" - makes it appear just okay dokey to go out and bash Gays. There's also issues like employment discrimination that's gotten lost in all the hoopla the Religious Right is making about Gay marriage. Warren's equated being Gay with pedophilia; it's kinda hard to get a job if folks think all Gays are predators.
No one's talking about taking away the guy's freedom of speech or doing what he wants in his own church. Where there's a problem is Obama's support of Warren's public pronouncements by giving the man a prominent place in what has traditionally been an apolitical celebration.
I've been around long enough to remember the Gay community's euphoria after Clinton was elected and the bitter disappointments we saw in that administration. The Warren choice seems to say we're in for much of the same - nice words, but no action to back up what he's saying.
And the Democrats wonder why progressives and Gays keep toying with third parties.
Yep...every time, John i give you credit for moving beyond the village...you say something like this...so hey...you want to push this point? Cool.
me...I remember Rev wright and when Obama sent a message to a wider audience
but hey..Obama is clueless ..does not have any understanding,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
so yep...pursue....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warren-obama...
Isn't it interesting the Coretta Scott King's last speech was against excluding gays from equal rights?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-...
How quickly Warren leveraged his new "openness" to get a place at the power table. He just out-played Obama in one swift move. I worry about the next four years.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warren-obama...
Isn't it interesting the Coretta Scott King's last speech was against excluding gays from equal rights?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-...
How quickly Warren leveraged his new "openness" to get a place at the power table. He just out-played Obama in one swift move. I worry about the next four years.
I wonder how these people are going to react when they get to heaven and find that God has admitted for gays and lesbians. Heaven, as I understand it, isn't as exclusive as Saddleback Church....
As "Ohio_Dem" said, taking it off the site (if it is completely removed) doesn't mean that gays are now accepted -it just means that the bigotry isn't advertised. How many KKK members proudly wore their sheets yet stayed "closeted"? No, I don't think we're really better off.
Rick
http://web.archive.org/web/20071026063007/www.s...
http://www.webcitation.org/5dEzhdI4w
For a permanent record of this, someone really needs to do a series of screenshots and keep them on their hard drive.
The paragraph about membership at Saddleback being banned to gays if they are "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle" is now gone. You can do a text search on that exact phrase. Their own cache still matches that phrase which proves that it was there but when you click on the search results, it is gone.
Bill, if you found that it is still there and has moved, please cut and paste the current location in your reply.
The exact same paragraph about what "judging others" means and an even more disturbing paragraph about how gays are just like alcoholics is above it here ( http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/maturity/fullst... ). Don't tell me that is not anti-gay. It is disgusting.
Clearly, he is not saying homosexuality is any "worse" than sleeping around. In fact, he's saying that it's ONE of his many beliefs.
I think people need to just let him speak his mind. When you turnaround and point fingers you are doing exactly the same thing that you are saying he's doing.
However, when Obama said he was going to reach out, build bridges, find common ground, etc. folks applauded. Then when he actually does, all hell breaks lose.
Chill out. Let the guy govern. It's much too soon to render a final verdict.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/02/old-women...
tweetchiezone
Obama says he wants to overturn "don't ask-don't tell." Let's give him a chance to make good on that word. He believes in civil unions, but not gay "marriage" per say. This is nothing new. He was consistent in his campaign. As an agnostic straight person, I believe that couples (gay or straight) should be allowed a civil union (a civil marriage, which would entitle couples to the same legal rights, adoption rights, inheritance rights, etc.). "Marriages" should not be up to the government to define anyway. They have no business interfering. It should be up to one's church. We're getting hung up on terminology here. Don't forget Bill Clinton also signed the Defense of Marriage Act - another slap in the face to the gay community. It's going to take time and patience to fight for its reversal. And we should all put pressure on Obama to do so.
We need to chill about the Warren invocation, and concentrate on the Rev. Lowery benediction (which the media has conveniently ignored!). Obama isn't perfect and never pretended to be. We all WANTED him to be the savior of the progressives, the gays, the environmentalists. He'll do some good, but he'll be sure to disappoint one or all of these groups on specific issues. I'm trying to focus on the bigger picture.
He got off to a shaky start with the gay community,but I believe he'll make up for it as he settles in to office............He's no dummy.
He put gay issues front and center for those to see and dialogue has begun. When you have someone as well respected in the gay community as Melissa Ethridge saying reach out to him, that's progress.
He has NOTHING to make up for.
Readers of this blog may still find this offensive; they may find the entire concept of sin offensive. But to a conservative Christian, these policies are not surprising at all - and certainly are not "anti-gay," any more than the church's policy regarding marrying people who are sleeping together is "anti-straight." I have friends who have repented their gay lifestyle and joined Saddleback. This doesn't mean that they say they're not gay - it means they repent the lifestyle (i.e., "acting out") and try to remain pure in a way that is no different from adulterers or alcoholics who do the same thing.
To us Christians, sin is sin. Greed, lust (gay or straight), materialism, rage, self-aggrandizement, forsaking God - they're all sins and they come from living in a fallen world. Christ offers forgiveness, and if we repent he will draw us near to God.
Oh, I'm sure a greedy, materialistic, angry hetero Christian couple can still get married at Saddleback without too much hassle. If Ricky Warren up and decided to deny those people membership, where would he be getting his millions of tax-exempt dollars?
I know Rick. I Worked at Saddleback. I attended there for 20+ years. I have a very close gay friend that I met at a Christian college who later came out. He is still a very close friend. I am nauseated when some churches make homosexuality seem like the unpardonable sin, You might not believe me but Saddleback is not that kind of church,
Yes, they believe the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. I agree. However, that does not mean I hate my friend. That does not mean I hate other gay men I have known having once worked with many in the airline industry. My friend totally understands my position and respects me. He has told me this is not something he chose and I do believe him. I feel great pain for him that he if he chose to accept the stricture of the Bible as I see them that he would have to live a celibate life. That is so unfair. I honestly cannot imagine that. It sounds flippant I know to say that we all have things in our lives that seem unfair, some more than others. And yet I look around and see some are born into abject poverty and some into great wealth. Some into perfect health and some into a lifetime of continual health problems. And no, I am not saying gay people are "sick". I am simply saying that we all have a cross of some type to bear and readily admit that I could not imagine having to live a life of celibacy. But nor do I like as a single man having to live a life of celibacy either.
I wilol time out shortly but let me quickly say the reason this question is on the Saddleback website is because so many Christians make this a litmus test and ask the question. As I said, you just can't imagine this person you call hateful recieves so much crap from "Christians".
A person "living in sin" would face Biblical church discipline just as a gay person. There is no special punishment just for gays,
How would you feel (assuming you are straight) if someone told you that you had to either marry a person of the same sex or spend the rest of your life resisting the urge to "act out" on your prohibited heterosexual desires.
I understand that Rick Warren isn't a bigot, and he's not evil, and he doesn't hate gays and lesbians. But his philosophy is still deeply offensive to many people who only want the same chance to pursue happiness with a partner in life that straight people get.
Just as the accession of a non-white to the highest office in the land did not happen overnight but is the result of many stages, so will these gains be. I expect that if the President elect employs these same strategies in his foreign plicy we would have less conflict with those we now call our enemies.
ironic.
What he has now is a series of questions and vocal responses to them that visitors to his webpage can listen to - the only thing he changed was the written text, but not the statement that unrepentant gay people cannot be members of his church. Search a little deeper on his site and you'll find it.
So the substance has not changed - only the form.
With that said, however, if someone wants to start a church and restrict membership to heterosexuals, or brunettes with green eyes, or any other sort of restrictions they can do that - was not that one of our founding principles? But if that is the case then don't turn to that particular church expecting to find a broad cross section of beliefs or believers!
There are a couple of parables that tell me that when it comes right down to it we as faithful people of God must simply share our beliefs with others and leave the final choosing up to God. No one can make heavenly reservations!
She's farmgirl, but I'd say farm manure from all the shits she writes.
And, she's also doubled checked her honey and Warren blog...usually it is really gobbly gook.
Homophobia still on saddleback site, just moved to a differant location
Note that Saddleback's homophobic position has moved to:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/bibleqanda...
question #22
go here and listen to number #22...
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/bibleqanda...
If you're anti-smoking, it means you're against behavior that an individual chooses to partake in which has a negative effect on the health of everyone around him. Being against behavior like that doesn't make someone a fascist...it makes them logical. Aren't we all protective of our health? If someone was walking around and randomly firing bullets in our general direction, wouldn't we want it stopped? (The only difference is that the bullets work faster to kill us than the cigarette smoke we walk through every day.)
If you're anti-gay, it means you're against someone for being born the way they are. (Similar to racism or sexism, in which people are persecuted for being who they are.)
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/bibleqanda...
You cannot truly imagine the crap Warren is getting and has gotten from the hard Christian Right. Routinely his faith is questioned because some think his focus on helping the poor and his and the church's involvement in the movement to stop AIDS is the "social gospel" and as such is not true gospel.
I know Rick. I Worked at Saddleback. I attended there for 20+ years. I have a very close gay friend that I met at a Christian college who later came out. He is still a very close friend. I am nauseated when some churches make homosexuality seem like the unpardonable sin, You might not believe me but Saddleback is not that kind of church,
Yes, they believe the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. I agree. However, that does not mean I hate my friend. That does not mean I hate other gay men I have known having once worked with many in the airline industry. It means I take a viewpoint that I think is shown in the Bible. My friend totally understands my position and respects me. He has told me this is not something he chose and I do believe him. I feel great pain for him that he if he chose to accept the strictures of the Bible as I see them that he would have to live a celibate life. That is so unfair. I honestly cannot imagine that. It sounds flippant I know to say that we all have things in our lives that seem unfair, some more than others. And yet I look around and see some are born into abject poverty and some into great wealth. Some into perfect health and some into a lifetime of continual health problems. And no, I am not saying gay people are "sick". I am simply saying that we all have a cross of some type to bear and readily admit that I could not imagine having to live a life of celibacy. But nor do I like as a single man having to live a life of celibacy either.
A person "living in sin" would face Biblical church discipline just as a gay person. There is no special punishment just for gays, Part of what I did at Saddleback was work on a team called "Membership". No, it wasn't like a country club making sure people had the "right color" or pedigree. We organized the baptisms, a symbolic act of those joining the church if they had not already been baptized, followed up on the baptism cards people signed indicating they wanted to "join the church as members". As Baptists, we practiced what is called "immersion" meaning that we believed based on what we believe the Bible teaches that when you are baptized you are fully immersed into the water as opposed to sprinkling as do some other Christian churches do. We don't question one's salvation because they were "sprinkled" but because we are a Baptist church, that is the way we believe and it was necessary for membership. Some people would say, "I was baptized as an infant" and might feel it was a bit dishonoring to their parents to be re-baptized. We were very gracious but still required baptism as an act of the will of the individual following a salvation experience as opposed to a decision made by the parents. Now we did not "hate" these people. Some where already volunteering in different aspects of the ministry. We wanted them to join the church and they wanted to join but there were just certain creeds, or core beliefs, that had to be followed. By being a member they agreed they would choose to live peaceably with one another, support the doctrines of the church, support the leadership, and affirm their salvation and baptism and as such they were now eligible to have a teaching or leadership role in the church.. I am going through all of this to say that believing in a core principle of what we believe the Bible teaches does not make a hater. Where legitimate differences lie one cannot just dump their core values for the sake of pleasing others.
I have had to remove people from leadership due to issues of breaking the church covenants for adultery. If a staff member is divorced WHILE ON staff for what is not considered Biblical grounds (abandonment, abuse, and immorality by the other party) they will be given a generous amount of time to seek new employment. The church does not teach that drinking alcohol is a sin but rules require that staff cannot while in the employment of the church. The staff is held to different,and tougher standard. Married staff members of the opposite sex cannot be alone if they are not married to each other. It is so to avoid the appearance or the temptation for impropriety. This was a rule that Billy Graham started as a new pastor and continues to this day. Again, these are not "gay issues". Rather this is what the church believes. You can disagree but we try to disagree and not be disagreeable. That is what I love about Saddleback. I was tired of divisive fundamentalist Christianity that would call gays derisive names from the pulpit. It made me sick and I'm certain it makes God even more sick.
I know this is long but I will add one more point. Many lump Warren with the ubiquitous "TV evangelists" we have all seen too many of (although not EVERY one of them is a charlatan) but Rick decided very early on in his ministry he did not want to be in a TV ministry because it becomes the tail that wags the dog and the constant fundraising is unseemly and exacerbates the caricature of the money-grubbing evangelist. When Rick's book, The Purpose Driven Life, came out in like 2001 it shot through the roof in book sales. It has sold over 30 million copies. At that point Rick gave back the salary he had already received from Saddleback for the previous 23 years and declined to take a salary in the future. He made a decision to live on 10% of the money he made from the book and set up three foundations with the remaining 90% of the royalties. One of those includes a foundation to fight AIDS. The other is for relief, AIDS prevention and missionary work in Africa. To date over 8,000 members from Saddleback have gone on short term mission trips in the last 5 years. Some of these were paid for out of the foundation itself. Warren still lives in the same modest house by Orange County, CA standards he has lived in for the last 20 years, still drives a Ford SUV and still dresses terrible.Warren is not about money.
By now some of you are saying I no doubt drank the kool-aid. I haven't. I have seen Rick up close. He is the real deal. Oh, and one other thing, I was fired from the church for crossing the line sexually with my girlfriend while on staff. Yet Rick was very gracious and very encouraging to me. He gave me a big old hug and told me how much he loved me and appreciated me as person. That's the guy that some of you are vilifying. I understand you are hurt. I understand you don't agree. I understand some Christians are idiots and have treated gays very poorly and outright sinfully. Rick will not change what he believes to be the biblical position in order to be liked or for political expediency but he is someone who will champion the call among conservative Evangelicals to be respectful and disagree without being disagreeable. We can disagree without hating. Just as conservatives need to learn tolerance so do those who advocate tolerance. But tolerance doesn't mean capitulation.
If you've read this far....thanks. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or just have a good week.
I hope that you have a Merry 12 days of Christmas.
George
I actually work with Christians around the world who face what you describe and yet still believe in the face of death. They are not terrorists. They are killed simply for their beliefs. You won't see many Christian suicide bombers. Yes you get the very extremely rare wacko that blows up an abortion clinic but they are reviled by believers as well.
Merry Christmas.
It doesn't matter. We all know how Rick Warren actually feels and thinks, because he's said it all before. There is no 11th hour conversion here, just a little window dressing.
OUR MESSAGE IS A POWERFUL CHANGE OF HEART AND REPENTANCE TO BECOME A BELIEVER AND A FOLLOWER OF JESUS CHRIST!...CHANGE OF HEART WILL CHANGE THE ACTIONS AND BELIEFS!
QUIT FINDING FAULT WITH WARREN WHEN HE IS TRYING TO WIN THE LOST AND CONFUSED "GAYS" THAT NEED THE MESSAGE OF GOD'S FORGIVING LOVE EXEMPLIFIED ON THE CROSS WHEN JESUS PRAYED "FORGIVE THEM, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!"
CLAUDE PITTENGER
fair warning...
sitemonitor