::RAGE::, Redux
January 11th, 2009 10:31 am by Kelly GarbatoIn audio clips posted on their website, Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church preaches that, for one Christian to divorce another Christian is a sin – even if one of the so-called Christians is physically abusing his (or her!) partner.
On whether women can divorce an abusive spouse (question #32):
I’d always rather choose a short-term pain and find God’s solution for long-term gain than try and find a short-term solution that’s going to involve long-term pain. … [In scripture] adultery is one [reason for divorce] and abandonment is a second. I wish there were a third in scripture. Having been involved as a pastor in situations of abuse there’s something in me that wishes there was a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in this and such kind of way then you have a right to leave them. … If you’re in this kind of situation I strongly recommend that you take advantage of our lay counseling ministers. Go in and talk to someone and let them minister to you. And the advice that we give is not divorce but separation.
On whether a woman has to stay in a “miserable” marriage (question #31):
The Bible answer is yes. Does God expect me to stay in a miserable marriage, and why would he do that to me? I often say to people when they’re facing this decision, really, you’re choosing your pain in this moment because it’s going to be painful either way. If you stay in your marriage there is the opportunity for reconciliation and for the loss of pain, but there is going to be short-term pain on the way there. … There is lifelong pain in divorce. … I wish there was a way to say there is a choice here where you’re not going to have pain but there is pain in relationships. Now, God understands that… He can be with us in our pain and he can comfort us, he can strengthen us, he can give us perspective. He can also give us wisdom. Does God expect me to live with this pain? No. I think he expects us to ask for wisdom to do the things that would cause the pain to begin to be solved. … The Bible says the husband is to sacrifice for his wife and the wife is to respect her husband and if that doesn’t happen you have the right to keep pushing for that.
According to Warren’s teachings, abused women have no right to divorce their abusers.
For inviting this misogynist shitstain to give the opening prayer at his inauguration, Ms. Magazine has devoted a special “inauguration issue” cover to Barack Obama – who, apparently, is now the face of feminism.
But wait! It gets better! This quarter’s issue even comes with a 18″x24″ pull-out centerfold poster of Mr. Super-Feminist Himself!
Again, all I can say is ::RAGE::
(Partial transcripts pieced together via The Stranger and The New Agenda. Hat tip to The Reclusive Leftist for both stories.)
—————–
Tagged: barack obama rick warren glbt homophobia homophobe misogyny misogynist abortion reproductive rights inauguration religion godbags divorce saddleback church ms. magazine feminism flickr photos
January 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
You would think that Obama would realize that, after Bush, people don’t want anymore bullshit from their presidents. Inviting someone like Warren is just a slap in the face. I hope he doesn’t think that people are just going to shrug it off as nothing.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I wish I knew what he’s thinking: does he genuinely like Warren as a person, so much so that he doesn’t care what people say about their association, or is he just trying to pander to the largest number of 2012 voters possible, “special interest” groups be damned? Either way, I can’t believe that Ms. Magazine is actually encouraging this “agree to disagree” on matters of human rights bullshit.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Obama doesn’t seem to have a great track record with pastors. That’s probably not the Rick Warren Obama knows. After all, he didn’t know Rev Wright very well, Rezko very well, Ayers very well, etc. It doesn’t matter who Obama associates with because well he is going to bring change.
He was a State Senator for two years before he ran for Congress and lost, then ran for Senate a few years later. Two years after winning his US Senate election he announced his bid for president. Kelly, what would make you think his Rick Warren invite was made out of political ambition?
But hey I say give him a break. Lets give him a chance. Lets see what increasing the deficit by a tril, creating a huge national health insurance program, stripping the CIA of techniques that have stopped terror plots, raising taxes on investors, creating solvency in Social Security by lifting the cap over 250K instead of transforming it into a savings and investment program, etc. Why would you doubt the One?
January 13th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
That’s probably not the Rick Warren Obama knows.
Nah, Obama knows – you can see as much in his equivocating:
“A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion,” he said.
Obama knows that Warren is a giant douche, he knows what Warren’s views on women and the LGBTQ community are, and he doesn’t care. He’s willing to tolerate hate in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion.” Somehow, though, I doubt he’d be as open to Warren’s views if they included open, rank racism.
Kelly, what would make you think his Rick Warren invite was made out of political ambition?
He’s a politician. That’s what they do. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama’s already thinking about re-election.
More specifically, though, Obama really started edging right after the primaries. Don’t get me wrong, I never mistook the man for a liberal – but with Clinton in the running, he certainly had no qualms accepting and soliciting progressive support. Once he had the primaries locked, though, he definitely started pandering to more moderate religious voters, voters the Republicans could usually count on simply by invoking the specter of “gay marriage” or somesuch.
Whether Obama genuinely likes Warren (in spite or because of his view on gender relations), or is inviting him to placate more conservative religious voters, I haven’t a clue. It’s probably a bit of each.
Why would you doubt the One?
I didn’t drink the kool-aid.
That, and he keeps flip-flopping on the dog issue. If he can’t manage to find a purebred, “hypoallergenic” dog on Petfinder, then he certainly can’t run a fucking country.
I take it you’re enjoying those plates, then?
January 13th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“I take it you’re enjoying those plates, then?”
Yes we got them, thank-you. Ironically, there is a big red sticker on it that says “NOT FOR FOOD USE. FOOD CONSUMED FROM THIS PLATE MAY BE HARMFUL!”
It’s kind of like Obama’s and liberal policies in general. They look good on paper, don’t work, and might be harmful.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“NOT FOR FOOD USE. FOOD CONSUMED FROM THIS PLATE MAY BE HARMFUL!”
That’s awesome.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:55 am
[...] right. The “new face of feminism,” who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn’t want a “girly [...]
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
[...] right. The “new face of feminism,” who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn’t want a “girly [...]