The brouhaha over President-Elect Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Forest Lake, CA, and author of The Purpose Driven Life,  to give the invocation at his inauguration is mind-boggling to me.  Because he supported Proposition 8, he in the minds of the homosexual community, is unfit to pray.  Ok then.  Same old, same old, yarn – because you don’t support gay marriage you are a homophobe.  You are a hate monger, etc., etc.  Yawn.

In the midst of all of this Warren gives an interview with Ann Curry.

ANN CURRY: Your position [on gay marriage] has raised the spectre that you are homophobic.

Warren responds with a hearty laugh.

CURRY: You laugh, but that is why gay people are angry.

RICK WARREN: Well, I could give you a hundred –

CURRY: Are you homophobic?

WARREN: I don’t know any church in America that’s done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback. But the hate speech against me is incendiary.

CURRY: If science finds that this is biological, that people are born gay, would you change your position?

WARREN: No, and the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

Transcript HT: Cassy Fiano

Watch a video of this exchange:

 
Video HT: Hot Air
 
I love Warren’s vivid, but true example.  Just because we have a natural predisposition toward a particular sin or vice does not mean we have license to engage in that behavior.  It may seem natural to do so, but that doesn’t make it right.  So the natural inclination argument for homosexual behavior doesn’t wash.

50 comments
  1. @Rebekah – great! I’m glad you found CT through my shameless promotion :). I’ll check out the “Back to the Constitution” group, as well as your blog.

    @Stephanie – I don’t always agree with Rick Warren, but he was spot on here.

  2. @Rebekah – great! I’m glad you found CT through my shameless promotion :). I’ll check out the “Back to the Constitution” group, as well as your blog.

    @Stephanie – I don’t always agree with Rick Warren, but he was spot on here.

  3. Rick Warren was “spot on”? First, we are evidently supposed to credit Mr. Warren with having to endure the enormous sacrifice of only being able to have sex with his WIFE, and not every woman on the street as well! How noble! Second, both he and Shane reveal their utter contempt for the free country in which they live; as these opinions, in particluar Mr. Vander Hart’s arrogant dismissal of the “natural inclination” argument, ignore the fact that in this country, we do not need permission from religious fanatics in order to live our lives as we would choose. We need not have to prove ourselves to a complete stranger to seek his or her blessing. This is the problem in a nutshell. Mr. Vander Hart and his ilk seem to believe that the rest of us must live according to moral judgements as voted upon by a majority of our peers and based in the bible’s teachings. The reality? We DO have “license” to engage in any legal behavior, even if Mr. Vander Hart and his self righteous brethren find it to be a “sin” or a “vice.”

    It’s called living in a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. Mr. Vander Hart should try to learn the difference.

    Additionally, and perhaps most inexplicably, these final thoughts reveal hypocrisy of the highest calibre. They assume, erroneously, that the homosexual community must SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that their natural inclination is hereditary. Imagine that! Religious zealots, who scorn science whenever possible, and believe in a God without scientific evidence, while demanding Constitutional protections for these evidence-free beliefs, have the audacity to DEMAND scientific proof from the gay community??? Beyond belief.

  4. Rick Warren was “spot on”? First, we are evidently supposed to credit Mr. Warren with having to endure the enormous sacrifice of only being able to have sex with his WIFE, and not every woman on the street as well! How noble! Second, both he and Shane reveal their utter contempt for the free country in which they live; as these opinions, in particluar Mr. Vander Hart’s arrogant dismissal of the “natural inclination” argument, ignore the fact that in this country, we do not need permission from religious fanatics in order to live our lives as we would choose. We need not have to prove ourselves to a complete stranger to seek his or her blessing. This is the problem in a nutshell. Mr. Vander Hart and his ilk seem to believe that the rest of us must live according to moral judgements as voted upon by a majority of our peers and based in the bible’s teachings. The reality? We DO have “license” to engage in any legal behavior, even if Mr. Vander Hart and his self righteous brethren find it to be a “sin” or a “vice.”

    It’s called living in a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. Mr. Vander Hart should try to learn the difference.

    Additionally, and perhaps most inexplicably, these final thoughts reveal hypocrisy of the highest calibre. They assume, erroneously, that the homosexual community must SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that their natural inclination is hereditary. Imagine that! Religious zealots, who scorn science whenever possible, and believe in a God without scientific evidence, while demanding Constitutional protections for these evidence-free beliefs, have the audacity to DEMAND scientific proof from the gay community??? Beyond belief.

  5. Rick Warren was “spot on”? First, we are evidently supposed to credit Mr. Warren with having to endure the enormous sacrifice of only being able to have sex with his WIFE, and not every woman on the street as well! How noble! Second, both he and Shane reveal their utter contempt for the free country in which they live; as these opinions, in particluar Mr. Vander Hart’s arrogant dismissal of the “natural inclination” argument, ignore the fact that in this country, we do not need permission from religious fanatics in order to live our lives as we would choose. We need not have to prove ourselves to a complete stranger to seek his or her blessing. This is the problem in a nutshell. Mr. Vander Hart and his ilk seem to believe that the rest of us must live according to moral judgements as voted upon by a majority of our peers and based in the bible’s teachings. The reality? We DO have “license” to engage in any legal behavior, even if Mr. Vander Hart and his self righteous brethren find it to be a “sin” or a “vice.”

    It’s called living in a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. Mr. Vander Hart should try to learn the difference.

    Additionally, and perhaps most inexplicably, these final thoughts reveal hypocrisy of the highest calibre. They assume, erroneously, that the homosexual community must SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that their natural inclination is hereditary. Imagine that! Religious zealots, who scorn science whenever possible, and believe in a God without scientific evidence, while demanding Constitutional protections for these evidence-free beliefs, have the audacity to DEMAND scientific proof from the gay community??? Beyond belief.

  6. Rick Warren was “spot on”? First, we are evidently supposed to credit Mr. Warren with having to endure the enormous sacrifice of only being able to have sex with his WIFE, and not every woman on the street as well! How noble! Second, both he and Shane reveal their utter contempt for the free country in which they live; as these opinions, in particluar Mr. Vander Hart’s arrogant dismissal of the “natural inclination” argument, ignore the fact that in this country, we do not need permission from religious fanatics in order to live our lives as we would choose. We need not have to prove ourselves to a complete stranger to seek his or her blessing. This is the problem in a nutshell. Mr. Vander Hart and his ilk seem to believe that the rest of us must live according to moral judgements as voted upon by a majority of our peers and based in the bible’s teachings. The reality? We DO have “license” to engage in any legal behavior, even if Mr. Vander Hart and his self righteous brethren find it to be a “sin” or a “vice.”

    It’s called living in a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. Mr. Vander Hart should try to learn the difference.

    Additionally, and perhaps most inexplicably, these final thoughts reveal hypocrisy of the highest calibre. They assume, erroneously, that the homosexual community must SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that their natural inclination is hereditary. Imagine that! Religious zealots, who scorn science whenever possible, and believe in a God without scientific evidence, while demanding Constitutional protections for these evidence-free beliefs, have the audacity to DEMAND scientific proof from the gay community??? Beyond belief.

  7. Jimbo,

    You couldn’t have done that in a TinyURL?

    I’ve never promoted a constitutional theocracy.

    Didn’t say you didn’t have license to participate in homosexual behavior. I’ve never supported making it illegal civilly.

    I think Warren’s point to this conversation is that we can love somebody and still disagree with them.

    Based on your comment I suspect you don’t feel the same way about people with whom you disagree.

    By the way, this post wasn’t intended to make a case for Prop 8.

    And, every time you call me “Mr. Vander Hart” I’m looking for my dad.

    That said, you certainly have the right to disagree. We do have the constitutional right in this country to be theologically or morally wrong.

    I hope that you have a Merry Christmas. Thanks for expressing your position.

  8. Jimbo,

    You couldn’t have done that in a TinyURL?

    I’ve never promoted a constitutional theocracy.

    Didn’t say you didn’t have license to participate in homosexual behavior. I’ve never supported making it illegal civilly.

    I think Warren’s point to this conversation is that we can love somebody and still disagree with them.

    Based on your comment I suspect you don’t feel the same way about people with whom you disagree.

    By the way, this post wasn’t intended to make a case for Prop 8.

    And, every time you call me “Mr. Vander Hart” I’m looking for my dad.

    That said, you certainly have the right to disagree. We do have the constitutional right in this country to be theologically or morally wrong.

    I hope that you have a Merry Christmas. Thanks for expressing your position.

  9. Jimbo,

    How do you feel about polygamy? Or incest?

    If I marry based simply on who I ‘love’ or am attracted to, should I be able to marry a 12 year old if that’s my thing? Should I marry my dad so he can get my insurance benefits? I do love him after all…

    The reason our society, for centuries, has denounced homosexual unions is the same reason it has denounced polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia: A worldview framed by judeo-Christian ethics. I realize that is changing, but think about the ramifications and implications.

    If you are to be consistent, then anyone who wishes should be able to marry anyone or anything they want.

    Steves last blog post..What is Generosity?

  10. Jimbo,

    How do you feel about polygamy? Or incest?

    If I marry based simply on who I ‘love’ or am attracted to, should I be able to marry a 12 year old if that’s my thing? Should I marry my dad so he can get my insurance benefits? I do love him after all…

    The reason our society, for centuries, has denounced homosexual unions is the same reason it has denounced polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia: A worldview framed by judeo-Christian ethics. I realize that is changing, but think about the ramifications and implications.

    If you are to be consistent, then anyone who wishes should be able to marry anyone or anything they want.

    Steves last blog post..What is Generosity?

  11. Well, well… what fodder this gives me. Eh-hem…

    1. Mr. Vanderhart…er…uh…Shane, nice line to Jimbo about the tiny URL

    2. Everyone! Let’s give Ricky some credit. He said, “every beautiful woman.” At least, he isn’t going around scavenging trailer parks for those toothless beauties. Something has to be said about having taste. Right?

    3. Steve, you bring up a salient point, but it’s the way you are posing it that has given the liberal left fits for decades. Homosexuality is a sin, and God doesn’t prioritize various sins. However, man does… and loving a person of the same sex isn’t anywhere the same vile behavior as finding romance with a horse, or said 12-year old boy. Just a pontification there.

    4. Lukewarm pablum has its place for the lost, and then discipleship must take over. The genius Rick Warren displayed on TV was proof why. Nicely done, Pastor.

    HiScriveners last blog post..Even Jesus goes home for the holidays

  12. Well, well… what fodder this gives me. Eh-hem…

    1. Mr. Vanderhart…er…uh…Shane, nice line to Jimbo about the tiny URL

    2. Everyone! Let’s give Ricky some credit. He said, “every beautiful woman.” At least, he isn’t going around scavenging trailer parks for those toothless beauties. Something has to be said about having taste. Right?

    3. Steve, you bring up a salient point, but it’s the way you are posing it that has given the liberal left fits for decades. Homosexuality is a sin, and God doesn’t prioritize various sins. However, man does… and loving a person of the same sex isn’t anywhere the same vile behavior as finding romance with a horse, or said 12-year old boy. Just a pontification there.

    4. Lukewarm pablum has its place for the lost, and then discipleship must take over. The genius Rick Warren displayed on TV was proof why. Nicely done, Pastor.

    HiScriveners last blog post..Even Jesus goes home for the holidays

  13. HiS

    I definitely hear you… That isn’t usually where I go, at least not immediately, when interacting with those who think differently than me.

    I think a better place to start is simply loving people, no matter their sins or positions on issues.

    But one must go there at some point.

    It is just a matter of time before the other behaviors I listed are no longer considered ‘vile’. Do you remember how homosexuality was viewed just a generation ago? It’s been a scant 20 years since Homosexual marriage was unthinkable. Now we find ourselves in a defensive position. The way thought is ‘progressing’ has significant implications.

    Nonetheless, a positive take is the best starting place for discussing this issue with unbelievers: We see marriage as we do because of God’s design, and Jesus’ reitieration of that design in Matthew 19.

    I just felt this particular thread was a good place to take the gloves off.

    Steves last blog post..Santa Claus: An Engineer’s Perspective

  14. HiS

    I definitely hear you… That isn’t usually where I go, at least not immediately, when interacting with those who think differently than me.

    I think a better place to start is simply loving people, no matter their sins or positions on issues.

    But one must go there at some point.

    It is just a matter of time before the other behaviors I listed are no longer considered ‘vile’. Do you remember how homosexuality was viewed just a generation ago? It’s been a scant 20 years since Homosexual marriage was unthinkable. Now we find ourselves in a defensive position. The way thought is ‘progressing’ has significant implications.

    Nonetheless, a positive take is the best starting place for discussing this issue with unbelievers: We see marriage as we do because of God’s design, and Jesus’ reitieration of that design in Matthew 19.

    I just felt this particular thread was a good place to take the gloves off.

    Steves last blog post..Santa Claus: An Engineer’s Perspective

  15. Steve,
    I’ll answer your tired and ignorant questions. The “threat” that people will then want to be allowed to marry children is another red herring, as children, being minors, do not have the same rights as adults and are therefore protected by statute. Why can’t children drink alcohol? Or smoke? Or drive a car at an early age? Or any of the numerous other restrictions we legally place on them? But don’t let facts get in the way of idiotic propaganda. Included in this argument is the usual inflammatory rhetoric in regards to “marrying animals,” which again reveals the complete lack of understanding of the tenets of the Constitution which governs us. Let me put it as simply as I can; the Constitution protects the rights of human beings from being impacted by the whims of the majority. Animal rights are in the hands of the legislature, which allows for the human “majority” to create laws in regards to animals in any way society sees fit. Majority CAN rule in this regard. On a Constitutional level, this ridiculous argument holds no water. As usual.

    Polygamy? Is fine by me, as long as it’s between consenting adults. As usual, those horrified by polygamy point to the exploitation of children and (without irony) religious indoctrination (by the “wrong”religion, of course), which is another issue all together and not indicative of what a lawful polygamy would entail.

    Oh, and I didn’t use a “tiny.url” on purpose, because Shane forces people to come into his annoying web site to respond to his hateful and ignorant propaganda, which he blithely posts elsewhere.

  16. Steve,
    I’ll answer your tired and ignorant questions. The “threat” that people will then want to be allowed to marry children is another red herring, as children, being minors, do not have the same rights as adults and are therefore protected by statute. Why can’t children drink alcohol? Or smoke? Or drive a car at an early age? Or any of the numerous other restrictions we legally place on them? But don’t let facts get in the way of idiotic propaganda. Included in this argument is the usual inflammatory rhetoric in regards to “marrying animals,” which again reveals the complete lack of understanding of the tenets of the Constitution which governs us. Let me put it as simply as I can; the Constitution protects the rights of human beings from being impacted by the whims of the majority. Animal rights are in the hands of the legislature, which allows for the human “majority” to create laws in regards to animals in any way society sees fit. Majority CAN rule in this regard. On a Constitutional level, this ridiculous argument holds no water. As usual.

    Polygamy? Is fine by me, as long as it’s between consenting adults. As usual, those horrified by polygamy point to the exploitation of children and (without irony) religious indoctrination (by the “wrong”religion, of course), which is another issue all together and not indicative of what a lawful polygamy would entail.

    Oh, and I didn’t use a “tiny.url” on purpose, because Shane forces people to come into his annoying web site to respond to his hateful and ignorant propaganda, which he blithely posts elsewhere.

  17. Jimbo,

    Nobody forces you to come to this website. You can choose to ignore the post at the Des Moines Register just like I choose to ignore your link.

    You make it sound like I’ve got a gun pointed at you or something.

    Any argument I give would be lost on you.

  18. Jimbo,

    Nobody forces you to come to this website. You can choose to ignore the post at the Des Moines Register just like I choose to ignore your link.

    You make it sound like I’ve got a gun pointed at you or something.

    Any argument I give would be lost on you.

  19. “You make it sound like I’ve got a gun pointed at you or something.”

    Um, no… I have real friends who are feeling real pain and suffering because of self-righteous people like you, spewing their propaganda in public, then retreating to the safety of their indoctrinated enclaves. Tell me, Shane, if you really do “love the sinner,” then how come I NEVER see ANY acknowledgment of the VERY REAL pain and suffering you are causing these people? Ever. In fact, I usually see gloating, when you cause this suffering. It makes me sick. You should understand that choosing to spew hateful rhetoric in the public sphere opens you up to rebuttal. You want to have a serious website? Deal with the consequences of your posts.

    “Any argument I give would be lost on you.”

    This is a joke, right? I dismantled and eviscerated your arguments one by one a few weeks ago. You gutlessly ignored the post, remember? Feel free to hit me with whatever argument you have, as I would be glad to school you on the Constitution once again. You have no argument, only mindless religious-based rhetoric, devoid of rational thought, as is the norm for zealots.

  20. “You make it sound like I’ve got a gun pointed at you or something.”

    Um, no… I have real friends who are feeling real pain and suffering because of self-righteous people like you, spewing their propaganda in public, then retreating to the safety of their indoctrinated enclaves. Tell me, Shane, if you really do “love the sinner,” then how come I NEVER see ANY acknowledgment of the VERY REAL pain and suffering you are causing these people? Ever. In fact, I usually see gloating, when you cause this suffering. It makes me sick. You should understand that choosing to spew hateful rhetoric in the public sphere opens you up to rebuttal. You want to have a serious website? Deal with the consequences of your posts.

    “Any argument I give would be lost on you.”

    This is a joke, right? I dismantled and eviscerated your arguments one by one a few weeks ago. You gutlessly ignored the post, remember? Feel free to hit me with whatever argument you have, as I would be glad to school you on the Constitution once again. You have no argument, only mindless religious-based rhetoric, devoid of rational thought, as is the norm for zealots.

  21. By the way, from what I’ve seen, those who claim to “love” the “sinner,” make such claims for their own benefit. It helps them feel better about themselves as they inflict pain and suffering on complete strangers. “Love the sinner, but hate the sin,” in reality is hate in a pretty dress. It doesn’t fool anybody…. but those who make the claim. Whenever I read such drivel, It begs the question:

    Who are you trying to convince? You? Or me?

  22. By the way, from what I’ve seen, those who claim to “love” the “sinner,” make such claims for their own benefit. It helps them feel better about themselves as they inflict pain and suffering on complete strangers. “Love the sinner, but hate the sin,” in reality is hate in a pretty dress. It doesn’t fool anybody…. but those who make the claim. Whenever I read such drivel, It begs the question:

    Who are you trying to convince? You? Or me?

  23. “Any argument I give would be lost on you.”

    Do me a favor, don’t put out challenges like this if you are too cowardly to back them up. From what I can tell, you and your ilk like to hear yourselves talk, but when challenged, REALLY challenged, you hide behind your mother’s skirt.

    Not only do you shy away from a real debate on the DMR, but reveal your cowardice on YOUR OWN WEBSITE as well. This goes for “Steve” and the rest of your gay-bashing friends.

  24. “Any argument I give would be lost on you.”

    Do me a favor, don’t put out challenges like this if you are too cowardly to back them up. From what I can tell, you and your ilk like to hear yourselves talk, but when challenged, REALLY challenged, you hide behind your mother’s skirt.

    Not only do you shy away from a real debate on the DMR, but reveal your cowardice on YOUR OWN WEBSITE as well. This goes for “Steve” and the rest of your gay-bashing friends.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Grassley Joins Bipartisan Bill to Protect Election Integrity

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) joined as a co-sponsor for the Defending Elections from Threats by Establishing Redlines (DETER) Act introduced by U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida).

The Mount Vernon Statement

Last week 80 conservative leaders crafted and signed The Mount Vernon Statement. …

Michael Kiernan & Iowa Democratic Party Are Not the Poster Children of Reform

The chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, Michael Kiernan, reported by Jason…

The Fiscal Cliff: No Room for Compromise

Whatever deal Congress and President Obama makes in order to go off the fiscal cliff in the short term we are still in deep, deep financial trouble.