« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
01/30/2009
Well if you wanna belabor this, Rick...
In a post he just put up on his "News and Views" blog, Rick Warren makes the following postscript:
News & View 1/30/2009 [Rick Warren's blog]
A notation to which we reply:
Uhm, no. Of course it wasn't thought of as controversial, Rick. And the reason for that is twofold. (1) Some of your more heated anti-gay views, like the ones where you made pedo/incest/poly connections and the ones where you said gays should deny their true desires, weren't known at the time. (2) Nobody would've been even slightly shocked if Dubya had an anti-gay speaker -- we fully expected it from the then-prez, himself a gay-unfriendly public person!
What would've been controversial in 2005 is if George Bush had invited Gene Robinson to speak. However, he did not do that. Why? Well, because the "pro-family" outrage would have made the Warren uproar sound like a whisper in comparison. Because while progressive Democrats are expected to reach across the table in any and every capacity, conservative Republicans would sooner poop on a portrait of Reagan than have an openly gay preacher serve in a prominent theological role!
And that was a big part of the problem with the Obama-Warren invite. After so many years of being so shut out, we weren't expecting for our now-president to hand this, a purely ceremonial position, over to someone who skews to the far-right side of the culture war. That was the controversy -- that you, someone who tells gay people they should remain celibate, compares gay love to brother-sister shtupping, campaigns for thoroughly non-progressive marriage bans, prevents gays from becoming members of your church, and so on and so on, were given a major platform at the swearing-in of a man who seemingly sees gays and lesbians in a much different light. The controversy came about because we are sick and tired of being hurt, and of seeing our fellow citizens led into hurting us. The latter is exactly what your words do, Rick.
So yes, your selection was controversial. We will never apologize for that. But if you will quit bringing it up, we will GLADLY move on from this sore subject and on to the good.
-Jeremy Hooper
P.S. Most people are unaware that I've also defended myself against people who've spoken out against me on the basis of my other benign human qualities. But no one considered that controversial.
Your thoughts
Warren must be feeling pretty dejected now that his 15 minutes are up. He had one rallying cry for attention, and now he's still beating on that dead horse in hopes that Oprah or Melissa or someone else will bat an eye in his direction again.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 30, 2009 6:35:55 PM
I should have also added that his avalanche of book sales from the height of the fray have probably evaporated too, and that loss of revenue is probably more stinging than being ignored.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 30, 2009 6:40:16 PM
At least we have the fact that his response to the uproar left him looking even worse than before.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Jan 30, 2009 8:34:26 PM
Yea, the response to his invocation was pretty much a collective "meh."
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 30, 2009 8:53:01 PM
I still think there will be an RW show up on Monday mornings list.
Posted by: LOrion | Jan 30, 2009 10:43:29 PM
Thanks LOrion. I saw your post about RW elsewhere, and my feeble little mind could not figure out who RW was.
Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Jan 31, 2009 4:20:51 AM
That is a very interesting possibility.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 31, 2009 10:44:25 AM
From the YouTuber who brought you the definition of "bashing:"
Posted by: Bonnie_Half-Elven | Feb 1, 2009 12:33:26 AM
comments powered by Disqus
