Politics | 12/18/2008 3:00 pm

Firestorm Reactions to Obama's Pick of Anti-Gay Rev. Rick Warren Role in Inauguration

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Obama and Warren shake hands
in Saddleback Forum in August © AP

A firestorm of criticism from liberal and gay-rights activists has followed ever since Obama announced Wednesday that Pastor Dr. Rick Warren will give the invocation at the Inauguration.

Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life and other books, preaches conservative Christian issues at his large Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA. He stresses about climate, poverty and AIDS in third-world countries. But it’s his outspoken opposition toward abortion and gay marriage that has many human-rights activists, lesbian and gay activists finding Warren’s presence at Obama’s inauguration a slap in the face.

Today, Obama is defending his actions saying that disagreeing is what "America is about." SwampPolitics reports Obama saying:

We’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak. Dr. Joseph Lowery who has deeply contrasting views than Rick Warren on a whole host of issues is also speaking during the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented … Because that’s what America is about.

Click here to read the full transcript.

While Obama is saying that we should all hold hands in harmony and live in peace among our "contrasting views" … his selection of Warren is upsetting human-rights groups. The Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual rights organization in the U.S., sent a letter to Obama, urging him to reconsider and calling the invitation "a genuine blow." The letter states that Warren was a proponent of Proposition 8. (The proposition, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, passed with 52 percent in November.)

"By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table," says the letter by Joe Solmonese, president of the group. "We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination."

"Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, “There is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease two percent of our population … This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it’s a lie today."

Click here to read the full letter.

Kathryn Kolbert, president of the equal-rights group People for the American Way, called giving Warren this honor a "grave disappointment."

"Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church’s engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance," Kolbert said in a statement. "He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

"I’m sure that Warren’s supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church. But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans." Click here to read the full statement.

309 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

GREAT CHOICE!!!

By HA BIBI on 12/18/2008 4:06 pm

e-mail alert

I agree that this is a GREAT CHOICE. I am now more hopeful than ever that our new President will successfully demonstrate in practice what it means to be inclusive … something that the Rick Warrens of the world don’t currently seem to know much about. (Surely seeking to outlaw everyone who’s not like us is the very antithesis of inclusiveness!) It is to be hoped that Dr. Warren will take the hint and learn to do as he has been done unto. I assume that the preceding statement was reasonably clear, but just in case it wasn’t, I’ll rephrase it. If people who believe in civil liberty and the separation of church and state (like those of us over here [ http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2008/10/rick-warren-proposi… ] ) can find room in the world for the Rick Warrens, then it would be nice if they would return the favor and leave room in the world for those of us who are not like them (rather than seeking to legislate others out of existence by codifying the beliefs of particular dominations in civil law). If we didn’t practice inclusiveness ourselves, how could we reasonably expect anyone else to learn how to do it? I do remain, however, bewildered by Rick Warren. Many Christians seem to feel that we are obligated to vote for the governmental establishment of our religious ideals and morality system, but no amount of effort on my part has allowed me to uncover a single particle of biblical / scriptural justification for any such obligation. Similarly, I have examined Warren’s statement of support for Proposition 8 but found no biblical / scriptural support there for seeking to make religious propositions held by this or that denomination rules of law. This is the same problem I raised over here [ http://www.wowowow.com/cl/147908 ]; sadly, no Rick Warren types responded there with the answer. From the GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE DEPARTMENT … I admire these declarations by Dr. Warren’s in an interview conducted at the Wall Street Journal: it’s a “no brainer” that divorce poses a bigger threat to the American family than gay marriage; Christian leaders focus on gay marriage instead because “we always love to talk about other people’s sins.” [ See the video here: http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/Beliefnet-Interviews/Rick-Warren/Rick-War… ] “We want to [make the] point that my sins are perfectly acceptable. Your sins are hideous and evil.” [ See the full transcript here: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2008/12/Rick-Warren-Transcript.aspx ] As obvious as I take this to be, I sure didn’t hear any other “conservative” Christian leader make mention of the obvious during the last four months. And this apparently isn’t obvious to most “conservative” Christians, since I (in my admitted ignorance) don’t know of any conservative Christians anywhere campaigning to make divorce illegal. [What kind of logical (or even moral) sense does it make to use governmental power to pick on what Warren calls “two percent of the population” while completely ignoring real threats to marriage? I wonder if I’ll ever understand.] I recently set out a case for why it doesn’t make sense to try to make religious propositions rules of law over here (it concerns the fact that religious propositions … including the ones I myself hold dear … are not provable): [ http://www.wowowow.com/cl/151079 ].

By Kathleen Oliver on 12/19/2008 12:26 am

e-mail alert

I recently set out a case for why it doesn’t make sense to try to make religious propositions rules of law over here (it concerns the fact that religious propositions … including the ones I myself hold dear … are not provable. By Kathleen Oliver on 12/19/2008 1:26 am So, are we to gather that you have somehow dispeled the writting’s of God word? Nothing new under the sun dear,( Ecclesiates 1:9&10) folk’s have been attempting that from the begining of time. Doesn’t change God’s word one bit, It’s just you trying! :)

By HA BIBI on 12/19/2008 10:56 am

e-mail alert

Am I to gather that YOU are aware of something in the New Testament which suggests that appropriating the power of the government and the legal system for the purposes of intolerance, coercion and the repression of others is somehow proper and laudable Christian behavior? Are YOU aware of a biblical model for such activity? Are YOU aware of any scriptural directive for the followers of Christ to seek to embed religious beliefs and practices in civil law? If so, please share: enlighten me. All my efforts have only yielded what I take to be a great deal of evidence to the contrary. [ http://www.wowowow.com/cl/147908 ] If it isn’t in the Bible, then I can’t be trying to change something from the Bible!

By Kathleen Oliver on 12/19/2008 2:19 pm

e-mail alert

Kathleen, God’s word is God’s word whether you believe it or not and our laws in this country were taken from the canon laws of King james of England which again are completely derived from the word of God, the Bible. Unfortunately, we have many judges in this country who operate under precepts rather than true law. The Christians in this country will not tolerate people attempting to overturn that that was something that was voted on and passed.That vote superceeds what a particular group had hoped would come to fruitition. Now since you claim to be spiritualy seeking the truth as well as attend a church, I then must ask you exactly what type of church you attend and whether you all operate with the Bible as your compass. It does not appear to be a Christian faith based church, that operates under the beliefs of the Bible. If it were, you would have no doubts as to what God says about Homosexuality, in the first place. So since you also claim you are researching the Bible, let me just give you some scripture as to what God has to say about it. Also, if you are looking for scripture that say’s God hates the Homosexual, you will not find that, as he loves all his children, that includes you. But he also states what will happen to those who go against his laws. It is your choice as to how you wish to live your life, yet, at the same time it is also a Christians right to vote the way they did or do. And I can gaurantee you, that when the people in California voted for prop 8 they voted because they don’t believe marriage is defined as such for homosexuals but rather between a man and a woman. So that there alone should tell you how the majority of people felt. Here are the scriptures as follows. Deut 22:5 this has nothing to do with clothing, as men at this time wore skirts. Rather, it is stating that a man should not take the role of a woman nor the woman take the role of a man, in a sexual act. Rom 1:26-32 These should leave no doubt as God’s feelings about it. Rom 8:7&8. And finally go ahead and read Deut 26:16-18. This should explain why the Christian voted the way they did and it was not because they picked bits and peices out of Gods word to make it suitable to their liking, it was because they believe the ENTIRE word to be Gods word and not subject for man to attempt to change it but rather, live by it. God clearly states that he does not want man marrying man and women marrying women.

By HA BIBI on 12/19/2008 6:36 pm

e-mail alert

<< Rom 1:26-32 These should leave no doubt as God’s feelings about it. >> In my Bible, Romans 1 is followed immediately by Romans 2, and that makes all the difference in the world (as Rick Warren well knows, as demonstrated by his remarks above). << God clearly states that he does not want man marrying man and women marrying women. >> That’s very interesting, but my questions are completely independent of this or that behavior. Romans 1 is loaded with things to which God objects; it doesn’t matter what the subject is: my question concerns the propriety of using coercion to force others to comport themselves according to this group or that group’s belief system with respect to any subject at all. Let’s make an example of something less inflammatory. Consider I Corinthians 14:33-35: << As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. [NIV] >> Now there are innumerable Christian denominations, and they (by definition) all believe different things. And certainly churches vary widely on their implementation of this directive. Now Proposition 8 supporters — LIKE RICK WARREN — seem to take it as a matter of faith that they are obligated somehow to work to imbed religious beliefs in civil law. By the same logic, there are must be conservative Christians somewhere attempting to get proposals on the ballot regarding to how women should ought must comport themselves in church. My question, however, is far more general in nature: WHERE is the biblical support for the idea that imposing my religious beliefs on others by force is proper Christian behavior? Surely it is my responsibility — to the best of my ability — to conduct myself in the way in which my conscience tells me will be most pleasing to God, but what makes it my responsibility to impose my beliefs on others? Specifically, what I asked above was … Are YOU aware of something in the New Testament which suggests that appropriating the power of the government and the legal system for the purposes of intolerance, coercion and the repression of others is somehow proper and laudable Christian behavior? Are YOU aware of a biblical model for such activity? Are YOU aware of any scriptural directive for the followers of Christ to seek to embed religious beliefs and practices in civil law? Do you have any response to what I have asked?

By Kathleen Oliver on 12/19/2008 11:17 pm

e-mail alert

Do you have any response to what I have asked? By Kathleen Oliver on 12/20/2008 12:17 am Kathleen, There was no coercion with the prop 8 vote. No one twisted anybody’s are nor threatned them to vote yes or no on this proposition. People voted their concious. Proper and laudable Christian behavior is taught throughout the Bible. Again, the true laws in this country are established on Gods principles.

By HA BIBI on 12/20/2008 4:46 pm

e-mail alert

That would be, no one twisted anybody’s “arm”

By HA BIBI on 12/20/2008 4:47 pm

e-mail alert

OK. Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. We, the LDS of Utah, together with sympathetic co-conspirators, style ourselves as “defenders of marriage”. We do not seek to outlaw divorce; neither do we seek to deny marriage licenses to adulterers. Instead, we aim to “protect marriages” by embedding discrimination against a despised minority group within the California Constitution, by denying marriage licenses to said minority group, and by invalidating at least 18,000 existing marriages. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits ] We don’t need no stinking biblical justification for — or scriptural model of — appropriating the power of the government and the legal system for the purposes of promoting intolerance, coercion and the repression of others and we don’t need no stinking scriptural directive for the followers of Christ to seek to embed religious beliefs and practices in civil law because we aren’t doing anything like that. Oh, my! That’s a novel approach; didn’t see that coming. My bad. I should have been put on notice by the Proposition 8 campaign itself that honesty and truthfulness aren’t to be regarded as Christian virtues. As for Rick Warren — the subject of this thread — in his endorsement of Prop. 8, he said “This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.” [http://onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=298544 ] So he, at least, does not seem to be suffering under the same illusions about what he is doing.

By Kathleen Oliver on 12/20/2008 10:40 pm

e-mail alert

As for Rick Warren — the subject of this thread — in his endorsement of Prop. 8, he said “This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about I absolutely agree!

By HA BIBI on 12/20/2008 11:03 pm

e-mail alert

There is religion and then there is government. Not all the people believe nor adopt the same religion, hence the separation of church and state, which allows freedom for all to practice their different beliefs or non-belief. The whole invocation part of the inaug should be eliminated. When bloggers start quoting scripture as justification for federal and state law they are proposing missionary work, not government work.

By Buh- Bye on 12/23/2008 3:51 pm

e-mail alert

My Alias, I am promoting neither. Take the laws that are on the books now, they are the laws, the people voted based on the current way of doing things and they also vote in how laws should be inacted, including those laws And again, to omit the fact that our laws in this country are not based on the old English canon law, taken from the scriptures is plain idiotic at best.

By HA BIBI on 12/23/2008 6:19 pm