Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Rick Warren: "I love Muslims . . . I happen to love Gays and Straights"

I was in Long Beach,Ca. on Saturday for the annual conference of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, where Pastor Rick Warren and I were both headliners.

Also appearing on the stage Saturday evening were Melissa Etheridge and Salman Ahmad, singing Ring the Bells.

Before I go further, I just want to praise MPAC as the most wonderful people. This is the American Muslim community at its best-- socially and spiritually active, deeply interested in civil rights, and insisting on reclaiming their religion from extremists. Many of them are religious and social liberals who dislike fundamentalism. Anyone looking for a worthy charity to donate to in this season of giving should seriously consider MPAC. It is an American organization and only accepts money from Americans, and Homeland Security presented there, so it has all the bona fides.

Back to the conference. There are two stories here of wider interest. One is Rick Warren addressing a Muslim audience. The other is his being at the same event with Etheridge, who is gay.

Warren will read the invocation at President-Elect Barack Obama's inauguration, a choice that angered the gay community. Warren supported Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage (and forcibly divorced or 'de-married' 18,000 gay couples already married in California). Warren also has compared legalizing gay marriage to legalizing incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

I was told that Warren's friends among the MPAC Muslim community had urged him to call Melissa Etheridge Friday night in the run-up to their being (serially) on the same stage Saturday night, and that he did so and they talked for half an hour. During his address, Warren mentioned also seeing Etheridge backstage on Saturday.

Local television in Los Angeles showed a short clip of Etheridge after the event asking gay leaders to reach out to Warren, just as they wanted him to reach out to them.

This stance was big of her, since she and her partner had planned to marry but were prevented from doing so by the same Proposition 8 that Warren worked for, and she was so upset she suggested she would refuse to pay California taxes since she is obviously not considered a full citizen by her fellow Californians.

Warren took the stage, friendly and ebullient, and implicitly complained about the bad press he has gotten since Obama announced he would read the invocation. He said that the media likes conflict, and where there is harmony there is nothing for them to report. When there is no conflict, he said, the media will create one.

Warren said, "Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

He explicitly mentioned meeting Etheridge, and explained that he has been a long time fan of hers, beginning with her self-titled first album of 1988. "I'm enough of a groupie," he said, "that I got her autograph on the Christmas album."

Warren also talked about the increasing rudeness and rancor of public life in the United States, and urged greater civility and willingness to work with people across the spectrum of opinion. He said, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." He also made a point of saying that al-Qaeda is no more representative of Islam than the KKK is of Christianity. Contrast that to the sorts of things Mike Huckabee or Rudi Giuliani said during the presidential campaign.

But just a gentle reminder to Warren that saying for Melissa Etheridge to be married to Tammy Lynn Michaels is equivalent to pedophilia or incest is not actually very civil or nice or humane.

Since I knew both of us would be at MPAC, I bought Warren's book, "The Purpose-Driven Life," and read it on the plane. I was a religion major, so I've read a lot of theology in various religions. It is mostly just standard evangelical talking points.

Warren's book does have some strengths. I was struck that Warren's section early in the book on the notion of "surrender" to God is the best explication I have seen in English of what Muslims mean by Islam. Since he was talking about Christianity, these passages are an unwitting argument for the unity of religions.

So imagine my surprise when I heard Warren talk at MPAC and found that he is a genuine, likeable man. And more than likeable, he seems admirable. A lot of pastors would tell the story of building their congregations and saving souls as the pinnacle of their lives. For Warren, that was only the beginning. He and his wife had an epiphany six years ago when she read an article about there being 12 million children in Africa who had been orphaned by AIDS. They started going to southern Africa, and Warren became devoted to helping those orphans.

But then he began thinking bigger. He has identified 5 major problems he wants to address:
Spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, disease pandemics, dire poverty, and illiteracy. He wants to do job creation and job training. He wants to wipe out malaria in the areas where it is still active. He is convinced that religious congregations are the only set of organizations on earth that can successfully combat these ills. And he is entirely willing actively and directly to cooperate with mosques to get the job done.

Warren, in short, is a representative of the turn of some evangelicals to a social gospel. Since evangelicalism is a global movement and very interested in mission, his social gospel not surprisingly becomes a global social gospel. He is active in South Africa, Rwanda and more recently Uganda.

In opinion polls, evangelicals are by far the most bigoted Americans versus Muslims. But that sentiment derives from theological competition (and competition for souls). Once a pastor turns, as Warren did, to a social gospel, then he has social goals to accomplish, and he needs all the help he can get. A social gospel creates a field of practical ecumenism.

Warren's sincere friendship with MPAC founding father, Maher Hathout, was obvious from their body language.

So you begin to see why Obama is reaching out to this man. (In fact, Warren reached out to Obama 3 years ago and had him to his Saddleback Church despite it being a Republican bastion, and says he took heat from his congregants for that step). If Warren is the future of the American evangelical movement, then many more evangelicals might end up Democrats, since it is Democrats who care about poor people, illiteracy, and AIDS victims. And if any significant proportion of evangelicals can be turned into consistent Democrats, the party would more regularly win elections in some parts of the country and even nationally.

Moreover, Warren's work to improve the lives of Africans probably means something to Obama.

I came away liking and looking up to Warren. In fact, I wonder whether with some work he could not be gotten to back off some of the hurtful things he has said about gays and rethink his support for Proposition 8.

Maybe Melissa Etheridge, who is otherwise very angry about Prop 8, saw the same thing in him.

So, then on to Melissa Etheridge. Here is the song that Melissa and Salman sang.

They were introduced by a video of Deepak Chopra talking about their Bells for Peace campaign:

' Join Melissa Etheridge, Salman Ahmad, Deepak Chopra in an experience that will reach the world through critical mass. On Decemeber 21 at noon, where ever you are: at work, home, or school. Get outside, meditate, intention, pray or wish silently for one minute, and then ring a bell for peace for one minute.'


Etheridge said in her remarks before they sang that she started hanging out with Salman about a year ago, and that he had introduced her to Sufism, which accorded with her own spiritual path. They met at the Nobel Peace Prize dinner in December of 2007, and she then invited him to come stay with her in Los Angeles.

I've also been a fan of Melissa Etheridge since 1988, and her encounter with Sufi rock is a twist that fascinates me.

So that was my day in Long Beach. It was an eclectic day. It struck me that it was a very American day, and a good day for America.

105 Comments:

At 5:48 AM, Blogger Shirin said...

"I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

That sounds like the Standard Christian Bullshit that goes something like "hate the sin, love the sinner". No thanks. And what is that "for the media's purpose" part supposed to mean?

And what is this "spiritual emptiness" he thinks needs addressing? Who is he to assume anyone is spiritually empty?

 
At 6:43 AM, Blogger Diana said...

How very wonderful, encouraging and informative. Thank you

 
At 6:45 AM, Blogger John G. said...

Thank you: Warren's theology is shallow and his comments on Prop 8 are bigoted -- still, your perspective on his social commitments etc. do a lot to explain what Mr. O is doing -- starting a national conversation -- which is part of what this left left winger thinks we need and why I voted for him. Where is that conversation going -- no clue, but we gotta have it. Your perspective offering is much appreciated.

 
At 6:50 AM, Blogger Steve Hunt said...

Warren has good and bad effects on people. Have a look at my website, www.lifechurchvsiraq.com to see a very influental local (Oklahoma City) pastor who used Warren's sermon on the first gulf war to support the latest one.

 
At 6:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But just a gentle reminder to Warren that saying for Melissa Etheridge to be married to Tammy Lynn Michaels is equivalent to pedophilia or incest is not actually very civil or nice or humane.

Once a pastor turns, as Warren did, to a social gospel, then he has social goals to accomplish, and he needs all the help he can get. A social gospel creates a field of practical ecumenism.

So you begin to see why Obama is reaching out to this man.


I'd say that a pastor like Warren who's turned to a "social gospel" is very dangerous because he is branding his fellow humans as devotees of pedophilia and incest and many poor sheep will be only too willing to attribute "divinity" to his hate speech.

I do see why Obama is reaching out to this man. He loves sheep of any sort. He'd better watch out or Warren will accuse him of bestiality.

This is sick, sick politics of exploitation.

 
At 6:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I came away liking and looking up to Warren. In fact, I wonder whether with some work he could not be gotten to back off some of the hurtful things he has said about gays and rethink his support for Proposition 8.

I think that anyone who sought and succeeded in excluding a whole class of people from the benefits conveyed to citizens of the State of California isn't worthy of "liking and looking up to..."

That is in direct opposition to the principles expoused in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Rick Warren deserves neither public acclaim nor your admiration. He peddles bigotry and institutionalizes it, contrary to the principles that founded our nation.

If I were you I'd stick to analysis of the middle east where you have few peers. This post of yours is sadly lacking in compassion and sense.

 
At 7:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Charity begins at home', goes the adage. Mr. Warren showed fairly little of it when Prop 8 popped up in his homestate.

 
At 7:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing your experience in Long Beach recently, and for the information about Warren specifically.

When Obama first announced Warren had been chosen for the inaugural invocation, I was saddened and deeply disappointed. Then I caught a fuller glimmer of both the underlying and overarching strategy behind it.

For me personally, in order to deal with Obama's choice, I had to confront first my own prejudice against people who are prejudiced against others, such as Warren with his demonization of same-gender sexuality. I realized then that Obama's strategy/goal of helping healing the divide within the U.S. was not just about Warren but also about me.

I realized that if Obama can actually make me want to rethink my own deep animosity and resentment toward Warren and similar bigots, though still not accepting their divisive bigotry, then maybe he's got a bigger vision of what ails this country and world than I have.

It is still with acute trepidation and a generosity of necessary caution that I would consider that Warren, et al, would actually leave their "big-otry tent" to join a bigger tent, but I am at least open to considering it possible, or at least worth a try.

Never, though, would I accept bigots into the fold if they are nothing more than a stalking horse of a Democratic Party that is open to diminishing the civil rights and humanity of a single person.

I do understand that this IS and has been ultimately the counter-game the 'new' evangelicals are playing, to stick their camel noses under the big tent in order to de-democratize and potentially electorally destabilize it. This must never be allowed to happen, despite possible sincere conversions on their part to selective aspects of a true social gospel.

They can join the big tent but must never be allowed to tear it down, nor even threaten to do so.

And as I read suggested on AmericaBlog, if Obama wants to reach across an aisle toward bigots, religious or otherwise, then maybe other groups should share the risk besides just gays (not to mention the threatening of women's civil rights involving their own bodies!): For instance, perhaps Obama should invite David Duke to stand with him as he takes the oath of office.

Remember, the most vulnerable of us are our most important and vital constituency - "the least of these" of the gospels.

Piltz of Austin

 
At 8:34 AM, Blogger Quetzal said...

Dear Professor Cole,

Thank you for sharing such a wonderful commentary.

You remind me that in spite of their bitter partisanship and fundamentalist bigotry, there is still hope. While we may disagree with Rick Warren on numerous issues, at least this is a start--a long way from the fear-mongering and hate-mongering of the likes of the late Jerry Falwell and his followers.

warm wishes

 
At 8:39 AM, Blogger raft said...

thank you for this very thoughtful post, Mr. Cole.

 
At 8:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juan,

thanks for sharing your experiences and insightful commentary. Like many progressives, I was not happy with Obama's selection of Warren to read the invocation at the inauguration. Obama is a very smart man, though, perhaps he made the right choice. We are going to need everyone together to get us out of the mess that Bush has left us in.

Obama's selection of an economic team composed of people that helped get us into this mess should perhaps be more troubling that his selection of Warren.

 
At 9:12 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Juan, I appreciate your putting in some balance on the Rick Warren controversy and there is no doubt that he is leading evangelicals into some important areas of social ministry. More power to him on that. It is still a huge problem that he has also worked hard to take away civil rights from a chunk of the population and compared their relationships to incest and pedophilia. He may think he loves gays but it is the kind of "love" that nobody with any dignity wants because it comes across as devoid of respect. I grew up in an evangelical atmosphere and know it well. He wants to love gays into straightness and his church welcomes gays so long as they renounce their "lifestyle." He may be affable as all get out but to many he remains an oppressor, and that casts a serious shadow over the good things he is doing in the world. Ms. Etheridge is much more generous than most are ready to be. I would love to know the content of their conversation.

 
At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juan--were you a speaker/presenter at MPAC? Is there a YouTube of your talk, or could you post or link a transcript?

 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger Maggie Kortchmar said...

Thanks Juan, we all needed to hear this. It's a good thing Warren is speaking. It's a gesture that continues to show Obama's commitment to reach out to those who are either mis-understood or not "on our team"

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger tandmark said...

All I knew about Warren before this essay was his bringing together McCain and Obama onstage during the election campaign. I thought then that Warren was in essence ambushing Obama, as well as trying to hold him alongside McCain in such a way as to sabotage Obama's efforts to reach out to American evangelicals.

And then, a couple days ago, when Obama called upon Warren to participate in the inauguration, I learned of his (in my opinion) scandalous attacks against California's gays & lesbians during the Prop 8 campaign.

This piece, however, makes me rethink my impression of the man. Perhaps his political views don't correspond with mine, but I'm open to the idea, now, that he's begun to move away from the ugliest elements of evangelicalism. I'm open to the fact that that he's actually involved in some good work, too.

What I want to highlight, though, is that while he's moved away from the thuggish wing of evangelicalism, he hasn't decisively broken with it either. In most ways he's still part of the same religious movement as all the present-day Elmer Gantrys.

On BeliefNet and I presume elsewhere, Warren has consistently (and recently) attacked the historical Social Gospel movement and the legacy of theologian Walter Rauschenbusch. This might seem to be an obscure historical matter, seeing as how Rauschenbusch died during WWI. But his ideas have influenced generations of Christian activists, including ML King Jr and Desmond Tutu, many leaders of the YMCA movement, and the ecumenism of the National Council of Churches.

Rauschenbusch, I hasten to say, wasn't at all a non-believer, using the church as a cover for a reformist agenda. In 1892, he wrote something that you'd think Rick Warren would heartily agree with: "Because the Kingdom of God has been dropped as the primary and comprehensive aim of Christianity, and personal salvation has been substituted for it, therefore men seek to save their own souls and are selfishly indifferent to the evangelization of the world." He also wrote, "A perfect religious hope must include both: eternal life for the individual; the kingdom of God for humanity."

As a few bloggers have pointed out, then, Warren's attacks on the Social Gospel are not made on the basis of Rauschenbusch's actual written record. Instead, he apparently makes them just because any "softness" towards Social Gospel ideas would put Warren on the outs with the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition types.

Warren doesn't, as far as I know, contribute articles to Sojourners magazine, perhaps America's leading expression today of Social Gospel ideas. Saddleback Church doesn't appear in Sojourners' database of Faith & Justice Churches, but whether that's at Saddleback's request or because they're basically *not* a faith and justice-oriented church, I don't know.

To me, this shows that, while constructive engagement with Warren might indeed be fruitful, it's fraught with many of the same perils confronting those who would engage with any other problematic public figure.

At least, unlike Robert Mugabe, the Burmese junta, or Kim Jong-Il, he doesn't command any military force with which he can force the body politic to accede to his whims. Instead, with the repudiation of the politics of the Elmer Gantry evangelicals at the polls this past November, the wind having gone out of their sails at last, I agree there's a hope that Rick Warren will find more opportunity for himself by working for justice.

 
At 10:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He wants to do job creation and job training. Of course, can't wait to get his fat mitts on the purse so he can train evangelicals to go door to door. This man is not nice or civil; and as an atheist, I resent having to listen to any religious drivel - especially his.

 
At 10:50 AM, Blogger Trudy Bond said...

It is irrelevant whether you or Melissa Ethridge "like" Rick Warren or not. He is advocating corporate evangelicalism, both of which are disastrous to this world.

 
At 10:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with Warren is what Juan Cole identifies, it's not civil or nice or even ethical to compare gay marriage with pedophilia and incest. Exactly. The thing is that it's easy for Warren not to see it that way. He loves sinners and hates sin. So gay marriage foments sin, and so it's evil, but gays aren't since everyone is a sinner. However, people like me don't see things in those terms, and Warren is just not empathetic enough to get out of his Christian blinders. He's doing hurt, and then expects others to point out that he's a hurtful closed minded man.

 
At 11:08 AM, Blogger Nunzia Rider said...

While I can appreciate the idea of reaching out, and have myself argued for cooperation with evangelicals in areas where we can agree -- there is a growing evangelical environmental movement, for example, I cannot accept Rick Warren as an ally, despite his affability. He is a kindler, gentler bigot, but a bigot nonetheless. How nice of him that he loves gay people, the very gay people he likens with polygamists, child sexual abusers and those who commit incest. This is disagreeing without being disagreeable? And perhaps you weren't aware, but Warren wouldn't say he's moved toward a social gospel -- in fact, he has referred to those who have done so as religious marxists.

We gay and lesbian folk are constantly berated from the right for our supposed "intolerance" toward the religious right. But it seems from that argument that we are the only ones who are required to be "tolerant." And I would argue that our supposed "intolerance" of the religious right is not that at all but self-preservation.

We have fallen for the wolf in sheep's clothing far to many times in our history. Let's not do it again with a chubby pastor in a camp shirt.

Since I've never commented here before, I'd like to offer my admiration. You're one of my blogging "heroes," despite this criticism. Even though I disagree, your comments here are insightful and thoughtful, as they always are, and definitely pushed my thinking further along.

 
At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof Cole --

You say . . . "so imagine my surprise . . . that he [Warren] is a genuine, likeable man."

Come on . . . how gullible are you?! Having lived, for 9 months, I can tell you that most Mormons are very likeable, too, but give them the notion that you will not convert and their niceness goes down several notches.

Similarly, I was raised in a fundamentalist christian group -- very nice people -- but they think I'm going to hell today, because I left them and live a lifestyle that they don't approve of.

All of these religious organizations are run by glib talking (for the most part, likeable) people, who may do some nice things for people, but my guess is that Warren, along with his effort to "help 12 million children in Africa who have been orphaned by AIDS" will come wrapped in a cloak of proselytizing.

I shudder to think of the implications of his view that "religious groups" are the only organizations that can fix the world's social problems.

Best regards, Dirk

 
At 11:12 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Prof. Cole, thank you for sharing this experience with us. As a gay man, I've been conflicted about the whole Rev. Warren/Obama thing. Part of me is angry that Obama is being attacked like this, and part angry that Rev. Warren was asked to do the convocation, now that I know exactly what he has said about me, when he's never even met me.

In any case, what I take away from this is that this isn't a black-and-white issue, and that there is some good that may come from it. Dialog with right-wing evangelicals who are open to it is important; it's clear that not having such a dialog hasn't worked up to this point. I guess the argument is whether having Rev. Warren do the convocation was a necessary part of keeping the dialog open.

 
At 11:18 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

What a wonderful day Juan! I suspected that Rick Warren was just about as you describe him and had been very much of the opinion that my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community had missed the mark in their criticisms

Nice to know so

 
At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Cole,

Thank you for this report on the MPAC conference. It is one of the most hopeful things that I have read in this past week; as such, it has been sorely needed. Maybe reconciliation within American politics is more possible than we often think.

 
At 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Pentacostal and other evangelical missionaries also work to convert third world peoples, utterly destroying the traditional cultures in their wake. So when I hear religious organizations going to Africa to help, I wonder whether their real intent is to harvest souls.

Tony Palermino

 
At 12:16 PM, Blogger DavidEhrenstein said...

A "genuinely likeable man" who doesn't believe I exist, save as a "sinner."

A "genuinely likeable man" who explicit forbids gays and lesbians joining his church unless they 'repent" and sign up with his "Ex-Gay Ministry" and learn how to hate themselves.

This is a 'genuinely likeable man"? Not in my world, Juan, not in mine.

I'm going to be 62 in February and as an openly gay man (since 1961) I've spent the better part of those years pulling knives out of my back inserted by "genuinely likeable" guys like Rick Warren. Thanks to him Barack Obama has inserted a few knives in my FRONT!

This is WAR.

And I don't take prisoners.

 
At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for presenting another side of Warren. I think eight years of hard right wing Christian fundamentalism has gotten to you.

Fundamentalists, even those who wish to do great good, have long ago abandoned reason in exchange for an imagined certainty. His affable character makes him that much more pernicious. It actually scares me to think he will be out and about in Africa doing the Lord's work. (I say this having witnessed great work being done by Christian charities in east Africa. These groups' leaders are neither homophobic nor anti-evolution.)
A friendly fundamentalist evangelical may appear yards better than an angry one, but at the end of the day both seem to need an enemy to rally their congregation. I am happy to hear Islam is off his list. I am sorry homosexuality is still fair game. Maybe if we all pray hard enough he will soften his heart. On second thought, maybe if we get back to recreating a secular society, we won't have to appease his ilk.

 
At 12:48 PM, Blogger jonhusband said...

As you highlighted at the end, your unusual day sounds like a small drop of hope in an ocean of cynicism and / or ignorance.

 
At 1:23 PM, Blogger DavidEhrenstein said...

Meabwhile. . .John Cloud finally gets his head out of the clouds.

 
At 1:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy is likeable? He sounds like a nut case. Here is an exchange in which he equated gays to pizza. From Rawstory:

During his interview with Ann Curry on NBC’s Dateline, the evangelical preacher likened gays to pizza in a comparison that Curry said "startled" her.

The following is an excerpt from the interview:

"Just because I like pizza it doesn’t mean I should marry it. Biologically, I am predisposed to enjoy the immaculate melding of mozzarella cheese, red sauce and thick crust baked to tasty perfection.

"But that doesn’t mean I should enter into a lifelong commitment with Sicilian or plain, nor bed it down, nor bring children into the world and have them have to explain to their classmates why their mom’s crust is not a crisp as it once was.

"Does any child deserve to have their friends tossing Monday 2 for 1 coupons in his face? Not in my world they don’t. Yet, to say that I am against pizza-eaters or gays is absurd. Our Saddleback Church offer more weight-watchers meetings to overeaters than any other evangelical megachurch on the west coast."

 
At 1:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for some healthy perspective. If progressives can't be open-minded and cooperative, who will?

 
At 1:54 PM, Blogger Interrobang said...

Sure, Rick Warren loves Muslims and gays. The same way that all those Christian Zionists love Jews.

Which is the same way that kids at a birthday party love cake -- as something to be consumed.

I don't compromise with people who don't respect my full personhood. Warren doesn't just want to take away my identity, he says my body doesn't belong to me, either, and he should have more say in what happens to it than I do. If he got his way, in what way would that not make me in essence his slave?

It's pretty easy for you to make nice with him; you're not on the firing line.

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger jaf said...

Rick Warren is a "pastor" who has advocated the validity of assassination of foreign leaders by the United States. Somehow I have forgotten the moment in Jesus' life when he advocated MURDER as a legitimate means to realize his aims.

 
At 2:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of the so-called social gospel, Rick Warren is on record as saying "in many ways it was just Marxism in Christian clothing."

Likewise, of Warren, we might say that he's a run of the mill "Christianist" -- to use Andrew Sullivan's term -- with a high Q Score. A Christianist in likable clothing.

It is very disappointing to read that Mr. Cole's opinion of a person can shift so radically by discovering that said person is affable and friendly in person.

Lots of horrible people are affable and friendly. Likability is merely not relevant evidence for politics, unless we throw politics into the ditch of marketing and public relations, and abandon rationality.

 
At 2:15 PM, Blogger atheist said...

A recent statement from Mr. Warren quoted in a post at “The Christian Post”.

“Of course I want to reduce the number of abortions,” Warren told Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steven Waldman when asked if he was going to work with the Obama administration to achieve an abortion reduction agenda or if he thinks that the effort is a charade.

“But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’” he added.

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”


I agree that Mr. Warren’s decision to embrace “social gospel” is a positive development, and that this could provide opportunities for Christian Evangelicals to work with Muslims. I begin to see Obama's purpose in reaching out to Mr. Warren, and the reasoning which may have been behind it. I'm still disturbed by the fact that he apparently considers me, and many of my loved ones, to be essentially Nazis.

Earlier in Cole’s article, Cole writes: Warren also talked about the increasing rudeness and rancor of public life in the United States, and urged greater civility and willingness to work with people across the spectrum of opinion. He said, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” But the essential hypocrisy of calling for ‘civility’, while at the same time likening me and mine to genocidal madmen does not escape me.

Warren said, “Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims. And for the media’s purpose, I happen to love gays and straights.” Doubtless if I asked Warren what he thought of pro-choice people, he’s say, “Of course I love them too”. I'm not interested in that kind of "love".

 
At 2:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, then, so how shall this "war" be conducted?
Will you go and picket Saddleback every Sunday?
Will you go and confront Rick Warren personally?
Will you join your nearest evangelical church and issue a direct challenge in your Sunday School class?
Or is it just going to be more marching and blogging that no one but hears anyway?

And how do you know when you've "won"? Does this 62-year-old (i.e., likely former hippie) promise not to give up this time when he finds out that Utopia isn't gonna happen within his lifetime?

Stop being so in love with your own indignation. I hear you, and it pisses me off, too, but it doesn' t do a damn bit of good (except maybe for the adrenalin rush, I suppose, so I understand how addictive it can be).

 
At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, then, so how shall this "war" be conducted?
Will you go and picket Saddleback every Sunday?
Will you go and confront Rick Warren personally?
Will you join your nearest evangelical church and issue a direct challenge in your Sunday School class?
Or is it just going to be more marching and blogging that no one but hears anyway?

And how do you know when you've "won"? Does this 62-year-old (i.e., likely former hippie) promise not to give up this time when he finds out that Utopia isn't gonna happen within his lifetime?

Stop being so in love with your own indignation. I hear you, and it pisses me off, too, but it doesn' t do a damn bit of good (except maybe for the adrenalin rush, I suppose, so I understand how addictive it can be).

 
At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I notice that all of the commenters attacking Professor Cole on this have all but ignored three (3) things:

1) Melissa Etheridge has now willingly shared a stage, and a conversation, with Rick Warren. Will you now wreck her career for having done so?

2) The people who engineered this are -- ta-dah -- progressive Muslims in Los Angeles.

3) Conservative preachers -- or at least preachers who you wouldn't like -- have spoken at every inaugural. (Billy Graham spoke at Bill Clinton's inaugural, even though Graham and Clinton were nearly as far apart on various issues as are Warren and Obama.) And to this day, the position of most churches on gays isn't all that different from what Warren's stated in the past. Yet somehow they didn't affect how the presidents governed.

Bil Browning's tried to warn the gay community that it's making itself look bad for going after this instead of putting all that energy into DOMA and repealing Prop 8. Then again, those battles aren't as "sexy", I guess. Plus, they would take sustained and intelligent effort, not stereotype-feeding ragefests being fed by people with an interest in keeping people angry and unthinkingly reactive.

 
At 2:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're not only concerned about Prop 8, but as well Warren's support for policies that criminalize homosexuality in Uganda, including the arrest of HIV/AIDS workers who have called for prevention campaigns targeting men who have sex with men. His words in the US do not match with his actions in Africa, and his approach to HIV/AIDS directly contradicts the proven methods adopted by global public health officials and all the communities touched by the epidemic. Warren is allied with those who persecute and imprison homosexuals and deny much needed programs to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

 
At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And speaking of reinforcing negative stereotypes about gays, David Ehrenstein shows up right on cue. Do you hate Melissa Etheridge now, too, David? Will you want to destroy her just as you want to destroy Obama?

 
At 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are no ledges on the slippery slope of bigotry. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter the robe one wears. Evangelical bigotry is insidious because its fundamental assumption is that an evangelical's personal experience of spirituality is more valid than anyone else's. The urge to "tell one's truth" about God (whatever the spelling) is a mask hung on a pushy but shaky ego that needs a
dogma to survive.

Obama has sent shivers through the progrssive community that helped elect him, progressives who hoped beyond hope that through him there might be an end in sight to corporatocracy and corporate socialism. Obama's personnel choices might indicate that he is trying to bring people together, which is of course laudable. But continued faith in Obama hinges on his ability to direct a course for his administration that seeks to repair the diminishment of the power of the individual that BushCo has joyously broken and trampled. And such a course appears to be at odds with the past performance of some of those he has chosen. I for one hope he can bring this off, but the growing roster of insider people "ready to hit the ground running" that he has chosen give me pause. January can't come too soon.

A last note: The only way America can recover from Bush and Cheney is to render judgement on what they have done. No other entity, even the International Court, can do this. I think that means impeachment. If America does not re-define and reassert its ideals and Bush and Cheney get off scott free, I don't think anything else that Obama does will matter. Bush debauched America, and letting that go without action ensures eventual dissolution.

--James

 
At 2:47 PM, Blogger echidne said...

I am not at all convinced that the fact that Rick Warren is a kinder gentler kind of Talibanist makes him a good choice for the role that he has been given. Work with him, fine. But to give him the role Obama has given him?

Some in the media now call him America's Pastor.

He doesn't believe in evolution. He is against same-sex marriage. He is against abortion. His website resources offer a piece about women's graceful submission to male leadership.

Is that what Obama wants to see from America's Pastor? Especially given the sermon Warren gave in October where he rather clearly came out in support of McCain.

 
At 2:52 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Juan, you need to look much closer at what Warren is doing in Africa. He is using the AIDS-HIV tragedy to gain converts to his wealthy church businesses and he is working in concert with some truly horrible people in Africa who are brutally anti-gay and anti-contraceptives. Some of them have been active in rounding up gay people and seizing supplies of condoms to destroy them. Warren's push to "help" AIDS victims and slow down the explosion of the disease is centered on pushing abstinence, not dealing with reality.

I also think it is rather odd for someone as sophisticated as you are about Middle East politics to be impressed with someone's personal demeanor. Surely you know that many of the world's worst political actors have been charming and friendly on the surface.

 
At 3:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We can disagree without being disagreeable."

Rough translation: when we take away your rights, the proper response is "Thank you, sir".

I explain myself rarely but do so now as background. I'm a gay man, partnered for 28 years, living in California. I suppose you could classify me as agnostic, since I don't absolutely discount the possibility that there might be something out there. On the other hand, if there is, it bears absolutely no resemblance to any god or force or spirit conceived by the human mind, nor could it, because, if it exists, it is utterly incomprehensible to us. So I guess that makes me an atheist.

The reason Prop 8 passed in California is that the campaign istelf WAS "disagreeable", full of lies and distortions and FEAR.

The most disheartening thing about the Yes-on-8 campaign was that the leadership -- all religious figures of importance: Archbishop Niedereauer, the Mormon hierarchy, top level evangelicals -- so utterly disregarded their own faiths.

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

And Yes-on-8 was virtually all about false witness. I generally (used to) believe that religious leaders are good people. Certainly, at the lower rungs of the organizations, there are marvelous human beings. When they so clearly abandon (what they say are) their principles, it leaves me feeling deeply disappointed and betrayed. Not because I share their religion, but because I thought I shared their ethics.

As for likability, there is no more dangerous a characteristic in a political leader. Your assessment of Warren's book is what matters, not the comfort of his presence.

 
At 3:21 PM, Blogger chrismealy said...

Partial credit doesn't get you an A. Being less horrible than other theocrats doesn't make you good. He's out there working and spending to deny people their fundamental human rights.

It's so easy to magnanimous when you've got your foot on somebody's throat. Let's all be civil indeed.

 
At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my question: why didn't MPAC invite any LGBT Muslims? I love Melissa Etheridge, and I'm glad she was there, but let's have LGBT Muslims from within the community as well!

 
At 3:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did not know a lot about Warren. I thank the readers for educating us on this likable bigot.

As a Muslim I do know a lot about MPAC. They are an undemocratic, top-down and secretive organization, and their main aim seems to be to promote the petty careers of their founders.

In 2000 they threw their support behind the Bush-Cheney ticket, without consulting with their members. They actively argued that this was not a tactical choice, but a moral one, and that the homophobia and anti-choice values of the Christian right are in fact Islamic values.

Muslim American rank and file has rejected this right wing bigotry, and MPAC's recent adoption of the word "progressive" seems more opportunistic that based on any principle.

 
At 3:37 PM, Blogger Graham said...

I have met several people who were genuinely likeable individuals. They were still small-minded bigotted bullying shits.
Praising Rick Warren for being likeable does not make you look perceptive. It merely makes you appear to be gullible.

 
At 3:44 PM, Blogger mirele said...

I know how this has turned into being about Rick Warren and the GLBT community. And that's important. Rick Warren's views about GLBT persons are fairly abhorrent.

But let us not forget that Rick Warren is also an advocate of womb control. He would tell me, a straight woman, what to do with my body. Moreover, he'd love to legislate his views, and damn anything I might say about it.

So, Obama's choice is unacceptable for two reasons. Not merely because it's a smack in the face to GBLT persons, but because it's also a smack in the face to women. I wish Michelle O. would give her husband a piece of her mind and tell him what's what.

 
At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I happen to love evangelical Christians, too, but they should not be allowed to marry. Everyone knows, they just want to convert your kids. It's just not natural.

Seriously: there's difference of opinion, and then there's unabashed bigotry. Warren's an unabashed bigot, and he should be called on it.

As for embracing Warren to woo future voters: "I love you, but I believe your character is inferior to mine and you don't deserve my rights" has no place in any responsible political ethos in this country, whatever the ends are. Warren should be publicly rebuked, not honored.

Of course, I don't really mind Warren and crew that much. It's just when they act that way in public.

 
At 4:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nearly all the reaction to the Warren "appointment" has been in regard to his anti-gay bigotry. But he is also a man who says he doesn't accept evolution as the basis for scientific inquiry, has indicated his approval of the murder of President Ahmadinejadof Iran by the United States, because this is Biblically sanctioned, etc.
Certainly Warren represents a segment of the American people, but it is a constituency that has, in the main, opposed the principles that Obama espoused in his campaign. Dialog with him and them, but don't begin your cermony with a right-wing preacher.

 
At 4:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Cole,

Any ideas what the 'work' that might encourage Warren to 'back off ... and rethink his support for Prop 8' might entail? There is considerable anger and frustration among those of us who were against Prop 8. Perhaps some of that anger and frustration might be reduced if there were a visible dialogue with a major opponent such as Warren that was not only civil but also revealed some softening of opposition to LGBT rights....

Thanks for the blog.

Rosemarie

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

The real issue here is Obama's defense of Warren. Obama started by saying he has been a "fierce advocate" of gay equality all his political career. He went on to say he "intends" to continue that advocacy in his presidency. HUH!!!?? Why the word "intend"? It it is the ultimate wiggle word and means Obama will do NOTHING for that gay community. All the promises during the campaign were bald-faced lies. We are being thrown under the bus and backed over again and again. I thought Obama was going to stand for change. No more of the mendacity and venality of the past 16 years. I guess that will turn out to be the biggest lie.
time for the LGBT community to boycott democrats. No votes, no money, no volunteers until Obama's promises are kept. he can talk to all the right wing homophobes he wants to. That's his right.

 
At 4:30 PM, Blogger chris purcell said...

Warren's not just a homophobe. He also appeared on Sean Hannity's tv show on 12/3, when he agreed with the host that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs to be "taken out." Warren said that the Bible justifies assassination of "evildoers".
I'm sorry that Juan Cole, a normally perceptive writer, has decided that a glib, self-regarding showboat is someone worth "looking up to."

 
At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Warren's transformation into the evangelical AIDS "it person" is relatively recent. Earlier this month, on World AIDS Day, he awarded President Bush his ministry's first international P.E.A.C.E. award for contributions to fighting HIV/AIDS. Warren's own AIDS work, together with his wife Kay, began in 2002, ostensibly when Kay read a magazine article about the burgeoning population of AIDS orphans in Africa. That year, Warren led a group of evangelical churches in pushing a reluctant Bush administration to adopt a global AIDS policy, resulting in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, launched in 2003...

But churches anxious to follow Warren's lead didn't want to provide comprehensive HIV prevention services, such as safer sex education or condoms, so they lobbied for PEPFAR funding policy to be interpreted narrowly, creating stand-alone abstinence-until-marriage programs out of the law's 30% abstinence-only earmark. The new faith-based arm of the AIDS movement Warren had energized asked for, and got, a number of obstacles to prevention services: a prohibition on needle exchange programs for drug users; a ban family planning services in Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission clinics; and the anti-prostitution loyalty oath, which required all groups receiving PEPFAR funding, including those that work with sex workers, to condemn prostitution...

Warren and his fellow evangelicals brought new visibility to the issue; simultaneously, faith-based AIDS groups such as Kay Warren's HIV/AIDS Initiative at Saddleback Church began receiving significant funding through PEPFAR and disbursing it to organizations on the ground that follow their religious guidelines. ..

In 2005, PEPFAR increased its commitment to faith-based groups through President Bush's New Partners Initiative, which sought to tap churches and faith-based groups as funding recipients. "What it meant is that the old partners, the public health people who distributed condoms, were disdained," says Jacobson. "Then new partners, many of whom had never stepped foot in Africa, were suddenly getting millions of dollars to go there. As far as we were concerned, it was a slush fund for the far right."

Progressive attempts to reform PEPFAR during its reauthorization process in February 2008 were heated. The late Rep. Tom Lantos championed a revision of the bill which struck the abstinence-until-marriage earmark, the prostitution pledge, and other prevention restrictions, and opened the door for PEPFAR programs that integrated family planning with HIV prevention as a natural combination of sexual health services.

The response of Warren and his fellow conservative PEPFAR supporters was cynical and swift. Staging a press conference on the day of the National Prayer Breakfast, four days before Lantos's death, Warren joined a menagerie of stalwart anti-choice leaders, including Reps. Chris Smith, Marilyn Musgrave and Joe Pitts, and activists Wendy Wright, Chuck Colson and Day Gardner. The group declared that the Lantos revision would "pour billions into the hands of abortion providers with little or no regard for the pro-life, pro-family cultures of recipient countries," strip abstinence programs of their funding and, by lifting the prostitution pledge, enable the sex trafficking of women. Lantos's reauthorization bill lost every point on reproductive health, and PEPFAR was reauthorized in its flawed state.

Read the whole article here:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

 
At 5:03 PM, Blogger Faida said...

Interesting article. I can see how anyone would be in "awe" of Pastor Rick Warren. It's easy. The man is quite influential and has a charismatic personality. It's easy to be in awe of just about anybody who commands approximately 22K church goers once a week. A leader like that is extremely persuasive. He and Obama have great leadership skills. However, I can understand the Gay community's anger after supporting Obama who they thought was a liberal politician to see him request Pastor Warren to read the invocation. Usually, the person who reads the invocation is one who shares the same values. You can agree to disagree but that person does not read the invocation, nine times out of ten. Obviously, this is that "One time out of ten."

 
At 5:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The issue is really quite simple as I see it. Yes, cooperation between those who disagree is essential in a pluralistic society. However, what should not be compromised is the fundamental spirit and letter of the Constition. I don't hear gays and lesbians arguing against Warren's First Amendment right to free speech: I defend absolutely his right to hold opinions that i find vile and reprehensible. Yet Warren argues against my Fourth Amendment freedom of religion--in which I hold gay marriage as sacred--and he has supported successful legislative action to promote his religious views over my own. No matter how nice he is to you, or how many lesbian recording artists he admires, this alone makes him a poor choice for the Inaugural Invocation. As the previous gentleman stated, knives in the back and now knives from Obama in the front. I will no longer support him as I did in the past, financially and otherwise.

 
At 5:10 PM, Blogger Philip Thrift said...

Warren said, "Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

He explicitly mentioned meeting Etheridge, and explained that he has been a long time fan of hers, beginning with her self-titled first album of 1988. "I'm enough of a groupie," he said, "that I got her autograph on the Christmas album."



Rick Warren is obviously a very intelligent — and economically successful — man. But, really, can one imagine how someone like that (for someone who was not as intelligent or successful, one would have sympathy) can be so incredibly shallow?

 
At 5:23 PM, Blogger wister said...

I for one am ashamed that the job of coping with the effects of the AIDS epidemic should be left to churches. Let the government do its job.

As a gay man I think it's about time that someone reached out to us. If Obama wants to be inclusive let him include us. We gave him money and our best efforts to get him elected. Once again, gay people get to sit at the back of the bus in the separate but equal area.

Of course Warren is personable: confidence men always are.

 
At 5:36 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

This development can be interpreted in many ways. To me it appears to commence a period where traditional boundaries become diffuse and new alliances form. Obama promised change and we will get change.

Change could be very good, but the loss of economic security coupled with deep seated resentments harbored by various groups towards various other groups raise the spectre of some seriously ugly happenings later on.

Obama's challenge will be to cement his newly formed alliances and other beneficial social structures before the Hannity's and O'Reilly's have a chance to transform social discomfort into the irrational actions (violence) they seek.

 
At 5:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many bigots have been likable and have done good works. Obama has made a significant mistake in giving a national platform to an insulting, bigoted man who worked against equality for all citizens in California. Obama had many more acceptable choices. There are many Christians who really do LOVE all people who could have delivered an invocation. On another note, why is there an invocation at all?

 
At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where do the Muslims who belong to the Muslim Public Affairs Council stand on gays and gay marriage?

 
At 6:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, what frightens me is Warrens ability to sway even those smart enough to know better, including you Prof. Cole, and M. Etheridge. For all of his AIDS help he does in Africa, I would be interested in his views on AIDS in America....something tells me that because the large portion is through gay transmission, his concern is not so great. Sorry, he is not 'likable', in my book.

 
At 6:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Cole,

As a retired professor I try to judge whether something supports bigotry or not by interchanging words in the item I am considering, for example let's put in a gay rights organization as the meeting place and change Warren's bigotry from gays to Muslims. Would you still support his selection as one to give the invocation at the inauguration? I agree one should talk to people with whom you disagree and support what Obama intends to do in that respect. I just don't think giving Rick Warren the status of giving the inaugural invocation is the appropriate place to do it. Bigotry in any form hurts people and just because you do good in other aspects of your life doesn't excuse your bigotry nor erases the hurt done to those hurt by bigotry.

Dr. Jack H. Munsee

 
At 6:58 PM, Blogger Japandrew said...

As a gay man, I found Proposition 8 and Rick Warren's support for it very disturbing. It is hard not to feel personally attacked in such situations. At the same time, I believe in dialogue, reaching out to those whose worldview differs from my own. One of the reasons I voted Barack is that I know he also believes in such dialogue. During the election, the right wing attacked him again and again for saying he would met with the leaders of Iran, that such a meeting would confer legitimacy on a criminal regime. In the interest of peace, I want him to meet with Ahmadinejad (whose regime has executed young boys for homosexual love). This, like Rick Warren, is in some senses a bitter pill for me. But it comes down to the question: where do minds get changed. It isn't in long-distance name calling. It is in encounter.

 
At 7:35 PM, Blogger DonS said...

Warren is a 'charmer'.

In the psychology business we call it"warm fuzzies".

 
At 7:36 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I'd say you've been totally bamboozled, Juan.

From Saddleback Church's policy statement, via Josh Marshall @ TPM:

"Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church."

 
At 8:17 PM, Blogger DavidEhrenstein said...

Oh ggodie, one of my Log Cabinette fans has stumbled in here, wanting to know why I want to destroy Melissa Etheridge's career.

AS IF!

 
At 10:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well written reporting - thanks!

The zeal with which Warren has been criticized reminds me of the way my right-to-life friends insist on having no common cause with anyone who fails their repeal-of-Roe litmus test.

Too bad. They could accomplish much.

 
At 10:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrew - brilliant and brave comment!

 
At 11:24 PM, Blogger Richard said...

Juan: Disappointed that you didn't mention Warren's interview with Sean Hannity during which he agreed when Hannity asked him whether he wouldn't agree that the U.S. should "take out" Ahmadinejad.

Was this even mentioned from the MPAC stage? If not, why not? Given that MPAC represents a diff. religious orientation than Persian Islam. But I'd still think this would disturb any reasonable Muslim.

I'm fully prepared to think that Rick Warren may be productive material to try to work with fr. the pt. of view of Barack Obama or Melissa Etheridge. But he's got a lot to answer for before he moves off his terribly objectionable views. And the way to get him to do that is to confront them directly. I hope you or someone else did.

I wrote about this at Huffington Post & my own blog.

 
At 11:38 PM, Blogger Gadfly said...

Juan, and any Obamiacs:

"Dialogue" is not a political platform plank. If I want an effing psychologist for president, I'll vote for one.

 
At 12:01 AM, Blogger Peter Attwood said...

From a Christian viewpoint, Warren has some significant problems. His support of American imperial policy shows him to be the same kind of sucker for this world and its values that Christians have been ever since our fathers became shills for imperial Rome, and later for Byzantium.

No disciple of Jesus can read the gospels and imagine that Jesus of Nazareth would utter flattering nonsense about the American flag "and the Republic for which it stands," or any other kingdom of this world, and yet many claim to be his disiples and cannot imagine imitating Jesus at this point.

But for Warren to characterize homosexuality as sin is not bigoted; it's just what the Bible says. That's not denying the humanity of those who practice such things either, just as it's not denying the humanity of any other sort of sinners to identify their sins as sins.

And abortion is not about what you get to do with your body; it's about what you get to do with someone else's. It's true in a lot of situations that doing justice to another has an effect on our bodies. For instance taking care of a toddler means that lots of time you won't get to take your body clubbing every night as before. It remains that when we claim complete autonomy for ourselves, we're claiming the right to deny the humanity of everyone else. That's why Americans, believing that they have the right to do anything they want to feel safe, feel that they're entitled to bomb wedding parties, torture, and defile the lands of others with depleted uranium just as much as they please.

It's total narcissism, and most American political discourse these days is only about who is most entitled to indulge himself without limit at the expense of someone else, and just who ought to be declared nonhuman for that purpose.

 
At 12:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few years ago while visiting my father in the hospital, the issue of same-sex marriage came up. My father and my brother-in-law were horrified when I told them I had no problem with it -- "it won't change the course of my life." The conversation ended at that point.



I find it incomprehensible why any couple would be denied the right to marry. But it wasn't that long ago inter-racial marriages were illegal. Those laws remained in effect from colonial days until 1967 when the Supreme Court decided anti-miscegenation statutes that deny citizens the fundamental right to marry contradicted the equal protection clause in the Constitution. So wouldn't that apply to same-sex marriages, too?



Notwithstanding most people who object to same-sex marriage do not view it as an equal rights issue. Instead they argue it is a sin according to the Bible without even bothering to quote a verse to substantiate their argument. And it ends there. Apparently they refuse to recognize marriage is a civil institution not a religious issue which leads me to believe convincing them otherwise is next to, but not entirely, impossible.



I've been conflicted about Rick Warren's prominence at Obama's inauguration. I do respect the man insofar as the commendable work he has accomplished, but not his bigotry and close-mindedness. It is not just the homophobic rhetoric that bothers me, excluding "unrepentant" gays and lesbians from joining his church is equally, if not more so, bothersome. I was taught all humans were created equal and to treat others as I would like to be treated. Whether willful ignorance or blind ignorance or both shaped Warren's idea of what it means to be a Christian it is misguided and hypocritical.



It is hardly surprising that someone whose views and religious certitude undermine civil rights and equality was given such a prominent platform raised the ire of a broad range of people who feel a symbolic icon of intolerance and bigotry sends the wrong message.



On the other hand reaching out to those with whom we disagree deserves praise and encouragement. We've got to start somewhere otherwise nothing changes.



While intolerance and bigotry have no place in our society people learn by example. Teach tolerance by showing tolerance. Therefore if we are intolerant of others' intolerance it sends the wrong message, too. We cannot expect others to change without doing so ourselves. Warren deserves that at the very least.



With the entire world watching Obama's inauguration, perception matters in that what ties us together overcomes that what divides us is the rule rather than the exception.



That is what changes the course of our lives.

 
At 12:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the question is: Are Christians allowed to freely practice their faith and believe what the Bible says, or will society deem them bigots and force them to reject their religious beliefs?

Will Christians have the freedom to practice their religion in the future, or will the neoliberals deem the Bible hate speech and prohibit Christians from teachings from it?

 
At 1:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone needs to explain to Warren that the difference between an adult homosexual couple and incest/pedophilia is that the former consists of two consenting adults while the latter does not. It's not rocket science. I think if he really thinks about it, he has it in him to admit the difference, admit he was wrong in equating these things, issue an apology and retract his statements.

He'll still be against the state calling gay/lesbian unions "marriages" due to his religious beliefs, but if he would retract the pedophelia/incest statement, it would go a long way toward advancing respectful dialog on these issues between his followers and the gay community.

 
At 5:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a "normal" heterosexual male adult, I have gotten married twice in civil ceremonies -- once in Taipei, Taiwan and once in Rancho Cucamonga, California. "Religion" -- or primitive animism -- had nothing to do with either marriage. As my departed mother (and official witness) said to the young lady clerk who officiated at the second ceremony: "They just need someone to say the words." So, I find it completely absurd, not to say infinitely annoying to have smug, self-serving animists (of the Single Spook variety, especially) keep harping on free-thinking citizens (in many nations) about what "religion" they choose to indulge when marriage involves nothing more than a secular, state-sponsored contract.

More importantly, the Constitution of the United States specifically prohibits any "religious" test for public office and furthermore prescribes a complete separation of church and state. Therefore, any animistic rituals or proclamations can have no bearing whatsoever on the secular laws that govern our land. "Congress shall make no law ... et cetera, et cetera." So why don't the self-absorbed animists keep their religions to themselves instead of trying to illegally force them on a nation that not only doesn't legally require them, but positively rejects any possibility of needing their sanction?

President-elect Barack Obama could take his oath of office with one or both hands (or neither) placed on a roll of toilet paper and his essential promise to keep his word and do his job would carry the same force of law. When will America grow up and get with the modern, scientific world instead of continually poisoning one generation after another with primitive, infantile animistic superstition? No wonder the country has practically imploded from self-inflicted stupidity.

 
At 8:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One may smile, and smile, and be a villain.

Nothing new here.

 
At 9:11 AM, Blogger DavidEhrenstein said...

Christians have the freedom to attack me and mine with impunity. I have no such privilege. I am not even human in their august view.

My rage and my contempt is bottomless, and it will not cease until in Diderot's wish for the the last King being strangled with the entrails of the last prist comes true.

 
At 9:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good for you, Prof. Cole. We need to look harder to find the good part of one another. That's how we build strong coalitions. Obama knows so much more about this than many of these commenters. We need to let him lead us.

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger mndean said...

To be charmed by a huckster doesn't speak well for you, Mr. Cole. I may have had the same thing happen to me, but I was so young that I did not know better. What's your excuse?

Reading your essay, I would say you took a very shallow look at Mr. Warren and liked what you saw. You, the person who could see how the government used misdirection and outright lies to get us into a useless war of convenience. I'm too shocked by what you've said here not to be a little mistrustful of what you have to say now. Sorry, but if you're so easily starstruck, it makes you an unreliable commentator on any matter where you speak to people of personal charisma. You could have looked up Mr. Warren's odious comments made in the past (they are widely available), but did not.

 
At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said, "Are Christians allowed to freely practice their faith and believe what the Bible says, or will society deem them bigots and force them to reject their religious beliefs?"

Of course they are. But that doesn't mean that I want someone who believes I must remain celibate or go to hell to speak at the Inauguration.

 
At 11:06 AM, Blogger cashorali said...

"He wants to do job creation and job training. He wants to wipe out malaria in the areas where it is still active. He is convinced that religious congregations are the only set of organizations on earth that can successfully combat these ills."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Mr. Warren. Thus far your deeds have not merited any consideration of you as anything other than a bigot.

Let's get off the feel good train here and peel off the rose colored glasses. Mr. Warren equated homosexuality with pedophilia and was a proponent of prop 8. How insensitive was it of Obama to have chosen him at this time for such an honor? I'm all for inclusiveness but this choice strikes me as being exclusive. We California gays were dealt a serious blow a little over a month ago and Mr. Warren had a hand in that.

What I heard in Obama's choice was the harbinger of things to come: gays were going to be thrown under the bus again by the democrats.

Perhaps Obama is trying to quash the talk of him being 'white' by taking on a characteristic of the black community: homophobia.

 
At 11:14 AM, Blogger Jeff Crook said...

As Digby points out today, even Warren's work in Africa looks suspiciously like laying the groundwork for establishment of a Christian theocracy.

I think, Dr. Cole, that you experienced the almost magical effect known as charisma. Nothing more. If you want to know the real Pastor Warren, get a job cleaning his church or mowing his lawn, so you can hang around and overhear how he talks to his closest friends and advisors. Otherwise all you got was the sales pitch, and he's obviously very good at it, otherwise he wouldn't be where he is.

 
At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

etheridge has lost ALL credibility with me. she's living in some fantasy world where she thinks pigs like warren are actually going to get off their high horse and respect people who are different than they are. grow up, melissa.

 
At 1:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I trust Juan Cole’s personal estimation of Rick Warren as a genuine, likable, affable guy. His dedication to spreading the gospel as he understands it, and his efforts to bend his religion towards the social problems of his own choosing, have earned him a dais from which he may further advance his agenda.

The difficulties arrive when, for whatever reason, Rick Warren is compelled to fall back to his essential fetishistic belief that the Bible is infallible.

“A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself
into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance,
and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties.”
—The URANTIA Book

Wondering what kind of “work” would be required to get Warren to truly come to Jesus over his bigoted statements about gays might have to include waterboarding and other harsh techniques, but it’s just as unlikely to produce results that are any more genuine that what torture produces in general on anyone.

Yet the unfortunate self-imposed yoke of the infallibility of the Bible will always be the burden that turns otherwise honest and even admirable men (and women) into blathering, intolerant bigots, ever blinded to their own virulent hypocrisy.

It doesn’t really matter that Christianity’s slavish obeisance to the personal sexual mores of Paul lie at the roots of evangelical fundamentalism. Rick Warren knows he will stand before the judgment alone; that only he must answer for his words and deeds. So what could hold him captive in the face of this truth?

The invocation of supposed divinely inspired writings led directly to the establishment of the authority of the church. Imagine then, the enormity of the task that confronts a religionist like Warren, who’s personal authority stems from, not Jesus the “vine,” but that very same church. Were Pastor Rick to come to the full realization of his unavoidable bigotry by wrongfully attributing Paul’s sexual peccadilloes to God, he might find himself swimming upstream alone instead of standing on the bridge of the mighty U.S.S. Camelback. Without that authority, Rick becomes the equivalent of a disgraced Ted Haggard, just with different “sins” in the eyes of other Bible fetishists.

Rick Warren has long been under fire by even more rabidly fundamentalist fetishists. But any difference between his fundy critics and himself isn’t meaningful to anyone living in the world outside their fetishism. Pastor Warren’s bigotry and say, Rev. Hagee’s, is simply one of degrees.

What an example Rick Warren could become to millions of other evangelical fetishists if he could experience his own epiphany, recognizing his faith in God has next to nothing to do with his belief in the Bible; that faith in God is not dependent upon any fetishistic belief in any scripture.

Well. Stranger things have happened.

 
At 2:23 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Professor, I've pondered your post for a day now and want to tell you that it was the most informative and insightful thing I've read on le affair Warren.
This is the reason you are a daily read for me, please keep up your good work!
Sargentripper

 
At 4:31 PM, Blogger Kevin Falvey said...

That's what hucksters and con men like Warren do, Professor Cole. They win your confidence by saying things you want to hear, then they screw you or the things you value. Do I really need to explain this to you?

Consider yourself conned.

 
At 4:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

.
It appears from the comments here that bigotry against mainstream Christianity is a fundamental tenet of secular progressive belief system orthodoxy.
I assume that there would be similar bigotry against mainstream Islam, Judaism and Hindu, if only the “Brights” posting here understood these currents better.

.....

Which makes me wonder:
why so many new posters here today ?
And why do they all spew the same venom ?
.
.

 
At 5:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm the single father of a 15 year old son that I've raised since birth.

Today my son was working on a winter break report about Obama and came across this article.

Today Rick Warren has brought a lot of negativity and sadness to our home.

I've just had to explain to my son, for the first time in my life, what incest, polygamy and pedophilia are. Did he come across a porn site to hear such awful concepts and words? No, the words came out of a pastors mouth, perhaps at a sermon with children present? How many of Rick Warrens followers had to explain to their children what those words meant after hearing them from his mouth?

You see I'm an openly Gay father and have been openly Gay since I was 18 years old. My son has just found out that there are people in this world, with legions of followers, who think I have sex with children, family members, and multiple partners, or minimally, they think I'm as bad and immoral as the people that do.

Hate is hate, no matter how much you want to sugar coat the ignorance, it's still bitter.

There are thousands of churches in America that want to marry same sex couples, and recognize same sex unions and marriages, yet the only churches that get attention are the hateful ones that don't want to allow committed love between same sex couples.

I live a quiet and humble life as a computer programmer. I'm not political, though I do vote like most people I know. You wouldn't know I was Gay if you saw me walking down the street. With my son I lead by example.

Today my example was telling my boy that people who don't know you wont understand you and the more they know you, the more they'll love and understand you.

In time things in our country will change and everyone will have equal rights.

One thing I know to be true is that I'm raising one heterosexual boy, who will soon be a man, that possesses the virtues of acceptance, tolerance and love.

 
At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was aware of Warren's reported views on GLBT people, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, abortion, and women's issues but until moments ago not about his view of Jews being destined to burn in hell with the rest of us, as referenced in today's LA Times editorial.

Warren's religious straitjacket is not limited to Biblical inerrancy; it also requires consigning to perdition all people who do not accept his particular narrow formula, including folks of other Christian denominations. Conversion of all to his formula is the bedrock of his belief, and is also the definition of evangelism. It leaves no room for respect for others' beliefs and is practically synonymous with bigotry.

I am afraid that in this matter Dr. Cole has stepped in some poo. No wonder shoe soles are considered unclean in the Arab world.

 
At 6:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Con men are charming and charismatic.

That's their stock in trade.

You could defend one by saying, "He's likable (to my surprise)!"

But that would be missing the point, once or twice.

_______________


I second Shirin's suspicion of the clause "for the media's purpose".

What, for all other purposes his feelings are different?

 
At 7:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Proposition 8 did not immediately nullify the 18000 marriages that were performed before it passed. Just this week the "Yes on 8" group, that Warren supports, filed several lawsuits, including one to do just that. They also have Kenneth Starr, yes, that Kenneth Starr joining their legal team.

 
At 7:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Warren said comparable statements about Jews or African-Americans, he wouldn't have been considered. It is only because it is still permissible to bash the LGBT community in the US that this has come to pass.

You want a discussion? Fine. But don't give him a place of honor.

This is **tremendous** slap in the face to the LGBT community, and all women.

 
At 10:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There must be a sweeping redefining of homosexuality within Christianity from sinful behavior to a non majority, non procreative physical chemistry. This does not mean a non procreative mental or spiritual chemistry. Let’s call a spade a spade. What Christians fear the most is the recruitment of their child into the non-procreative world. It is a thin veil of moral righteousness that covers for a very primal impulse to protect a man's grandchildren by aligning with and increasing the majority, physically procreative, “right/Godly”, chemistry and decreasing minority, physically non-procreative “wrong/Satanic” chemistry.

Does procreative physical chemistry= God chemistry?

Certainly God’s love and light is not synonymous with physical, chemical structure! There is a difference between seeing the parable of God's love in the male female chemical/biological/physical sexuality and taking this to a literal cellular judgment of God in the biological, chemical rightness of one human makeup versus another.

If Conservative Christians were to be truly honest and direct, i.e. if they faced their id.

For conservative Christians homosexuality is a massive threat to their progeny, who they obviously feel are at very strong risk for recruitment. This is a very serious fear. Having potential grandchildren taken away is likened to taking away a man's very life. This needs to be addressed directly rather than indirectly through religious righteousness and judgment. Anger and fear have been rerouted to moral outrage and judgement sanctioned by God. This is very dangerous.

What might they say if they dug deep?

Don’t recruit our procreative chemistry children into your non traditionally procreative minority world? We want them to procreate by traditional means which would occur unless you steal that from them? To steal this from us and even the threat of stealing this from us is cruel and inhumane?

Dear gays, we are sorry about your isolation and minority position but your way necessarily means the killing/maiming the traditional procreative process? Killing the possibility of our grandchildren by recruiting our straight children is the ultimate selfishness and the ultimate vengeance on traditional families? Yes, you are a threat, a very very real threat? Yes, we want to promote traditional procreation only?

How might a conservative Christian ask directly?

If you do not recruit our straight children then we will not say you are sinners by nature and ostracize you? Consider straight children off limits and accept this completely?

OK then then help the gay child find other gay children to hang with and enable and promote the same ethical rules and moral acceptance as you would for boy/girl relationships. Face it. Deal with it. Address it.

 
At 12:38 AM, Blogger lloydletta said...

Interesting post. The issues I have with Rick Warren are:

1. His comparing gay relationships with incest and pedophilia. That's not civil, and he should apologise for that if he wants to turn down the volume.

2. His church doesn't allow "unrepentant homosexuals" to join. After the spotlight turned on this, this text was removed from the website. I posted on this, and pasted the text from the website on Saturday:

http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2008/12/rick-warrens-pray-away-gay-church.html

Now the language is gone from the website - scrub a dub, dub.

Did Obama ask him to remove it?

 
At 3:49 AM, Blogger km said...

Warren gets a pat on the back for being willing to be on the stage with a real live gay person? That's setting the bar pretty low, isn't it? So he wants to rid the world of poverty and corruption and disease? What's he running for — Miss America? And the part about "spiritual emptiness"? We already know exactly what he wants to fill that emptiness with. If it happens to increase the tithe to his church, well, that's God will, then, I guess. No thanks. I'm not buying it.

 
At 8:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Cole:

Thanks for posting this.

The Rick Warren invitation exposes so many fault lines within the progressive movement. But then, why should we be any different than any other group?

As a lifelong pacifist, I'll be disappointed throughout the Obama presidency, as I have been disappointed throughout every U.S. presidency.

but as a citizen activist, I'll continue to work to elect the best choice for president as I understand that, and will work in numerous other ways to advance my pacifist beliefs.

None of us get the "whole package" in any one person, not in a political commentator, a lover, a child, a president, a pastor, a president, or someone who brings the invocation.

Thanks again for offering your observations.

David

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger Ex-Canuck said...

Juan Cole,

Sorry to hear that you bought into the words by the snake-tongued rick warren. Don't you know that he will say anything to get the notoriety the invocation will bring? Most evangelicals are like that - more fame = more money, and more power.

Even Melissa Etheridge, who has literally tasted the bile that warren spews, was swayed by the golden tongued phony - I am surprised!

 
At 11:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this controversy over Obama and Warren is because Americans voted for a real leader, and the thing about real leaders is they don't always go where you want them to go, or do what you want them to do. Since day one of hearing about this Warren stuff I have felt that Obama would be proven right. Your comments are the first I've seen that show where Obama is trying to lead America.

 
At 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One to two percent of the population is supposedly homosexual. They demand and when others don't agree, they throw a fit. I find it unbelieveable that because someone doesn't agree with the homesexual lifestyle, they are considered a bigot and should be gotten rid of. Hence, Prop 8 to say we like marriage the way it has been for over four thousand years. Actually, when a person chooses to act a certain way it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it.You can believe whatever you want, homosexuality is a sin period.

 
At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Cole, given that you have some background in theology, I would like to see you address some of these issues in a bit more detail. Many of us have the impression that Islam (whether fulfilling anyone's criteria for being "extremist" or not) is the equal of evangelical Christianity in at least two distinct areas:

1. Intractable opposition to LGBT civil rights;

2. Belief that non-Muslims will not be "saved" or granted entry to heaven.

Point #1 above would make
Christian evangelicals such as Warren natural allies of traditional Islam. Point #2 would have the reverse implication. Were any tensions around these issues evident at the meeting you attended?

What adjustments do you see "socially and religiously liberal" Muslims making in response to living in an increasingly diverse world? Are there any parallels to the evolution in the theology of some Christian denominations?

 
At 4:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could you PLEASE forward this column to Rachel Maddow so maybe she'll stop raking Obama over the coals for inviting Warrren.

 
At 7:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evangelicals like Rick Warren generally subscribe to the formulation "Hate the sin but love the sinner." It's therefore easy to see how he can say with a straight (!) face that he loves straights and gays, etc., and everyone nods approval so often without asking about the hate part of the equation.

Regarding his appearance at the MPAC, I question whether the same approach applies. Does Warren love Muslims, but hate Islam? Is it once again inconvenient to ask him about the hate as long as he only mentions the first part of the equation?

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rick Warren's distorted views on gays and lesbians aside, I think we can all agree that murder is wrong. Well, not the 'admirable' Rick Warren.

This is what Pastor Warren had to say to Sean Hannity with regard to the assassination of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2008/12/rick-warren-backs-assassination-of-ahmadinejad.html)
“Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped…. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.” And so "evildoers" as defined by Pastor Warren should be assassinated.

He is not just wrong with regard to gays. He's just wrong. And I do not think he is the right person to represent a "new Obama era". His selection to participate in our inauguration is very, very sad.

 
At 1:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Rick Warren say homosexuality is equal to incest and pedophilia? I've been reading all the comments and nobody has given the quote here. I think Rick Warren's point was to say what marriage is and what it isn't. Prop. 8 is about the definition of the word marriage. There is a lot of fighting to change the definition of marriage. Can a homosexual commitment and lifelong partnership have another name?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home