I was unaware that he did that and that bothers me immensely. Clearly child abuse should be punishable by law and is a coercive act against another human being.
I think that sometimes pastors get caught up a fervor that they should avoid and say things like that, if they mean it, well they are stupid, and if they dont they should be more careful.
I cannot speak for Warren himself but most of the Christians/pastors/evangelicals I know do not believe they are inferior people, and I personally definitely do not.
If people are unwilling to see the message Obama is sending, that doesn’t make the message go away. The gays obviously get it, and I expect the homophobes do.
Of course; atheism is neutral. Which puts it above religion, which is destructive. Atheists can be bigoted, but are logically less likely to be because they have one less reason to be.
And in this case specifically, there is a very strong religious tinge to the anti-homosexual bigotry in this country. On average, the more an American asserts he has “faith”, the more likely he is to be homophobic ( among other things, like a woman hater ).
cosmosdan, I read this article, and it smacks of the same attitude that I’ve been complaining about in this thread. That article, in turn links to this, which is where the part about reverse tithing comes in, and it is much less offensive and divisive in tone.
As I said, we’ve pounded this discussion into the floor, but I think your viewpoint is served better with the second article, not the first.
Thanks for the link and taking the time to read mine. It’s interesting to note that Melissa Etheridge met with Warren and has written this article and reading the comments it’s obvious not everyone agrees with her. I think the conversation generated by the event has been a real plus toward understanding. we’ll see how Warren and others handle it.
As usual you blurt out something as if it’s common knowledge or obvious and then can’t or won’t back it up when pressed. It’s expected. No need to waste any more time.
This “post-partisan” nonsense will eventually pan out. In the meantime, I just enjoy seeing all the far-left cry their displeasure. Everybody believed him to be the champion of gay rights in the elections even as he paraded gay-bashing ministers in his stump speeches and even as he made promises to the gay community that no one in his right mind would think achievable. Meh.
Y’know, it was my certainty that the extreme right would see Obama’s post-partisan actions as either cynical pandering-as-usual, or as proof that his “progressive” initiatives could safely be ignored --as weakness, in other words-- that initially turned me away from his candidacy. I wanted someone more confrontational, less conciliatory. I didn’t want another great compromiser like Clinton.
But it gives me confidence in Obama’s [to me, fairly obvious] rope-a-dope strategy to observe that his intended affectees are quite blind to it. It’s probably just as well that his own corner’s pretty damned confused as a whole. But I think he could publish the entire philosophy and outline it in every speech and it would be just as effective.
I wonder if, at the end of Obama’s last term of office when the “center” is commonly perceived to be so much more to the left than it is today, whether the right wing will have kicked and screamed nearly as much as the left wing will have along the way.
One can dream. All I see is Obama disappointing a lot of the crucial groups that catapulted him to the Presidency. All I see is Obama having to compromise a lot of his campaign promises - backing off a number of things before he’s even sworn in. That doesn’t sound post-partisan to me - more like “turning his back on those who supported him because he already has it in the bag” - making the far left look like a bunch of fools.
With Obama, I don’t see the center moving anywhere. The center will remain where it is or even move slightly to the right (especially on gay rights).
You use the term “bigot” when what you mean is someone who holds a different view on homosexuality than you do. (and than I do, FTM)
You consider his view wrong and yours right. That’s fair enough, we all do that. But using your logic, I could call YOU a “bigot” for your view of Warren and others who believe, based on their religious beliefs, that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. I wouldn’t do that, however.
Every indication is that Warren has spent years working with the Gay/Lesbian community, supporting charitable causes important to that community, associating with Gay/Lesbian individuals and treating them with respect and tolerance as individuals.
He happens to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I’ve seen no evidence that he behaves as a “bigot” aside from that belief.
You are demanding that he change his belief and agree with you before you will tolerate him. He has not demanded the same of you or of homosexuals that I can tell…he has simply expressed his belief and advocated for it so that makes him a “Bigot”.
And because Obama is willing to include him despite him holding religious beliefs considered offensive by many, HE is also a scum. I see.
Yes, tolerance DOES go both ways. We don’t HAVE to “tolerate” those who agree with us 100% of the time, do we? I suggest that Warren practices tolerance more than many of those attacking him.
That’s silly. Disapproving of bigotry isn’t bigotry. And if considering homosexuality “evil” isn’t bigotry, then what IS ? Are you going to argue next that considering black people abominations or women subhuman isn’t bigotry, either ?
“Outside of that shooting people thing, he isn’t violent at all !” Comparing same sex marriage to pedophilia isn’t tolerance. He’s a typical fr right, bigoted preacher, not some bastion of tolerance. By his own description, “The only difference between me and James Dobson is tone”.
Oh, garbage. He fought to write his bigotry into law, successfully. How is that not demanding people agree with him ?
Denying people marriage is “tolerance” ? Have his opponents said that Christians should be forbidden marriage ?
Frankly, Warren could beat someone to death, and you sound like you’d accuse his victim of brutally attacking Warren’s knuckles.
You are missing the point re’ the whole basis for his belief re’ homosexuality. He, based on his religious beliefs, considers homosexuality (NOT homosexuals) “evil” in that it is against God’s law. Same way I’m sure he considers adultery, heterosexual fornication, and yes, pedophilia wrong, “evil” and against God’s law.
Given the basis underlying this belief, it is “silly” for you to attempt and compare bigotry based on sex or race to his position on homosexuality. Apples and oranges. While you, I and many others may accept that homosexuality is inborn and beyond the control of the individual, like race or sex, many others do not share that assumption, and see it as an ACT, a choice, and in their religious belief system, a sin.
And of course he advocates for his position on this issue. Enough people agreed with him and the law passed. Again, I don’t agree with him on this issue, but I don’t think he’s a “bigot” because he’s a conservative Christian and stands by his beliefs.
I will add that you’ve indicated quite strongly in several of your posts that you are rather “bigoted” against Christians. The irony is lost on you, I fear.
Garbage. It’s no different than people who think that God hates black people. WHY you hate homosexuals ( or blacks or women or left handed people ) is irrelevant.
So they are bigots who are also factually incorrect.
Standing by a bigoted belief, makes you a bigot.
Christianity is a belief system. Calling someone bigoted for disapproving of it is like calling someone bigoted for despising the Republican or Democratic Party platform.
Your point apparently being that you are unable or unwilling to argue your position, so you make vague insinuations about me instead.
But of course we all know the REAL, shameful, reason you do that. In fact, it’s so obvious that I don’t actually need to say what it is. There’s no reason to illustrate my point even more; it’s a pattern most are familiar with.
If having no shame at how ludicrous your argument becomes is a point of pride, then kudos. You’ve hit a home run.
{feel free to rephrase this as if it’s an original thought on your part}