Maddow And That Christian Guy

Sorry to make you actually write something, but which parts are you saying were misrepresented? I’ve seen both, and Rachel seems to have been otm.

Maddow claims that Warren equates gays with pedophiles. Her support is an out of context quote designed to make him look like a liar.Warren takes about five minutes to explain a somewhat nuanced position on why he doesn’t equate gays with pedophiles.1) believing from a religious standpoint that homosexuality is wrong, 2) that he’s opposed to gays using the term ‘marriage’, 3) that there’s a difference between non-consensual acts like pedophilia and consensual gay relationships, 4) as he says “I’m opposed to forcing people to act the way I want to act…”I’m not speaking for QT, but my guess is that this is pretty much her position with the possible exception of the name ‘marriage’ not mattering all that much.It’s not MY position. But Maddow just plain lies to gloss over Warren’s position and that’s wrong wrong.

You’re the only person I can find not named “Rick Warren” who doesn’t see that he equated gay marriage with a marriage between an adult and a child.The quote she plays isn’t out of context, and she even included the part where the interviewer gets clarification.Rachel didn’t lie, I’m just sorry you didn’t try to float this on HuffPo. The feeding frenzy would have been glorious.

I don’t recall Bob the Cesca being called a liar when he said essentially the same thing.

Hey, I appreciate your fight to maintain the truth even amongst fellow liberals. I perform the same duty when I indicate Thom Hartmann’s numerous lies about Reagan.

It sounds like you are claiming that Maddow is misrepresenting because Warren didn’t say homosexual = incest etc. in the clip you link to.Yet Maddow used to a different clip to contrast Warren’s statements. I think you slipped up here.I recommend clarifying your complaint. I heard the original clip on Maddow’s show and I didn’t think she misrepresented anything.Unless Warren’s original comments were preceded by, “I’m gonna say something crazy that I don’t believe” then she has a fair enough point.

In an interview he equated gay marriage with marriage between a brother and sister or between and adult and a child. He may have backpedaled on this but it is certainly not a misquote or a lie. I believe you owe Ms. Maddow an apology.

an adult and a child….whoops

>>Thom Hartmann’s numerous lies about Reagan.You mean your differences of opinion regarding economic policy, right?I feel like “lie” is being thrown around a lot today.

Posted by: Travis D at December 24, 2008 07:30 PMNo, no… objective lies…or dumbass errors on Hartmann’s part– either wayThe latest of which was his lie/error that Hamilton’s economic system was totally in place until Reagan “started dismantling it.” I’ve posted this entry on a few liberal boards and blogs. They agree with me, but are quick to write “you’re not perfect either, ass.” It’s not a matter of being perfect. It’s a matter of a self-proclaimed historian who doesn’t seem to know history or lies deliberately about it.www.sigzone.blogspot.comIt’s documented in two entries on the second and third(?) page of my blog.

At 3:34 in Maddow has played a clipe of Warren talking about MARRIAGE says “Right! So Warren DID equate being gay with pedophilia and incest!”This is not true.What he said – and his video makes this very clear, I though – is that he was equating gay marriage with other kinds of non-marriage.This is not the same as equating all gay relationships with pedophilia or incest. He has also equated living together with incest or pedophilia in that they are not marriage by the longstanding definition.It’s not calling gay people pedophiles. It’s not calling gay people liver-togethers, either. It’s giving examples of thinks that aren’t marriage. In 48 states right now, if you’re a man you can marry a woman – not a man, not two or more women, not your sister, not a six year old.So what’s the difference between being gay and a pedophile? Warren makes that clear in his video – it’s consensual. That’s a big damn difference and it’s the proper distinction to draw. Maddow doesn’t mention any of that.

Lee, it seems you’re missing the point.Warren’s not simply giving a list of “these are some things I think aren’t marriage.” He’s grouping gay relationships in with sexual relationships that are abusive and universally frowned on for a reason. Rick Warren’s words don’t exist in a vacuum, and Rick Warren, most of all, knows that. He’s merely name-dropping incest and pedophilia, just the way that James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, and countless others, have employed that sort of rhetoric in order to convince the Fucking Stupid that gay relationships, of which most of them have no concept, are tantamount to those things.Perhaps, if we’re really splitting hairs, and if we had NO idea what Rick Warren believed, taught, and advocated for the in political sphere before this, we could MAYBE pretend to reach around the aisle and give him the benefit of the doubt.As it is, anyone who watches the Christian right in its self-declared culture war against gays knows the code-phrases, the syntax, and the word association these fuckers employ.As such, Maddow was merely reflecting that she, too, “gets it.” She knows how these people operate, and she correctly called him out for his choice of words.How you fail to see that is beyond me.

Evan – did you watch Warren’s video?What you’re saying sounds exactly like Palin ‘getting’ Obama’s secret code words that meant he was a Commie – like ‘spreading the wealth’.I see no reason to believe that Warren wasn’t saying what he said he was saying. It’s not a controversial position, either – it’s what a majority of Americans think – marriage is a man and a woman.

>>He’s grouping gay relationships in with sexual relationships that are abusive and universally frowned on for a reason.

Universally frowned upon? Really? So incest, polygamy, and pedophilia aren’t or haven’t been social norms in cultures around the world? What about incest in ancient cultures? What about pedophilia in marrying off your children? And what about polygamy – well, here, I’ll let this speak for me:

“According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.”

Polygamy isn’t always abusive, or even mostly; the US’ experiences with it seem to involve mostly Mormonism, which is in a different bag.

Lee,Yes, I watched Warren’s video, before you posted it. The fact that he’s trying to play nice right now does nothing to change his former pattern. Perhaps you should spend a little more time researching Warren’s actions in the past, his alliances with eliminationist hate preachers in Africa who advocate policies against gays that are far worse than anything the Third Reich came up with, hell, just play around at the Saddleback site for a little while.And no, this doesn’t resemble Palin’s batshit at all. The fact is, there are dogwhistles, on this and many other issues. Rick Warren has a long history of using the same dogwhistles that, again, Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, CWA, AFA, [insert other wingnut Christian leader/org. here] have been using for years. Perhaps you’re snowed under by the fact that he looks like a big cuddly leather bear. I don’t know. Warren himself has admitted that the only difference between him and Dobson is “tone.” He boldfaced lied in the ads for Prop 8, and that’s not a new tactic either…there is no good reason you should be giving him a pass here. Perhaps you have a copy of The Purpose-Driven Life on your bookshelf you’re not telling us about and it changed your life. Don’t know. I hadn’t heard of you until you started blogging here, so I really don’t know your perspective.”It’s not a controversial position, either – it’s what a majority of Americans think – marriage is a man and a woman.”Is this your position as well? You surely seem to be shilling for it, albeit in a backdoor kind of way. If so…As it is, yes, a “majority” of Americans still think that — a rapidly shrinking majority which will soon be the minority. This isn’t the time to be playing all nice-nice with wingnut leaders who will never be on our side. And indeed, it’s quite irrelevant that a majority of Americans still hold this view. When civil rights gains were made, they were made against the tyranny of a similar majority.Shane,”Universally frowned upon? Really? So incest, polygamy, and pedophilia aren’t or haven’t been social norms in cultures around the world? What about incest in ancient cultures? What about pedophilia in marrying off your children? And what about polygamy”Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “universally.” I wasn’t talking about history, and I wasn’t really talking about the wider world in this context. I’m talking about the West in modern times.

1) believing from a religious standpoint that homosexuality is wrong, 2) that he’s opposed to gays using the term ‘marriage’, 3) that there’s a difference between non-consensual acts like pedophilia and consensual gay relationships, 4) as he says “I’m opposed to forcing people to act the way I want to act…”I’m not speaking for QT, but my guess is that this is pretty much her position with the possible exception of the name ‘marriage’ not mattering all that much.

You rang?Yes, and no. My position is very like this, except for that my faith does not argue that homosexuality is wrong – rather that homosexual acts are. The Baha’i faith is agnostic on the subject of homosexuality, and I’m even more so. On the subject of marriage, like conservative Christians, Baha’is define marriage as between men and women. Unlike Christians, Baha’is don’t expect the government to enforce Baha’i views – Baha’is and don’t generally get involved with politics. I personally am overextended compared to my faith.However, Baha’is tend to be defenders of all of the worlds religions, despite seeing the world faiths as being at varying stages of encumbrance with human interpretations, we still take common cause with the followers of all religions, which is why I’m always at pains to resist people’s desire to pigeonhole Christians.QT

Hi Evan. I’m going to take Lee’s side here. I think Warren was meaning something different from what the interviewer was saying. I think this because I think Warren would have been quite a bit more aggressive in his support of Prop 8 if he actually believed homosexuality to be on par with pedophilia and the like.I also think that there’s a tendency, especially among church folk, to adapt a catchy phrase and reuse it – it’s part of the cadence of preaching – and Rev. Rick may have gotten just comfortable with lazy phrasing.QT

QTUnitarian Universalism, of course, has a similar out to what you describe of Baha’i in terms of viewing other religions – and that definitely influenced my thinking in terms of seeing the good in Christianity…

>>>At 3:34 in Maddow has played a clipe of Warren talking about MARRIAGE says “Right! So Warren DID equate being gay with pedophilia and incest!”This is not true.What he said – and his video makes this very clear, I though – is that he was equating gay marriage with other kinds of non-marriage.

Again – it was a direct quote about marriage specifically. He’s not backtracking – he’s not in favor of gay marriage. That doesn’t mean he’s equating ‘being gay with pedophilia and incest’.I have no problem disagreeing with his stated position. I don’t feel any need to put words into his mouth or somehow prove he’s saying more than he really is. I’m in favor of gay marriage, he’s not. Let’s argue THAT on the merits without the extra distraction of hype.And yes, this goes for Bob, too. I don’t think Bob’s lying, though – just slightly wrong.

Lee, “…better THAN”. You’ve been on the internet too long.

I agree with Maddow on this. It seems like splitting hairs to say that he’s not equating gay marriage and pedophilia when he can’t seem to make an argument without mentioning it. Perhaps there’s video of his doing so, but then he’s probably mentioning bestiality or polygamy instead…Of course, he’s not mentioning interracial relationships, because it’s not 1950. I suppose we’ll have to wait another 50 years for sanity to appear re gay marriage. Maddow is supremely frustrated with that, and we all should be.The fact is, the Bible prohibits a lot of things – it used to prohibit interracial marriage, if I remember correctly. Rick Warren is probably disobeying god’s word in several ways – I’m thinking of some of the dietary laws…That being said, Warren is mainstream, unfortunately. He’s hardly a Nazi, but I can’t see where Maddow is in the wrong on this one…

Actually, no… the bible never prohibited interraccial marriage. It did prohibit interfaith marriage – the extension to race was an extrapolation by Christians, in promotion of racism.QT

Tea – good point, thanks.Blue – he IS comparing marriage. He’s NOT comparing relationships in general.So – he’s comparing marriage – in what way is he saying gay marriage is like incest or marriage with an adult and child or polygamy? He is saying makes those things similar?Analogies are always tricky, because …well, they are analogies. So by definition some attributes are similar and others aren’t…If Warren said “Gay marriage is like pedophilia because both are sin and sin should be illegal by long jail terms and the death penalty’ – that’s dangerous.Do you think that is what he is saying?

This is getting ridiculous.Mr. Stranahan, did you catch the part from the interview, not Mr. Warren taped remarks, but from the interview where the reporter presses Mr. Warren, “Do you think those are equivalent to gay marriage?”Ironically, Mr. Warren answers, “Oh, I do”In the Maddow clip, this is at approximately the 3:15 mark.I hope indeed that Mr. Warren doesn’t beleive those things, but he did, without question, equate them.

Well,obviously you aren’t frustrated – it’s frustrating for me to say the same things over and over, too…Yes – he said that about gay marriage – not ‘relationships’, not about gay people in general. That’s not a question – he is opposed to gay marriage.That is not what Maddow said – they are two different things.Additionally – in what way is Warren equating gay marriage to other things that aren’t marriage – in what sense? He used the examples because they aren’t any others….if you think that there’s another example of a relationship that’s not marriage, please name it.

Rick Warren also commented that gay marriage was like pizza. He said he likes pizza, but doesn’t want to marry it.

Well, I think you illustrated the problem very well…

(I agree with Mr. Stranahan, and my point is backing his point up. Sorry, that wasn’t very clear)

No, QT, you’re missing my point. The Bible USED to prohibit interracial marriage. Just as it USED to prohibit democratic government. My point being that the Bible can be read to promote almost ANY kind of bigotry if you pick and choose which passages to quote with enough skill…We CHOOSE not to read it that way any more. Black people are no longer the children of Ham who must be segregated from White Christians. Because it is no longer 1950!

Lee:You have lost all sense of objectivity in this; I don’t know if it is a matter of some form of twice-removed Stockholm Syndrome (Wherein you, by playing the perceived favorite of “Obama made the right call” but then getting rebuked for what you believed would be hailed as insight, took up arms completely and totally with those who oppose the people who NOW oppose you) or if you simply don’t care too much, beyond theoretical disagreement, with Warren on these “disposable” issues to you (gay rights, abortion, women’s rights, etc.) so you think that ANY strategic alliance with a large number of people that translates to some vaugely defined OTHER benefit (votes, african aid, etc.) trumps the concerns of gays or women.I think maybe, too, you might have a bit of the SOUTH PARK tendency to *want* to stomp the “reactionary” left of gays&girls every now and again to maintain your own sense of balanced-cred.Be careful. This is an odd dynamic. It leads to, I’m not kidding, violent and dogmatic right-winggyness. What happens is that you a) disagree on a policy or opinion with your percieved “allies” on the “left.”They engage in the act of disagreeing, and, as is the case of all disagreements, belittle your argument. PLEASE SEE WHAT THE OBJECT OF THAT SENTENCE IS. Every argument is, by nature “belitting” the opposing view in that one feels their view is superior, or larger. Others are little-er.But, and here’s the thing– if, after the initial scuffle (or “marketplace”) of ideas goes down, where the positions are stated, one continues to smart over the stings of it and one brings it up again and again, belaboring the point — which has already been decided in the minds of all particpants on either side– what is left is only the personal disagreeing.You begin to resent and conflate the disagreement with the disagreeers (PARENTHETICAL NOTE: disagree, disagreement and disagreeable ,it seems, unfortunately, are the “evildoers” and “evil” of 2008/9.) and what happens is that you end up WANTING to piss off the people who you felt used to agree with you, because fuck them.They respond predictably by being pissed off (since that’s what you set out to do) but this JUST CONFIRMS your darkest suspicions about them and continues and intensifies the now adversarial dynamic.Lather, rinse, and repeat often enough and somewhere do you know who you become?Dennis Miller.Please, please, don’t become Dennis Miller.The world already had one too many Dennis Millers in it.