Pastor Rick Warren defends invite to inauguration

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="tmare" date=1229822475][quote author="WINEX" date=1229818106][quote author="Oscar" date=1229791318]You are starting to sound like George Bush insisting that Iraq was an imminent threat long after it was clear that a WMD/nuclear program was not present;</blockquote>


This is off topic from the thread, but can you show me a single instance of President Bush saying that Iraq was an imminent threat?</blockquote>


Ok, so he chose to invade and start a war because they weren't an imminent threat, yeah, that's better.</blockquote>


Not even close.



Iraq didn't follow the terms of the cease fire agreement from the 1991 conflict. Not only was 12 years of game playing far too much, but the support of numerous terrorist groups (including al Qaeda) destabilized the region.



As for the issue of imminent threats, here is what the President actually said. (This quote is from the State of the Union address in 2003, the text can be found at <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html</a> . The same thesis was repeated in numerous other speeches.)



<em>Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. </em>
 
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



Filmmaker Fights Proposition 8 in Seven Minutes Flat with Poignant Comedic Short Film



This is dedicated to all who voted Yes on Prop 8.

- Imagine how it would feel if you were the minority and other people voted on your rights.

- There is an old proverb..."Don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes"...Consider this possibility.

Jane Lynch (The 40 Year Old Virgin, Best in Show, The L Word, etc.) heads the cast as an intolerant Reverend literally preaching to the choir about the unexplainable practices of heterosexuals ("It's like kicking the Lord in the teeth"). Meanwhile, a closeted heterosexual woman confides in her therapist that the lesbian path was not meant for her and a straight man confesses to a bartender (in a gay bar) that he prefers women. To top the comedy off, Margaret Cho re-defines the meaning of a cameo appearance with a one liner that sends audiences into hysterics.

"The comedy is quick and biting, but behind the laughs remains a poignant message of tolerance. It is speedy in its seven-minute delivery but lasting in its intention," says Deborah Nicol of The Desert Sun.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1229818106][quote author="Oscar" date=1229791318]You are starting to sound like George Bush insisting that Iraq was an imminent threat long after it was clear that a WMD/nuclear program was not present;</blockquote>


This is off topic from the thread, but can you show me a single instance of President Bush saying that Iraq was an imminent threat?</blockquote>


LA Times 1/29/03

<strong>Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat</strong>



"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says



By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer



WASHINGTON -- A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, <strong>promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world</strong> and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.



But the president made clear his decision whether to attack Iraq would not hinge on U.N. approval.



"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others."



Calls have mounted in recent weeks for the president to make a better case for going to war. <strong>In response, Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent.

</strong>

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."



Bush said Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will travel to the United Nations on Feb. 5 armed with new intelligence that he will share with the Security Council.



The president provided a few new intelligence details himself. He accused Iraq of running a kind of covert operation against the U.N. inspectors now at work to verify the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- sanitizing inspection sites before their arrival, moving documents around and spying on the inspectors to thwart their efforts. Iraq ran a similar operation in the 1990s, but it was the first such allegation that it is happening again.



Bush also alleged that not only are Iraqi agents intimidating weapons scientists, they are posing as scientists to deceive U.N. inspectors. He repeated in detail previous charges that Hussein has failed to account for tons of deadly chemical and biological weapons and tortured and killed his own people into submission. And he reprised the theological language that has discomfited some allies.



"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning," Bush said.



Ever since Bush first challenged the United Nations in September to confront Iraq, the administration has feared the world body could become mired in an inspections program without clear successes or failures. As a result, the president's attempt to accelerate U.N. deliberations appeared aimed at avoiding that fate and bringing the matter to a head sooner than many members would like.



Response to the speech was effusive in the chamber packed with lawmakers from both houses of Congress, Cabinet members, Supreme Court justices and carefully chosen guests. The hourlong speech was interrupted by applause 73 times.



But afterward, some said the speech failed to end the debate on whether to go to war.



Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said he would introduce a resolution today that would require Bush to come back to Congress and present "convincing evidence of an imminent threat" before U.S. troops are sent to war with Iraq. Congress approved a resolution last fall authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq, and that measure did not require a second review.



"Much has changed in the many months since Congress last debated war with Iraq," Kennedy said. "Another vote is necessary if the time has come for war."



Some Republicans agreed that the president has more work to do to persuade voters and allies.



"In the days and weeks ahead, it will be important for President Bush to continue his dialogue with the American people and our allies regarding the threat that Iraq poses," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).



The first half of the speech hopscotched through the president's domestic policy proposals. Bush reiterated his plans for $670 billion in tax cuts to spur growth and create jobs. He urged Medicare reform to rein in costs and make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. And he outlined new initiatives on the environment and AIDS.



The president also proposed forming a new center to merge and analyze all information about threats against the nation. Called the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, it would bring together intelligence collected domestically and overseas, and ensure that information is shared among the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.



The objective, officials said, is to fix one of the most critical problems spotlighted by the Sept. 11 attacks: a failure by the CIA, the FBI and other agencies to share information and connect intelligence "dots."



Experts said the success of the proposal will depend on whether the new center truly has authority to view raw intelligence from across the spy community and direct resources and operatives. Existing counter-terrorism centers at the CIA and FBI "always have to negotiate" for resources and cooperation, a congressional aide said.



The proposed center would report to CIA Director George J. Tenet. It's not clear whether it would replace or augment a similar unit that was to have been part of the new Homeland Security Department.



In addition, the president outlined:



An effort to create nonpolluting, hydrogen-based fuel cells to power automobiles and homes, reducing dependence on foreign oil. Bush said he wanted $1.2 billion for the new Freedom Fuel initiative, but at least some of that money was included in a previously announced hydrogen-powered-auto plan.



A new effort to recruit and train mentors for the children of prison inmates and disadvantaged junior high school students. Bush proposed spending $450 million on the plan over three years in an effort to reach 1 million youths.



A $600-million boost in drug treatment spending, aimed at serving 300,000 additional Americans over the next three years.



A plan, called Project Bio- shield, to create and produce vaccines and treatments for potential agents of bioterrorism, such as anthrax, the Ebola virus and plague. He proposed spending $6 billion over 10 years.



At least one key element of Bush's address appeared to reflect a change of heart -- as well as the influence of new Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a transplant surgeon who regularly travels to Africa on medical missions, and Condoleezza Rice, his national security advisor. Bush proposed the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which he said would include $15 billion in new funds to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.



The president focused the second half of his speech on building a firmer argument for using force against Iraq, comparing the threat from Hussein to that posed by dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.



"Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit," Bush said. "In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America.



"Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."



Powell plans to share sensitive intelligence evidence -- including photographs -- with the Security Council, U.S. intelligence sources said. The sources said the photographs and intercepted communications show a concerted Iraqi effort to remove evidence from sites and hide it from weapons inspectors.



They would not elaborate on what has been removed, or from where, but the sources said that a series of photographs shot over the past two years shows dump trucks converted to rocket launchers and special vehicles believed to be equipped to transport chemical or biological weapons material.



The enhanced effort to show the administration's intelligence hand is a change of tactic for the president. Just a week ago, an impatient Bush disparaged key allies who want to delay war with Iraq as having learned nothing from Hussein's past.



"This looks like a rerun of a bad movie, and I'm not interested in watching it," Bush told reporters in off-the-cuff remarks.



By contrast, Bush's demeanor during the speech was patient and forceful as he tried to persuade a skeptical American public and openly critical allies that America's goal is to defend the civilized world.



"Today, the gravest danger facing America and the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," Bush said. "These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.



"A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all," Bush warned.
 
I'm so sorry you have such a difficult time comprehending what I asked. I didn't ask for a link to someone saying that President Bush said that the threat was imminent, I asked for evidence that President Bush himself said the threat was imminent. The Washington Post and other liberal news outlets tried to plant words in his mouth numerous times.



I'm still waiting for evidence that President Bush stated the threat was imminent. (If you read the text I quoted or the entire speech, you will see that President Bush said that we must not wait until the threat is imminent.)
 
I'm so sorry to be off topic but Winex's games with semantics can really become irritating. Are you really saying that there was no implication of imminent threat? What is the point of this argument? I suppose the next thing you'll say is that the President isn't represented by anyone who works in his administration.



"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."

? White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03



"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

? President Bush, 7/17/03



Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03



"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

? President Bush, 7/2/03



"Absolutely."

? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03



"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."

? President Bush 4/24/03



"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03



"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."

? Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03



"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

? President Bush, 3/19/03



"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

? President Bush, 3/16/03



"This is about imminent threat."

? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03



Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."

? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03



Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."

? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03



Iraq "threatens the United States of America."

? Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03



"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03



"Well, of course he is.?

? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1229841024]I'm so sorry you have such a difficult time comprehending what I asked. I didn't ask for a link to someone saying that President Bush said that the threat was imminent, I asked for evidence that President Bush himself said the threat was imminent. The Washington Post and other liberal news outlets tried to plant words in his mouth numerous times.



I'm still waiting for evidence that President Bush stated the threat was imminent. (If you read the text I quoted or the entire speech, you will see that President Bush said that we must not wait until the threat is imminent.)</blockquote>
Fine, he never said it was imminent. What I should have said is that he, his entire national security, and national defense teams implied that attack by Iraq was a statistical certainty. You are the most nitpicking wackjob I have ever seen and that is including the nutters on democraticunderground.com. Your only contribution to this thread has been to take issue with the contents of a flippin' analogy. Kindly GFY.
 
Hey, go get your own thread WINEX.



In regards to the other comments, I just woke up and have to get ready for work so don't have time to respond right now....I'll post again tomorrow.



I think this is a good discussion so far. It's good to see other peoples point of view. Thanks.
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1229841605]I'm so sorry to be off topic but Winex's games with semantics can really become irritating.</blockquote>


That's what the "Ignore" button is for. Use it for posters that are irritating. Life is too short to pay attention to them.
 
Ok, I'll get back to the topic at hand. I guess I have avoided posting on this thread because I am so appalled and frustrated with the whole issue. I understand Trooper's feelings because this is her life. I have actually been thinking a lot about this. About a week ago, I read about the evangelicals response to some of Bush's statements about the Bible, they felt that they had been lied to and consequently had voted for Bush. The problem in the first place is that they believe that anyone who says they are a part of them is infallible and they should blindly follow. If someone believes one thing that you believe in, it doesn't naturally follow that you will trust every decision they make. Yes, I voted for Obama, but no, I won't agree with every choice he makes. I will still support him and hope that the world becomes a more accepting place in the future. I am personally not a born again Christian and I really see no need to have one at the inauguration but this is probably just one of the many things I won't agree with during Obama's presidency. There are definitely far worse evangelicals out there, at least this one has shown some interest and compassion for "the least of these" in this world. I guess I am a bit angry, but I just don't have the personal vesting that Troop has. I will definitely be more vigilant in my support for the rights of gays in the future, but I honestly can't get all riled up over this one, sorry Trooper.
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1229823287]"People" are not ignoring reality nor filled with delusions. They're hoping very much to make changes, just as anyone else would do.



There was not an "overwhelming objection." The voting results on Prop. 8 were quite close. Wouldn't you have a "dogged attachment" to your point of view if it represented basic rights and wanting to be like everyone else in the USA?



If you can't support it, that's your thing. But do not assume that everyone else agrees with you.</blockquote>
Hey, go blow it out your @$$. Don't try and spin my comments out of context. The "overwhelming objection" and "dogged attachment" are in reference to the subsequent posts and attitude on these boards since the election and anyone with more than excrement for brains can see I am not attacking same sex marriage or defending disenfranchisement. Reading comprehension is a fundamental skill most of us master by the second grade, something you clearly struggled with as a child, so why don't you go ahead and stay anonymously quiet.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1229850675][quote author="Anon." date=1229823287]"People" are not ignoring reality nor filled with delusions. They're hoping very much to make changes, just as anyone else would do.



There was not an "overwhelming objection." The voting results on Prop. 8 were quite close. Wouldn't you have a "dogged attachment" to your point of view if it represented basic rights and wanting to be like everyone else in the USA?



If you can't support it, that's your thing. But do not assume that everyone else agrees with you.</blockquote>
Hey, go blow it out your @$$. Don't try and spin my comments out of context. The "overwhelming objection" and "dogged attachment" are in reference to the subsequent posts and attitude on these boards since the election and anyone with more than excrement for brains can see I am not attacking same sex marriage or defending disenfranchisement. Reading comprehension is a fundamental skill most of us master by the second grade, something you clearly struggled with as a child, so why don't you go ahead and stay anonymously quiet.</blockquote>


I guess this is my point: I can agree with Oscar on some things, yet not on others.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1229850675]Hey, go blow it out your @$$. Don't try and spin my comments out of context. The "overwhelming objection" and "dogged attachment" are in reference to the subsequent posts and attitude on these boards since the election and anyone with more than excrement for brains can see I am not attacking same sex marriage or defending disenfranchisement. Reading comprehension is a fundamental skill most of us master by the second grade, something you clearly struggled with as a child, so why don't you go ahead and stay anonymously quiet.</blockquote>


Being a grouch, Oscar? ;)



I just spin 'em as I see em, and that's how I interpreted what you wrote.



My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.
 
WTF!? Did everyone in this thread invest with Bernie Madoff or what?



Chill out... read what people post, and see that not all of what the say is in the context in which you perceive.
 
Hey Oscar, show a little class please. Anon. was simply making a statement, very similar to what you've been doing.



Meanwhile, back at the ranch......a few days ago lendingmaestro said this about Rick Warren:

<em>Let?s get real here folks. Rick Warren has come out MULTIPLE times and <strong>stated vehemently that he welcomes all people into his church. He repeatedly pronounces his faith that we should not judge people.</strong> He simply believes, like millions of other people, that marriage is a RELIGIOUS UNION, pledged between a MAN and a WOMAN before GOD. This is a RELIGIOUS indoctrination. It was established long before America was even discovered. Our gov?t, which is not 100% free of religious influence, recognized it as a legal union.



Anyone who uses Rick Warren?s presence at Obama?s inaugaration to nullify the incoming President?s credibility is simply an idiot. The last time I check Rick Warren was not a member of Obama?s cabinet, nor has he held any political office of any kind, with any party.</em>



and to the others that think that.....I offer you this little tidbit, direct to you from www. saddleback .com !!



Drumroll please........



<em># What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

The Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.



"Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin." (Lev. 18:22 TLB)



"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV)



While all sin is destructive, Romans 6 warns us of the great dangers in sexual sin when it says, "Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body." (1 Cor 6:18 NLT) This includes not only homosexuality, but all sexual immorality: adultery, sex without marriage, pornography. <strong>We must not act as if homosexuality is the only serious sexual sin, and we must not act as if homosexuality is not a serious sexual sin.</strong>



I've heard it asked, "Isn't being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?" First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that's obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle.



Finally, a word about being judgmental. It's not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that's just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that's being judgmental.



<strong>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 as a member at Saddleback Church.</strong> That does not mean they cannot attend church ? we hope they do! God?s Word has the power to change our lives.</em>



Oh, ok....I get it. I can COME to church, but I can't be a member ! So I'm welcome....but can't join unless I'm a repentent homo. That really doesn't sound so "welcoming", now does it.
 
And since you have all been wondering what's next:



"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage." -- Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, December 15, 2008



<em>Dear Friends,



Incest. Pedophilia. Polygamy.



When Pastor Rick Warren was asked to clarify this statement -- if he actually equates same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy -- his answer was direct and unequivocal: "Oh, I do."



That didn't stop President-elect Barack Obama from choosing Pastor Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration -- an appalling mistake that will forever tarnish our country's celebration of Obama's historic ascendance to the White House.



While President-elect Obama has chosen to ignore the troubling beliefs of the man who will spiritually usher in his presidency, Californians can not ignore Rick Warren and his Saddleback Church followers, based in Orange County.



We can not ignore Rick Warren's fervent support for Proposition 8 or his mobilization of thousands of evangelical Christians to enshrine discrimination into our state constitution.



Harvey Milk did not ignore John Briggs in 1978, when Briggs sought to pass Proposition 6 -- the infamous "Briggs Initiative" that attempted to ban gay and lesbian teachers, and anyone who supported them, from our California's public schools. Milk challenged Briggs to debates across the state.



And we're not going to ignore Rick Warren. That's why we're asking you to give Pastor Warren a new invitation -- a Courage Campaign invitation to a public debate on same-sex marriage with Reverend Eric Lee, President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) of Greater Los Angeles.



It's time to challenge Rick Warren to an open, honest debate about same-sex marriage. Click here now to join us, by signing your name to our invitation to Rev. Warren to debate Rev. Eric Lee. On December 24, the Courage Campaign will deliver your signatures to Pastor Warren at the Saddleback Church in Orange County:



http://www.couragecampaign.org/RickWarrenDebate



You may not know Rev. Eric Lee. But you should.



Rev. Eric Lee is a courageous leader on marriage equality in the faith community and in the African American community. Representing the SCLC, founded by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Lee expressed his strong opposition to Prop 8 in October by taking a stand with the Courage Campaign against the Mormon Church's heavy involvement in the Prop 8 campaign.



Now, Rev. Lee is taking a stand again, challenging Pastor Warren to a debate about Prop 8 and same-sex marriage.



Rev. Eric Lee needs your support to challenge Rev. Rick Warren to debate Prop 8 and explain Warren's comparison of same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. Please sign here -- and ask your friends to gather as many signatures as possible -- before December 24:



http://www.couragecampaign.org/RickWarrenDebate



Thank you for everything you are doing to restore marriage equality and push for progressive change in California.



Rick Jacobs

Chair



P.S. To repeal Prop 8, and change California forever, we need to change the conversation.



You can change the conversation by signing this invitation to Rick Warren and forwarding this message to your friends today. The more signatures we gather, the more likely Rick Warren's views on same-sex marriage will be challenged, this time by another man of faith. DEADLINE: DECEMBER 24:



http://www.couragecampaign.org/RickWarrenDebate</em>
 
Trooper, get out the popcorn!





<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtKmkmVQ1z_N1D6U4Qv18s_K5LIQD9575K5O0">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtKmkmVQ1z_N1D6U4Qv18s_K5LIQD9575K5O0</a>



<strong>LONG BEACH, Calif. (AP) ? Under fire for opposing gay marriage, influential evangelical pastor Rick Warren said Saturday that he loves Muslims, people of other religions, Republicans and Democrats, and he also loves "gays and straights."</strong>
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1229891919]When Pastor Rick Warren was asked to clarify this statement -- if he actually equates same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy -- his answer was direct and unequivocal: "Oh, I do."</blockquote>


OMG. It just horrifies me that he actually believes that.



I saw on the news programs this morning that he says he loves various groups including gays and straights. Yeah, right. I don't believe it for a minute. The only way he'd love them is if they would contribute to his "church," but forget about the idea of actually joining it as a member.



He's about as crooked as many politicians are.
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1229907585][quote author="Trooper" date=1229891919]When Pastor Rick Warren was asked to clarify this statement -- if he actually equates same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy -- his answer was direct and unequivocal: "Oh, I do."</blockquote>


OMG. It just horrifies me that he actually believes that.



I saw on the news programs this morning that he says he loves various groups including gays and straights. Yeah, right. I don't believe it for a minute. The only way he'd love them is if they would contribute to his "church," but forget about the idea of actually joining it as a member.



He's about as crooked as many politicians are.</blockquote>


Anon. . . I do not know if you have ever been to Saddleback (Warren's church) but if you have, I doubt you would have the same opinion of Warren. He has worked tireless on a number of issues and supported causes that were not popular with the "religious right", most notably helping those with AIDS. One of his main preachings is learning to work with those who you do not agree with. His opinion are his own and he has never told his congregation to take one stance or another.
 
Maybe he's great and all that, IrvineCommuter, but when he says that he sees same-sex marriage as the same as incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, that's it, as far as I'm concerned. That's just ignorant and wrong. It's nice that he supports causes such as helping people with AIDS, but he still won't allow gays and lesbians to join his church and he supported Prop. 8. That's a deal-breaker for me.



His opinions were made public. By that happening, he is more or less telling his congregation what they should believe, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top