Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 221 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Rick Warren’s Message To Duped Obama Liberals

Well, okay, this isn’t really a message from Rick Warren. It’s an imagination of what Rick Warren might say to American liberals duped into thinking that Barack Obama would represent their values… if Rick Warren were an honest man, and not just a self-serving political climber using his religious power as a tool for his ambition.

14 comments to Rick Warren’s Message To Duped Obama Liberals

  • bill

    This is just more Republican lies, Obama will be an excellent President. America will do wonderful, under his guidance. In only a few months, Hillary will take over the Vice-President Office. God bless the United States.

    • Bill, that’s ridiculous. I’m not a Republican, and nothing in this article or in this video is a lie.

      I challenge you, Bill, to identify one lie.

      I’m a progressive. What are you, Bill, that you support this attack on the Constitution? Is it okay to attack the Constitution, just so long as you’re a Democrat? Do you have different standards for Obama than you had for Bush?

  • Zeke

    The video does not show the best skill at using Photo Shop, but I suppose it’s good enough to suit your purposes. I agree there are too many double standards in politics, and this video illustrates several big ones.

    The party which espouses & advertises unity is anything but unified on the issue of gay/lesbian marriage. Most of the highly coveted minority groups resoundingly rejected California’s Proposition 8. This won’t change anytime soon given their strong cultural beliefs.

    The concept of marriage is a pan-religious one. Looking back over the millenia, even tribal/rural marriages have involved a religious ceremony. There have been “civil ceremonies” as well, but they have never been classified the same as marriage, even in Greece & Rome, which were much more liberal than our society today.

    It is highly paradoxical that LGBTs even want to be married, unless the objective is to assault straight people & erode what support they have from straights. For years LGBTs have stated they just want to be left alone to live their lifestyles as they want, having “come out of the closet”. Being married does not affect that in anyway, the only difference being a few words stated on a piece of paper & a trip to the courthouse. Civil ceremonies can accomplish the same thing except for the few different words on that framed piece of paper.

    So, what will happen when demographics catch-up with LGBTs & the divorce rate climbs to nearly 50% as with the rest of society? Don’t think it won’t – nearly every other demographic group has this same rate. When this happens, many so-called “married” LGBTs will find it very expensive to unravel their “marriage” and if truly honest, will wish they would have remained partners rather than spouses. What will happen to the poor children adopted by such couples? They will then have the additional burden of dealing with life in a 1-parent household after having had 2 under 1 roof. There are tremendous societal problems for many people if society elects to permit marriage to be trampled in the manner Proposition 8 fought against and won.

    Oh, by the way, this was the 2nd time Californians voted on LGBT marriage & rejected it. Oh, by the way, this was the 2nd time LGBTs have taken to the streets, the courts, the airwaves, gotten violent, and denouced it as racist, homophobic, Nazi-esque, etc. This sort of activity does not endear the concept to the mainstream, so you should think about revising your tactics.

    The people have spoken multiple times & just don’t want it, even in the most liberal state in the US. This is not a civil rights issue for LGBTs since they already have them. It is a civil rights issue for everyone who understands marriage cannot & should not be redefined or society will suffer big time.

    • Zeke, Photoshop wasn’t used in the creation of this video at all.

      There are religious groups that endorse same-sex marriage. Further, there are non-religious groups and individuals from around the world that have have practiced marriage. Why, Zeke, are you trying to redefine marriage for those groups?

      Marriage is not a religious ritual. Some religious people insert religion into the ritual, but there is nothing inherently religious about it. Secular state-sanctioned marriage actually has a higher legal status than religion-sponsored marriage.

      The people have spoken by passing the Constitution, and choosing to keep it generation after generation after generation. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, over-ruling petty little local bigotries such as Prop 8.

    • Jim

      When “the people spoke multiple times” against interracial marriage, Zeke, should the Supreme Court just have left well enough alone and let interracial marriage continue to be illegal?

  • Jana

    What a colossal waste of time this is, people! Instead of stupid conjecture and the grade school “humor” (akin to sticking beans up one’s nose and chanting “nah, nah, nah”) that Repubs seem to find amusing, think we all have a lot of forward-moving thought and action to involve ourselves with, here? Time to grow up, kiddies..now that the infantile Bush-leaguers are finally leaving the building!

    • Jana, I have to admit that I find your comment indecipherable. I’ve run through it a few times, and I get the sense that you disapprove of something, but could you please try again to express clearly just what you disagree with? I’d like very much to know how confronting the Religious Right is a waste of time. Could you explain that to me?

  • C2 Joe

    Hey JCC,

    Look, it’s no secret that Obama is not as progressive as either of us. But the burden on the atheist and LGBT communities is not new, and it is not being placed there by Obama. It has always been there, and it is still ther, and it is not in Obama’s power to remove it. With time, and given the full participation of people like yourself, he will help lighten that burden. Progress will be made. But it can’t be made predictably. Events happen in their way to move it along.

    The passage of Prop H8 may yet prove to be the greatest blessing in the fight for LGBT equality, as it galvanizes not only that comunity but more of the mainstream Americans upon whom the passage of equality laws depends.

    The burden is on you and me and those still oppressed by mainstream culture. It is so important to take a breath and accept things; not to become cynical about change, but to strengthen one’s resolve to bring that change about.

    Obama was making a point when he told us WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for,. He’s just an instrument; we must wield him. You can’t do that if you disengage and say he’s not your President. You’re embracing your disgust and discarding utility in an emotional moment. Please, reconsider.

    Warren is obnoxious, but a useful step in making progress. Converting a % of evangelicals to support of progressive issues is entirely possible. You may disagree with Obama on its necessity, but is that really a dealbreaker? Are you unwilling to reach out to Red America? If so, you won’t make progress just trying to spraypaint them blue against their will. That doesn’t WORK. What WORKS is paramount, especially now.

    Just remember what the civil rights people went through: firehoses, attack dogs, murder. We’ve made progress, but the road ahead has never been easy.

    Lastly, while your atheist side may resent Fr. Lowery, please get over yourself there. Lowery is sully supportive of gay marriage, and he gets the last word, not Warren. I’m sure if you asked him, you’d find someone very open to nonChristians and atheist/agnostics as well.

    Warren is there to represent the past, Lowery represents the future. At least, that’s a positive way to see it. Why not choose that, instead of un-useful, disengaging negativity?

    Peace.

    • C2 Joe, I understand where you’re coming from, but what indication do you have that Obama will lessen the burden? Was it when he declared that he thinks God works through him, like Bush did? When it was his people worked to make atheists second-class at the Democratic National Convention? Was it when he declared that he’d continue Bush’s government-sponsored religious programs?

      I see many indications that Barack Obama intends to form an alliance with the Religious Right, and leave secular Americans in the lurch.

    • Ralph

      “Just remember what the civil rights people went through: firehoses, attack dogs, murder. We’ve made progress, but the road ahead has never been easy.”

      Another thing the “civil rights people” went through: decades and decades and decades of people saying, “Well you’re right, but shut up anyway. And quit calling America bigoted even though it is, because it’s negative and you’re harshing my mellow. Man. Shut up and sit in the back of the bus, just be thankful you’re on the bus at all. If you keep insisting on being TOTALLY equal you’re just going to piss people off.”

      Yes, the “civil rights people” had to put up with a lot of crap. And they still do. Only difference now is you’re the one giving “civil rights people” crap.

      Thanks for your paternalistic shut up and sit down in the back of the bus crap. Then again, no thanks.

      And the same to you.

      • C2 Joe

        Ralph, you have totally ministerpreted me in your anger. As a hobbyist mediator I’m pretty used to this, so no hard feelings, but you do get called on it.

        At not time and in no way did I say or mean anything you claim. How is advocating engagement telling someone to shut up? In fact what I have advocated above is precisely the Gandhi/MLK model of engaging those who oppose and even hate you. The stuff about the burden being on us is, rather than paternalistic crap, simply the reality which must be acknowledged and kept in mind throughout the struggle. Ultimately, no amount of blind rage solves problems and leads to progress. That anger must be reforged into determination and persistence in the face of oppression. My point is that people have had things far worse than Warren. He himself has already changed as a result of meeting with people like Melissa Etheridge.

        Are you able to hate him less as a result? Are you actually open minded and progressive? Because if you put the burden entirely on those you consider wrong, you’ll never make change. You can’t control them, but you can set an example for them to respect, admire, and be converted by you.

        Your lashing out at me is sadly indicative of someone without hope. That’s your problem to fix; no one can do it for you. But we are here to help if you can swallow your obstructive pride, and embrace progress for all as more important than your ego-based desire to win your way.

  • Anonymous

    The cheating, lying, stealing, Liberal democrats Kept on until they made Howdy Doody(Al Franken) the winner

    • Anonymous, we can see that you’re trying to cut and paste this comment, and others, as a comment on multiple articles where they don’t apply. If you continue this behavior, we’ll have to block your IP address.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>