They will go down into torment.... (4.00 / 2)

...because they use the cross as a club rather than as a reminder.

And they will deserve every second of the afterlife awaiting them.

---

by: palamedes @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:20:44 AM UTC

The Downside to Atheism (4.00 / 2)

is that I'm pretty sure these fuckers get no divine justice after death.  It's why we need to work hard to bring them to it in this one.

---

by: themann1086 @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 05:00:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

From the comments (0.00 / 0)

I tried to follow each one of these circuitous (to me) references.  So which is it?  Is he for this thing or not?  

Conservative.(former Money Man)....Bothers you, huh? Gore at Poetry Circle.

---

by: money_mantoo @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:36:52 AM UTC

I have to second MM on this one. The case against Warren is weak. (0.00 / 0)

Actually, from looking at the linked stories, I totally fail to see a case at all. The guy condemned the Uganda bill! Now, that may be hypocrisy, of course, but WHERE IS THE EFFING EVIDENCE???

Really, I'm very disappointed about Pam, and the strange way she present this accusation. Dozens of links, but the overwhelming majority has nothing to do with Warren! Not a single quote that shows support for that horrible crap. Where's the smoking gun, dammit? So far, it's a fine case of character assasination by questionable association, nothing else. Shocking!

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:29:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No misunderstanding, pls. Warren possibly is guilty of anti-gay stomping... (0.00 / 0)

...in Uganda. From what we know about the guy, this has to be expected. Obviously, he has been there recently, but then he actually made a stand AGAINST the genocide bill! And Pam doesn't bring up a single evidence that he ever said something anti-gay there before. That's lame. Actually, her only point is that "a charismatic network overseen by Warren's doctoral dissertation advisor, C. Peter Wagner, has played a major role in politically organizing and inspiring the Ugandan legislators who have spearheaded the anti-gay bill." Pls note that this doesn't say the network promoted the anti-gay bill (they don't have evidence for that), it just says the organized and inspired the same legislators who voted for the atrocity.

Hmm, that's playing "two degrees of Rick Warren". Of course, it doesn't look good having such a close connection to those horrible hatemongerers in Uganda, but lets not forget that Warren is only on degree removed from Obama, too. Does this make him responsible for, say, the Afghanistan troop surge, too?

So, sry, but that's simply not a valid base to build such strong accusations on. There may be evidence somewhere that show Warren actively pressing Ugandans for a harder stance against gays, I dunno. But neither Pam Spaulding nor anyone else has presented it so far. And to make such a case of death of association, despite the lack of evidence, is totally irresponsible and should have no place in the progressive blogosphere. And, sry, Natasha, it's certainly not something that should be promoted here.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 11:49:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a gay Christian (4.00 / 1)

these guys really, really, really disgust me.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

---

by: ARDem @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 04:59:38 AM UTC

"I mean, Christians are supposed to be Christ-like." Uh, no. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not the most religious and theologically grayed (hehe, just discovered the figurative meaning of this word) catholic of all, actually quite to the contrary, but I'm very sure this isn't true. Afaik it's more like that Christians are supposed to follow the lead of Jesus Christ. Nobody says we are supposed to be like him, and if I remember it correctly the catholic church even says this isn't possible. So, Natasha, pls don't overstretch your argument.

However, this isn't any excuse for any alleged christian to support the horrible gay genocide bill, of course. This really is a total perversion of everything Jesus teached us. Those hatemongerers are doing the devil's work instead, and are heading straight to hell.  

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:20:25 AM UTC

Really, wouldn't it be better to bring a story about Inhoffe? (0.00 / 0)

From what I read, his connection to the Uganda genocide bill is proven. Why not bring this up on the frontpage? That's much more solid stuff than all this brouhaha about Warren. Really, sry, it's totally possible that this guy is involved, too, but so far there's no hard evidence supporting this. Is it good strategy to divert attention from the known offenders by engaging in finger pointing at others with no hard facts to back this up? Imho, not.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:44:01 AM UTC

James Inhofe is a different issue altogether (4.00 / 1)

First, Inhofe didn't give the inagural prayer, and none of the other 'men of God' affiliated with this travesty have been mainstreamed as Warren has.

Second, it isn't news that the Republican party is packed with vile, theocratic bigots.

Third, he at first refused to say anything at all about it, lyingly suggesting that he didn't take sides in political questions like this. Hello, Prop. 8. He's made himself a political figure in US politics and it matters very much whether or not he thinks it's appropriate to declare in law that LGBT people don't deserve to live.

If a man can have a political opinion on whether gays can get married, but claims to have no opinion on whether they should be systematically murdered, I see a problem. I see a man who knows he can't say what he really thinks deciding not to comment, then later coming around to doing what he has to do to retain popularity in a country where most people are deeply appalled by genocide against gays.

I mean, for love of butterflies and little kittens, how frakking hard is it to answer the following question: Do you condemn the murder of gay people by their government just for being gay?

How frakking hard is it to say, 'Yes. It's wrong to kill people because they're gay.'

See? Easy. As. Pie. And it must be easy, because Warren finally figured out he could do it, and he did, and he said it was unjust and un-Christian, at last.

And having spent a lot of time in church as a young person, and having been told on what seem to have been hundreds of occasions that what it meant to be a follower of Christ was to try to imitate his behavior and do as he said (and did), I don't think I overstate the case of what it means to be Christian vs. what's a perversion of it no less disgusting than the Inquisition.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 12:40:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Inhofe didn't give the inagural prayer" I suspected that... (0.00 / 0)

...was the reason why you went after Warren. Thx for confirming this. However, I somewhat fail to see why this fact should be a reson for putting the focus on Warren, instead of inhoffe or that horrible Family leader, but maybe that's only me.

"Third, he at first refused to say anything at all about it, lyingly suggesting that he didn't take sides in political questions like this. Hello, Prop. 8. He's made himself a political figure in US politics and it matters very much whether or not he thinks it's appropriate to declare in law that LGBT people don't deserve to live.

If a man can have a political opinion on whether gays can get married, but claims to have no opinion on whether they should be systematically murdered, I see a problem."

Well, as far as I can see, he made it clear that he doesn't support killing gays. That doesn't say that he isn't responsible for creating the ground on which such extremism can flourish. He prolly is. But then, it should be no problem finding lots of over the top statements by Warren proving this. Quoting his most hateful rants against gays, exposing the extent of his connection to "The Family", citing evidence of his own organisation influencing Ugandan lawmakers, and then showing what horrible legal genocide has come out of this should have been possible, and would have mad a strong impression. But Pam didn't do this, and you didn't add any facts, either. Sry, Natasha, you know I respect you dearly, but for a hit piece on a bigot, this is sloppy work. May even make people sry for the guy being "unfairly" attacked.  

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 12:56:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm...well, given the Obama team emphasized Warren's efforts to (4.00 / 1)

combat AIDS in Africa as proof of the appropriateness of his role in the inauguration, and that it's since come to light that Warren's activism there, per Stephen Lewis, the UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, has "result (-ed) in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred..." Well, I think it's already fairly evident that Warren has long played a role in killing gays in Africa. I don't see how you can argue anything else.

---

by: sb @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 13:50:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't argue anything else. I say, this argument belongs into a story... (0.00 / 0)

...that attacks Warren for being responsible for anti-gay extremism! But Pam's story not even claims something like "it's already fairly evident that Warren has long played a role in killing gays in Africa". I don't think that would b good enough to make a strong case, but not even such a statement is in the story! So, pls don't misinterprete me, I'm arguing 'Where's the effing beef?'

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 14:04:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No confusion: Claiming "fairly evident" isn't good enough, provide the evidence! (0.00 / 0)

Maybe I'm asking for too much, but imho we, in the reality based community, should do better than simply say "everybody knows that". Or else we'll in danger of spreading the same unfair distortions like the effing corporate media did when they claimed "everybody knows Al Gor said he had invented th internet" and all that shit. And apart from it being necessary of being accurate, imho it's also true that direct quotes make the strongest arguments. Relying on people to sinmply trust you is weak, and many won't simply take your points at face value, without seeing the original evidence.

And, again, Pam not even says that "everybody knows" Warren is a homophobe. Except the connection to that organisation, whose involvement isn't clear yet, Pam provides no reason at all why Warren should be responsible for anything. And, sadly, Natasha even goes one step further, claiming "Rick Warren does the Devil's work in Uganda", based on no facts but a link to Pam's DKos story which doesn't support this. Hell, again, don't get me wrong, the statement may be true, but where's the effing evidence???

---

by: Gray @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 14:20:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen, sister. (4.00 / 1)

Amen, sister, if I am allowed to say that.  Magnificent article that I WILL be forwarding.

---

by: Ken in MS @ Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 12:16:34 PM UTC