« Obama's Other Inauguration Pastor Not for Gay Marriage, but Condemns Rick Warren Remarks |
Main
| He's a Jet all the Way »
12/24/2008
Rachel Maddow on Rick Warren: Obama, This is Not Going Away
"He has snatched the possibility of open-mindedness from the jaws of possibility."
Rachel Maddow takes apart the latest Rick Warren developments, AFTER THE JUMP...
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Posted 12:25 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Inauguration, News, Rachel Maddow, Rick Warren | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
few things -
I'm not saying Mr. Warren's a standup guy, nor will I question his faith (not my job) - I'm saying that by engaging the "enemy", we will be seen by those sitting on the fence in a different light. It is not about changing their minds about how they feel, it's about changing their behavior towards us. Go back to the struggle of desegregation in the 60's - behaviors changed first, then beliefs.
Whether or not there is some public debate between Mr. Warren and anyone from the gay community is not as important as if each of us do. Bryan, don't be afraid, engage. I do. It's not so much about winning an argument as it is building a relationship - that's how change happens.
I could go on but It's time to go.
Remember it's Christmas, about a guy who loved and forgave, and who never said one word about starting a church...
Posted by: DVDINORL | Dec 24, 2008 6:55:36 PM
Well Rick Warren is a rightwing republican bigot but his rhetoric is actually less bigoted then many of the black preachers who serve the democrat African american communitites. Also Laurance Ballard you are wrong when you say all Christian,Jewish and Muslim clergy are hostile to gays,while I would agree on the Muslim part there are many Gays in the church and lots of gay rabbis. The Episcopalian church is leading the way with the reform and conservative branches of Judiasm also leading the way. So true while conservatice right and black churches lead this country in Homophobic assaults weekly other religous groups are pro-gay.
Posted by: Chad | Dec 24, 2008 7:49:50 PM
Rachel Maddow was fantastic here. Makes up for her softballs to Mike Huckabee (which Jon Stewart had to correct).
"Oh, I Do" -- wow. Words that will live in infamy, next to (paraphrasing), "In 30 years, I've NEVER..."
Rick Warren was caught incontrovertibly in a lie.
Those two videos should play in an endless loop. And I hope Obama catches some of the loop.
I wonder how many other times Warren's casually lied to his flock and/or the media?
His sudden appearance at the Out of the Closet HIV/AIDS thrift shop in heavily-gay West Hollywood (remember, he and his wife didn't care about HIV/AIDS when it was a "gay disease") two days ago, with his arm around a random gay guy, was a form of lying. It was incredibly unsubtle while embarrassingly superficial.
I mean, Warren really is kind of inept -- a point Maddow was making. I mean likening himself to Christ and all that. But this is a guy who thinks humans and dinosaurs populated the earth at the same time. (While I'm glad he's concerned about climate change, his head-in-the-sand approach to science makes him unqualified to say one peep about it.) So he's really rather consistently not very bright, although I'll grant that he apparently does have some skill at building a religious empire -- which is disturbing.
This matter is of course NOT going away. We're just shy of 4 weeks to inauguration day. That's a lot of time for a lot of coverage of Rick Warren's views, statements, and activities (or non-activities, as the case may be -- like about HIV/AIDS in the United States). And a lot of dialogue about values and reality (vs. ignorance), which is good.
Posted by: Wausau | Dec 24, 2008 8:01:45 PM
If Rachel gets Warren on her show, perhaps she could engage him in a discussion of the sin of gluttony. Ask to explain why unrepentant gluttons are allowed to become members of his church, that sort of thing.
Posted by: FriendOfJonathan | Dec 24, 2008 10:21:49 PM
It's X-mas eve and Warren's church service/preaching is apparently being televised in full on Fox News.(!?) Thanks Barack for making this guy our national chaplain...now tell me again what you've done for the gays?
Posted by: Hank | Dec 24, 2008 10:41:34 PM
It's X-mas eve and Warren's church service/preaching is apparently being televised in full on Fox News.(!?) Thanks Barack for making this guy our national chaplain...now tell me again what you've done for the gays?
Posted by: Hank | Dec 24, 2008 10:43:59 PM
Rachael and Chris Matthews both refer to Pat Buchanan as their friend. Buchanan has written tons a anti black comments, but that didn't keep MSNBC from hiring him, or Rachael from respecting him.....homophobia worse than racism?
Posted by: charles wilson | Dec 24, 2008 11:35:17 PM
We have bigger fish to fry than some pastor who has confused himself with God. Declarations of not voting in 2012 will do absolutely jack s--t for the people who will be killed due to homophobia and racism, as well as the vestiges of the War on Terror. We are in for some hard times, folks -- I will not be watching the inauguration with the same elation as I had when Obama was elected because even though I am a person of color, I can no longer live in a country where others are thought of as less than simply because they do not conform "to the norm." However, you can make damn sure that I will hold the Obama administration TO THEIR WORD, whether he or the members of Congress actually believe in their campaign promises. I understand what Obama was trying to do with the choice of Warren, but he is the absolutely wrong choice for his grand gesture, irrespective of his book sales or church size. I explained that to the incoming administration when I unsubscribed from their website, and let them know that I would be redirecting my activities to groups that would work on developing a true "radical center" at which all citizens could have an active role.
But is that greater than the revocation of DADT or DOMA? NO. So let Warren gild his saccharine restructuring of Christ's teachings at the inauguration -- the bottom line to me is that people who want to dedicate themselves to their country or to another person have the legal and fiscal right to do so, irrespective of whom their partner is. And like the civil rights movement for blacks, blood will be spilt -- but we will move forward as a nation or resign ourselves to being the king of backward republics.
It is also imperative to me that those who believe in religion be made to realize that they need to take care of their own business and let God deal with the rest -- you don't like homosexuals, then don't hang out with them; don't agree with abortion, then don't have one; if you didn't create the universe, then don't tell me how to live my life -- work on your own personal salvation. There is a pervasive puerile, apocalyptic vision of Christianity gripping the US which has strayed far from the ecumenical vision of the founding fathers (who themselves, despite knowing the profound evils of slavery, could neither bring themselves to outlaw it nor codify it in the Constitution) and it needs to end now through fighting for what is right -- education, equality, and respecting the the fact that everyone has inalienable rights to determine the fate of their lives, irrespective of whom they love, their gender, or the color of their skin.
Sulking about some cleric with an overblown ego is not going to win rights for anyone, so I strongly suggest that people attach themselves to organizations whose mission is to change the sorry state that our country is in, and make sure that Obama and everyone else who depended upon the GLBT vote has paid up in full. We, as Americans, have work to do -- so let's get to it with the vigor of those who have laid the groundwork without the hope that they were moving the country forward. It's high time that we all stood up and thought of politicians as temporary workers, and the only "messiah" we have been waiting for is the one that lives in each of us. Put your two hands in -- instead of just your two cents.
Posted by: Foochy | Dec 24, 2008 11:46:07 PM
Foochy, I don't completely disagree with your sentiment, but I think the outrage over this issue isn't so much the invitation itself, but the message it sends about how Obama will deal with LBTG issues. I am not going to let this misstep influence how I vote in 2012. But it does concern me about whether Obama would sign ENDA or repeal DADT. These concerns, mind you, weren't ones I had two weeks ago. How THOSE issues are handled will influence my vote. Now, because of Warren's involvement in Obama's inauguration, we have at least a little bit of legitimate concern about how LBTG rights issues will be addressed in this administration.
Posted by: pdnoosh | Dec 25, 2008 12:10:47 AM
Pdnoosh, no progressive change in the United States has been handed to its citizens without struggle. Even FDR, the paragon of political progressivism, was quoted as saying "You elected me -- now you have to make me keep my word." Rick Warren doesn't make me question Obama's commitment to GLBT issues yet, because he hasn't even taken office -- but if Obama thinks he can rest on his laurels (and select gay friends), he has another thing coming from this citizen who hired him for a job.
Posted by: Foochy | Dec 25, 2008 1:46:21 AM
Anyone ever notice that in defense of his position excoriating same-sex marriage that "Rev." Rick Warren always refers to gay "men" and never to gay "women" or "lesbians?" He's against a "man" marrying his brother; against a "man" marrying more than one wife; against a "man" marrying a child. No reference to lesbians at all. That's becuase, like all male homophobes, he thinks "white male pervert" when he hears the word "gay." And why? Because women are of less or even no importance in his patriarchal, male chauvinistic view of "Christian" society. I seriously doubt that he even consciously realized that Melissa Etheridge is, in fact, "gay."
Posted by: Paul in Honolulu | Dec 25, 2008 2:22:26 AM
Philbert:
Yeah, why don't you go ahead and vote for Huckabee in 2012, see how that works for you.
Posted by: Eshto | Dec 25, 2008 2:35:44 AM
I do not fear Christ. I fear Christians. They are so un-christ like...
Posted by: TheNiebur | Dec 25, 2008 5:31:52 AM
I propose, as a protest, PINK BURQAS.
Posted by: Whatiheard | Dec 25, 2008 9:27:48 AM
Rachel Maddow is right on the money as far as the minister Warren is concerned. His idea that human beings have a choice to be gays or not convinces me that he needs to have his head examined. Rachel should get him on his show and expose his stupid and archaic ideas to the general public at large. That would be fun.
Posted by: Jay | Dec 25, 2008 9:39:56 AM
Laurence, ENDA would make it illegal to be fired for being LGBT, but someone who wants to get rid of you will find another reason for doing it. It's obviously a good thing, but it's not the final thing and it's not the complete thing.
Marriage equality is everything. You get that, you get the rest. It is the holy grail of our civil rights. Once we're equal in marriage, once we have over a thousand rights that everybody else can get, everything else must and will follow.
We can multi-task. Every bit helps. But once we have marriage equality -- and while we diligently protect and enforce it -- this whole thing is over.
Posted by: ohplease | Dec 25, 2008 3:13:02 PM
Prop 8 won in CA for several reasons. One of them is because core democratic ethnic minority groups voted FOR it. Mainstream blacks and hispanics (including their clergy) don't see LGBT rights as a civil rights issue.
Posted by: stan01 | Dec 25, 2008 3:25:00 PM
...so stan01...don't STOP there...what are some of the other reasons prop 8 won...?
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Dec 25, 2008 8:40:59 PM
I think Rachel is wrong. And I think the gay community has it wrong - again.
Yes, as a 44 year old in a relationship (for 14 years) Federal rights are important to me. I've waited for 25 years for Federally recognized rights and NO ONE has delivered them. The ones complaining have no strategy other than to "turn your backs". Great. Surely that will help us advance our agenda.
I'm not willing to take the bait on this 2 minute moment. I realize that Obama has challenged Warren to come out of his cocoon (where hateful speech is easier) onto the national stage. Where its not. Warren's personal interests are taking over. He has the opportunity to stay inside and relevant over the next four years.
It's too easy to be emotional while we navel gaze. I'm not a one issue queer.
Obama realizes that in our way is a massive group of people who have successfully put forth and passed referendums opposing gay marriage rights in over 35 states! I'd call that winning. Wake up.
Moreover, this evangelical group has been on the opposing side of many critical issues for two decades. Beyond gay rights, we have stark divisions on: the war on terror, energy policy (drill baby drill), climate change, industrial policy, education (remember intelligent design and abstinence education?), abortion, immigration, health care, etc. All are important to me to resolve.
Obama is WORKING for us all ready. He is using the inaugural moment of Rick Warren to draw the attention of the other half of the electorate who would otherwise IGNORE the content of the ceremony and the first days of the administration. He's brilliant in that he places Warren "up front" - to get tune in. And I am sure the organizers are signing off on ever word he will speak. (To think they are not is naive).
The evangelicals are a force to be reckoned with - and they are a force bigger than we are. I am willing to deal with it and with them through my new president to get things done. I'm not a one issue queer.
And more importantly - they are a group that standing alone (outside of the conversation) will continue to block and do immense damage to our nation and world -
Fact: We did NOT deliver a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Fact: Evangelicals influence how their representatives vote in Congress and how their statehouses react to Federal programs.
It goes well beyond our social issue. But if we have any hope of even achieving basic Federal rights (tax policy, etc.) and something such as a 'civil union' this is the strategy is one we must take.
Get over the symbolism. Keep your eye on the goal. Yeah it hurts. Cry it out. Then realize we've been loosing - time to start winning.
This IS what change looks like.
Posted by: Ray | Dec 26, 2008 8:56:10 AM
I have to assert that I do NOT in any way support or agree with Rick Warren's philosophy. I will however, stand up for what I perceive to be the truth and I will speak out against falsehoods and misrepresentations, and I do see a couple of subtle (perhaps unintended) misrepresentations
Maddow refers to Warren's video where he claims to have never equated homosexuality with pedophilia. She then goes on to present the clip where Warren is interviewed and makes the comment that he does. BUT let's listen to that clip carefully. Does he really equate the two?
Warren states that he is against any definition of marriage outside of 1 man and 1 woman. He goes on to say that he is against marriage of incest, of a man and a child, a man and many wives... The question is then posed "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?" Now you may think that this is splitting hairs, but I think it is significant. What the man said is that the marriage of gays is equivalent to the other marriages, NOT that homosexuality itself is equivalent to pedophilia.
Yes, I can see how some people would believe that he was saying or at least implying that the actions are equivalent, but in the end never did he say this. He comes from the point of view that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. From that point of view, any change to that status is equivalent. But that does not mean that the underlying behaviors are equivalent. This is what he said in the interview and this is ALL that he said there. And if you listen to his second video, he actually goes on to say quite emphatically that he believes that gays have the right to live as partners to live by their own choice - just not as married.
So - let us argue with the man on what he expresses as his beliefs. But let us stay with the what he actually said, not what some people want to put into his mouth.
Again - I emphatically disagree with most of Warren's views. I just think that we need to start a conversation with people with whom we can have some common ground.
Posted by: jmmx | Dec 27, 2008 2:02:32 AM
I would also like to point out how this episode focuses totally on the negative, only on the points of disagreement.
If you listen to more of his speech, you will hear him acknowledge that gays have the right to live in partnerships. He talks about how a major problem in the country is the extreme polarization, and refers specifically to talk show radio. He talks about how people have the right to speak even if you disagree with them. And he has been criticized by other Evangelicals for this.
If you compare this to the REAL hate speech of many, the truly nasty vehement animosity of others, then you will see that, for his constituency at least, he is a rather progressive guy. There are many who really speak hatefully of gays and "liberals" that this has led to violence. Warren appears to be very far from this crowd, and we should be glad for it.
It is ironic to me that those who are willing to meet with the Iranian president Ahmadinejad - a man who denies the holocaust and would like to wipe Israel off the map - that we should meet with him "without preconditions" yet people make a huge deal over Warren speaking at the inauguration.
The question is: Do we REALLY believe in a pluralistic society or not? Or do we fall into the same mode of behavior as the fundamentalists: demonizing anyone who does not fully agree with us?
Posted by: jmmx | Dec 27, 2008 2:24:38 AM
If you're already as disillusioned with Obama as I am, tell the world how you feel:
http://www.cafepress.com/Disillusioned_O
Posted by: pyxbiz | Dec 27, 2008 6:25:31 PM
Too bad Rachel and a few others didn't ask a few more questions of the candidate Obama before jumping on his bandwagon of hope and change. Nobody ever asked exactly what he stood for. I question if he actually stands for anything other than his personal gain. His entire life has been a campaign. Gets office, runs for higher one.Unfortunately, we had a true champion of gay rights.She has marched in Pride parades and stood up to the right wing for years and years. She did not stand before the country and state that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman only. It could have been. She didn't say one thing and do another. She had conviction. Too many people were blinded by the hopium to notice that we had a good thing and squandered it.
Posted by: glennmcgahee | Dec 28, 2008 12:18:19 PM
From the very beginning, I've said that his desire for the approval of Christian kooks was Obama's Achilles Heel.
I know he's a religious guy, and I'm willing to accept that, but he is not going to get very far as president if he continually tries to frame his politics and morals in a religious context. It's irresponsible, unstatesmanlike, and wrong, not to mention a stupid move.
More and more, people are fed up with this kind of commingling of government with religion. Our new president needs to set a better example.
Posted by: Meanwhile | Dec 29, 2008 12:43:11 PM
So President elect, Barack Obama has another pastor problem. This time the pastor of choice didn’t shout anti-American slogans. He angered those who like to think of themselves as the guardians of tolerance and progress. He dared to choose politically incorrect beliefs about homosexuality. Freedom? Tolerance? Choice? Not for pastor Rick Warren! How dare Obama invite this Pastor to give the invocation at his inauguration! Doesn’t he realize who gave him the presidency? He should know that he owes them everything they demand. To invite unapproved people like Rick Warren is to earn the wrath of the self-professed gatekeepers of tolerance. If Obama doesn’t support the political and moral agenda of these “progressives,” he will find out the limits to their tolerance---maybe even for him.
With typical seething anger, behind an austere front, the president of the so-called “Human Rights Campaign,” Joe Solomonese, wrote to Obama, “Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” “We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”
On their own terms, this would clearly be discrimination. Isn’t tolerance the ability to treat respectfully those with whom you strongly disagree? These folks redefined tolerance into some kind of intolerance. Lately, we are seeing a lot of this: “Agree with us, or else!” mentality. But in this case, it is the definition of hypocrisy.
SC
Posted by: Steve Cornell | Dec 31, 2008 10:41:55 AM