More On Pastor Warren's "Support"

You remember when Pastor Rick Warren was caught in not one but TWO LIES about his support for Proposition 8?

Via Huffington Post we find this in the Washington Times:

Evangelical leaders say they are bewildered and stunned by the Rev. Rick Warren's apparent turnaround on gay marriage after the famous California pastor said earlier this week that he was not a proponent of California's Proposition 8.

Mr. Warren told CNN's Larry King on Monday that he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the proposition, which said marriage in the state could only involve one man and one woman. The measure won at the polls last November by a close margin, in effect negating an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.

Bewildered:

"I was extremely troubled by the way he appeared to be so anxious to distance himself from the same-sex issue and to make clear he was not an 'activist' and that he'd only addressed the issue in a very minor way," said the Rev. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

Isn't there a Commandment about bearing false witness?

A Beautiful Thing To Watch

When it's done right.

Get a gander over at Pandagon. They've snagged Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren with some mega-church sized lies.

Warren was on Larry King and said:

In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be.

During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never—never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.

So what did they do?

They found a youtube clip with Warren coming out supporting Proposition 8:


Then they quote him from King saying:

And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe.

Guess what? That's right:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

That was just beautiful.

Just plain stupid, willfully ignorant or lying their butts off?

Three recent Media Matters stories

First up: Lou Dobbs spin on global warming:

Despite overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming and warnings by experts that short-term weather conditions are not evidence for or against its existence, Lou Dobbs said during the introduction of his December 18 CNN show: "And tonight, unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast. This is global warming?" During his segment on the issue, moreover, Dobbs hosted Heartland Institute senior fellow and science director Jay Lehr without disclosing that Heartland receives funding from the energy industry and without challenging Lehr's assertions that "[t]he last 10 years have been quite cool" and that "the sun" -- rather than humans -- is responsible for recent climate change.

Next: Rick Warren's lies about Prop. 8 (and Ann Curry's lousy reporting):

During her December 19 Dateline NBC report on Rev. Rick Warren, after noting Warren's support for California's Proposition 8 -- which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage -- co-host Ann Curry reported that "Warren says he joined the fray out of a concern that if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, pastors would lose their right to preach about the biblical definition of marriage." Curry then added, "But many constitutional experts say that fear was totally unfounded, and gay rights leaders saw Warren's stance as an infringement on their civil rights." As Media Matters for America documented, while previewing her interview with Warren the day before, Curry uncritically reported that Warren "was worried that this Proposition 8 would prevent him from getting up on the pulpit and speaking out against same-sex marriage," echoing the falsehood that had Proposition 8 not passed, members of the clergy could have been restricted in what they could say in the pulpit and could have been forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Lastly: They take on Chris Mathews' long record of biased and offensive "reporting" and general mendacity:

Chris Matthews' interest in the Pennsylvania Senate seat currently held by Republican Arlen Specter raises the possibility of something that is all too rare among the nation's media elite: accountability.

It has long been clear that if we applied to journalists who cover politics the standards they purport to apply to politicians -- truthfulness, judgment, being in touch with regular Americans, and so on -- many of them would fare quite poorly.

[snip]

None of this has ever seemed to get Matthews into much trouble with his bosses at MSNBC, who are reportedly interested in keeping him around after his contract expires next year. But if he runs for the Senate, with no record to run on other than years of television transcripts, he may soon find that Pennsylvania voters are less indulgent of his cheerleading for Bush, his near-constant ridicule of Democrats, and his frequently offensive treatment of women.

.

Hitchens on RIck Warren

In case you missed it, Christopher Hitchens, our favorite "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay", has chimed in on President-elect Obama's decision to ask Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration.

Hitchens, of course, does not like the decision as can be seen in the coda of his argument:

But if we must have an officiating priest, let it be some dignified old hypocrite with no factional allegiance and not a tree-shaking huckster and publicity seeker who believes that millions of his fellow citizens are hellbound because they do not meet his own low and vulgar standards.

Now I can move backwards and explain that last sentence. From the top:

It is theoretically possible to make an apparently bigoted remark that is also factually true and morally sound. Thus, when the Rev. Bailey Smith, one of the deputies of the late Jerry Falwell, claimed that "God almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew," I was in complete agreement with him. This is because I do not believe that there is any supernatural supervisor who lends an ear to any prayer.

In the same way, if someone publicly charges that "Mormonism is a cult," it is impossible to say that the claim by itself is mistaken or untrue. However, if the speaker says that heaven is a real place but that you will not get there if you are Jewish, or that Mormonism is a cult and a false religion but that other churches and faiths are the genuine article, then you know that the bigot has spoken. That's all in a day's work for the wonderful world of the American evangelical community, and one wishes them all the best of luck in their energetic fundraising and their happy-clappy Sunday "Churchianity" mega-feel-good fiestas. However, do we want these weirdos and creeps officiating in any capacity at the inauguration of the next president of the United States?

Hitchens points out that Warren views things much the same way:

It is a fact that Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., was present at a meeting of the Aspen Institute not long ago and was asked by Lynda Resnick—she of the pomegranate-juice dynasty—if a Jew like herself could expect to be admitted to paradise. Warren publicly told her no. What choice did he have? His own theology says that only those who accept Jesus can hope to be saved. I have just missed the chance to debate on CBS with one of Warren's leading allies and defenders, the Dallas preacherman who calls himself Dr. Robert Jeffress. In the opinion of this learned fellow, even though Mitt Romney "talks about Jesus as his lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity."

We've all read the good Reverend's views on homosexuality:

WARREN: The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as 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.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

WARREN: Oh , I do.

God does not hear the prayers of Jews, Mormonism is a cult, "Gays getting married" is equivalent to incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

There's one more thing. When asked, "Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it? He answered:

If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

So glad about that.

I'll let the popinjay have the last word:

As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors.

Question? Comments? Remarks? Drop me an e-mail.

In Case You Missed It,

Here's Tony On Rick Warren. He begins:

One day, someone who doesn't believe in God is going to be elected president of the United States. When that happens, I, for one, will be a very happy Christian.

By the time the inauguration rolls around, a non-religious president would probably do something radical with the time currently allotted to preachers and religious leaders.

Such a president would be free to assign the preacher's traditional slot to a speaker who isn't encumbered by doctrinal biases or culture war baggage. Imagine the possibilities.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear from an American -- even one who hasn't been to a church or synagogue in decades -- deliver a pithy, but memorable speech about what it means to be an American in perilous times?

That day, I'd be one happy snappy agnostic. Tony ends with:

Still, Rick Warren isn't all bad. Conservative evangelicals despise him for his relatively liberal stances on environmental stewardship, global poverty, combating HIV/AIDs and his openness to traditionally liberal social justice causes.

He's considered a theological lightweight by anyone who has actually listened to one of his sermons. Rick Warren has more in common with the speakers down at the Rotary Club than the fire and brimstone preachers who made Calvinism America's unofficial civil religion for a while.

Take comfort, all ye liberals and progressives, in the fact that Barack Obama is using Rick Warren as much as Rick Warren is using him. This is all about politics -- it isn't a meeting of the minds.

Go read the rest. You'll be glad you did.