If you have "no place to go," come here!

Rick Warren, notorious anti-Science, homophobic hate monger

DCblogger's picture

Finally, many bloggers are beginning to understand what should have been obvious for some time, Barack Obama is a bully who is attracted to his fellow bullies. He despises progressive idealism even as he exploits it. Obama is not the first community organizer to sell out, and he won’t be the last, only the most famous.

But let us return to the vile Rick Warren, because Obama has made that necessary. First of all it is abundantly clear that neither Warren, nor any other proponent of the proposition 8 hate amendment cares the snap of their fingers about marriage. If you were truly interested in strengthening marriage you would examine societies with a track record of success.

Massachusetts has the lowest rate of divorce. They also have one of the lowest rates of suicide. Obviously whatever they are doing in Massachusetts is working. That this is never discussed in all the blather about gay marriage is a surefire indicator of the pure bigotry and hatred driving this movement.

I would point out that Nevada has the highest rate of divorce, along with the nearly the highest rates of suicide. Obviously basing an entire economy on parasitism does not create a psychologically healthy atmosphere. People who cared about such matters would notice this. But Warren is just a manipulative scam artist building an empire based on ignorance, superstition, and hatred.

And no, we cannot, in this instance, agree to disagree. There are some subjects which are not subject to debate, one of those things is torture. If your God does not teach you to oppose torture under any and all circumstances, then you have no God worthy of the name. It is all vanity and greed, a false profit from start to finish.

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

1. Give Barack his missing "c"
2. Blogwhore my post about Warren from earlier today. Feel free to delete the link if you'd rather not have it there.

oceansandmountains's picture
Submitted by oceansandmountains on

there's a front page poll on this very issue. Their decidedly unscientific results show almost 60% think it's nothing more than shrewd politics. In fact, their ireport page has an interesting entry. Read the comments too. One person made a great point in the course of their STFU. They asked rhetorically if the gay community stood up to Obama on any issues. Obviusly, the answer is no. By and large the LGBT community drank the Kool-Aid and obediently voted D. Why should Obama listen to them now?

If anything, I hope this shows the apologists that waiting until after the decisions are made is a bad time to try to be heard.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

7% fewer, i've read.

so that's something at least -- we've been paying attention all along (even if too many bought all the lies anyway)

Suzie's picture
Submitted by Suzie on

Just for the record ... Obama already had political ambitions when he took that job. It's not that he sold out. He had planned to get experience, make connections and move on. As far as I can tell, he had given up any idealism before then.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I was kind of surprised to see how negatively this was being covered in the MSM, yesterday. I expected them to ignore the whole outcry like they usually do with anything associated with Obama. That said, it was still covered as a "gay story" instead of being covered as the progressive revolt it is, much in the same way that all opposition to Obama during the primaries was reduced by painting it as a women's movement or a pro-Hillary movement.

Submitted by jawbone on

give the invocation at his inauguration have received little attention in the MCM--and I don't know if the Arab and Iranian press hsbr picked it up, but I did read a comment somewhere (and can't find it) noting the message Obama seems to be sending..

If a foreign leader entering office asked a religious figure who believed in "taking out" or assassinating other leaders (or, say, removing a nation from the map...), the MCM here would make a huge dealout of that--if the leader were not considered friendly.

We have the same situation now, per this entry by Kevin Drum:

Last night, on Fox News, Sean Hannity insisted that United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?" Warren responded, "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." (My emphasis)

There's more at the link about Warren being asked for scriptural text supporting his stand.

What is Obama thinking? Especially after his somewhat rocky entry into discussing our relations with Iran.

And, is this Obama's Sistah Souljah moment? Just post-campaign? A not so subtle message to gays to STFU? Does seem clear that wooing rightwing evangelicals is more important than standing up for basic human rights for all.

This is very sad. But I still hold to some hope that he will govern progressively. Even if Repubs seem to love his nominations and appointments....

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Joan Walsh --

... On Thursday night Warren issued a short statement praising Obama for bucking his liberal base to invite him to give the invocation. Obama likewise made a big deal of Warren facing criticism for inviting Obama to his church. It's clear both men are using one another to prove their alleged political courage, and that's their choice; I object to Obama using the rest of us. This is a political and not a spiritual choice, and it stinks. ...

she should have added "using the worldwide exposure and official approval and affirmation of Warren's status as "America's Preacher"."