Thursday, December 18, 2008

Obama Demonstrates a Tolerance that Liberal Bloggers Don't Seem to Grasp

Obama has chosen Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. This has been a sour note for many in the homosexual rights movement given Rick Warren's opposition to the homosexual movement.

"On Thursday, Obama defended his decision to tap Warren. "And I would note that 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. ...

"And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about: That we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere ... where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."


Methinks Obama isn't committed to the notion that anyone who disagrees with the homosexual movement is unscientific and a hatemonger. Of course he could still change his mind and back down cowtowing to the tolerance fascists who want to continue the dialogue with only one side!


Barb said...

I just remember how Bush believed in bipartisan unity and he got crucified, too, by the left.

Granted, the Right doesn't want to see more abortion and gay marriage championed by politicians.

kateb said...

Well, we have to keep President-elect Obama in our prayers.

Doing the right things and choosing to try to be a uniter instead of a divider doesn't seem to play too well with the left.

We need to pray for he and his whole family. There are alot of nuts out there that don't want dialogue like this.

Antipelagian said...

I wonder if Warren will do the godly thing...pray that God brings repentance to our nation for the blood-guilt of infanticide...and if not repentance then visit judgement on those that fund and legislate support.

Jeanette said...

Rick Warren has the same view of homosexual civil ceremonies as Barack Obama. He just doesn't believe in same sex marriage as all religions describe marriage as between a man and woman or women.

Otherwise he's OK with civil unions.

I heard him talking about it on the radio yesterday while running some errands and it hit me so much that I remember where I was and what I was doing. I was at the bank waiting for the teller to give me a deposit receipt and my change.

He was in favor of Prop. 8 and said when the gay people protested he gave them water and donuts. Seems like an odd combination.

Barb said...

I think serving water may be a health trend --compared to the more calorific juice, punch,pop offerings. My lunch coordinator for the choir decided water was sufficient for the choir lunch ---since we had pizza and cake. Our generation feels it's not special enough--but sensible folks realize none of us needs the extra sugar, I guess.

Rob R said...

Rick Warren has the same view of homosexual civil ceremonies as Barack Obama.

There is a lot of confusion about homosexuality even by Christians who believe it to be wrong. The legitimacy and normalacy of homosexuality is one of the most powerful deceptions of our age, but if you don't understand the deception, you're going to be very inept at dealing with it.

Too many Christians accept and endorse the biblical prohibition on homosexuality without knowing why scripture says it is wrong. All they know is that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality (and even that understanding is inadequate).

Homosexuality is wrong for a reason. It's not taboo for some mysterious arbitrary prohibition in our bible. The reason was made clear. God made them male and female, but even this is woefully inadequate. God made them male and female IN HIS IMAGE. Our sexual natures somehow reflect divinity thus our sexual natures are sacred, and if it is sacred, it can be profaned. Sexuality goes to the core of who we are and therefore, the defilement goes to the core of who we are. Additionally, we need for Christians to get a better understanding of the old testament law and it's relationship to the new testament. We need better answers to "well shrimp are an abomination too ya know". And that is to be found in the nuanced use of the old testament law for which we have a use though we are not under it. (as well as a better understanding of the way language works. just because two things are described as an abomination doesn't mean they are so in the same way and in the same degree for the same reasons.)

So why would a Christian support civil unions? I think for one, they don't understand the importance of sexuality as I outlined it above. Secondly, we still have this problem of a fractured view of humanity, that we can be secular and neutral and therefore, we mustn't consider these ideas in terms of public policy. I understand the benefits of the seperation of church and state, but as an absolute, it's not a complete approach to the human situation including as far as public policy is concerned. But of course I believe even on Obama's terms, we can translate our values to something that could be more "universally" recognized. Homosexuality is a psycological dysfunction, even though the politically motivated APA has deemphasized and ignored the data that suggests this. Of course, they are looking to link it to other psycological dysfunctions but I think that the best consideration here (aside from the theological consideration, as essential as it is) is that homosexuality in and of itself regardless to it's relation to other psycological functions represents a mismatch of the body and mind. It's as basic as middle school sex education. Male bodies complement female bodies and vice versa and a mind that doesn't work with this system is at odds with the body. It's not working right.

So civil union partnerships are a way of treating the abnormal as normal by way of public policy.

kateb said...

I also believe that sexuality is a beautiful part of life that God created in mind of our enjoyment as well as procreation.

People don't always want to 'hear' rules. We don't always like to know that our behavior does have some curbs on it.

As a heterosexual woman who is not married, I am not permitted to engage in sexual activity. Only in the confines of marriage. I didn't like this - I was very cranky for quite some time over it. But it is what it is and those are the rules.

Once people have the Gospel it really is up to them what they do with it. We aren't an authority over them to say what they may and or may not do. We only make those decisions for ourselves and as a society we set rules to keep the community safe from criminal and predatory activity.

But outside of that, people must make their own decisions. And I love them, whether they may be a man a woman living together out of wedlock, or however people choose to live their lives. So long as they have the opportunity to have a relationship with God - I'm not responsible anymore other than how I live my life in testimony. It's quite liberating to let other people be responsible for their own relationship (or lack of) with God and with the Son.

Barb said...

It's quite liberating to let other people be responsible for their own relationship (or lack of) with God and with the Son.

Yes, of course --not that we have any choice! : ) Or are there ways in which we are our brother's keepers? and do help the younger generation, in particular, to have faith? and a biblical sense of right and wrong? and to find the way to God? I'm sure you agree that there are such ways in which we do bear responsibility for the next generation's beliefs and values.

The question is --by what or whose standards of right and wrong do we make public policy? (by majority rule, I say --will it be sharia law in a Muslim majority or by atheistic communist values in a Communistic majority --or by the western values of freedom without licentiousness founded in Judeo-Christianity?) As it is, we erroneously think that "secular" values can be good for us apart from western culture's religious roots. I doubt this is so. We already see that 1.6 million per year abort because we made it legal. And we have fewer people marrying, more shacking up, more divorce, more fatherless --and surely more gender confused children and sexually active youth as results of watered down Christian influence on social mores and public policies.

We have gotten along without civil unions all these years. We are being persuaded, one by one, classroom by classroom, tv show by tv show, that homosexual couples are disadvantaged compared to heterosexual couples when they should be treated the same. Why should they be treated the same under the law as "couples" with legal benefits of married couples, if, in fact, they do have no potential of contributing people to the future whom we need --if, in fact, Rob is right in his observation:

It's as basic as middle school sex education. Male bodies complement female bodies and vice versa and a mind that doesn't work with this system is at odds with the body. It's not working right.

"So civil union partnerships are a way of treating the abnormal[the dysfunctional, I might add--barb] as normal by way of public policy.

I say we need to try to prevent homosexual orientation in children and teens, cultivate normal gender identity, and protect them from homosexual ideation and activity
--just as we should be protecting them from porn and fornication so prevalent on TV

I just saw a glimpse of the Oxygen network here on Saturday, during the day when children are watching TV. A stripper/pole dancer was demonstrating her skills and telling of her newly acquired self-esteem as she bared all, with barely blurred bosom and a nearly naked backside.

How does church compete with one or two hours a week of religious instruction --while TV is showing hours per day that gay is OK and nude is good and pre-marital and casual sex are without consequences --natural behaviors.

Moreover, I find in church a mix of kids --such that some kinds of topics are too advanced and explicit for more sheltered kids whose parents don't want us doing the sex ed at church ---when some kids need it far younger than they should.

My daughter is VERY vigilant about the TV --but there will come a day when she runs to the store and they are old enough to stay home alone with tv and computer--and normal enough to be tempted by forbidden fruit. Hopefully, they will have inner principles within, and too much else to do, but all children are vulnerable to the evil and addictive influences that come knocking on our doors through modern technology.

We need a national revival --perhaps another wave of God's Spirit will pour out on America again -- perhaps from surprising sources --like the mega church movement.

Barb said...

And I know such a revival will impact public policy--as it makes adults more aware of their responsibility to youth and future.

There was a time in England when social commentators railed against the impact of gin there --alcoholism was a blight on the society --as alcohol, meth, and other drugs are today. And the Methodist movement was a revival in that nation that wrought social change. The Sunday School movement, preaching to the common working man right outside his workplace, and the Salvation Army were all impactful for good. Dickens reform themes had good impact. Slavery was abolished through Christian efforts.

In America, we really do need to get ahold of the cesspool of TV. It's getting worse and worse. Reality shows, in particular, are role modeling to youth that catty, vain, hateful, self-centered and immoratl behavior is good. We cannot keep feeding trash to the nation's youth and not get more Casey and Caley stories.

matthew said...

In America, we really do need to get ahold of the cesspool of TV.

No one needs a television in his home, you know. If that seems too radical then you could at least move the television out of the living room and into a different room. That's what we did years ago. We moved the television into my and my wife's bedroom. That's not a room the children are allowed to play in so they don't gravitate to the TV. We don't sit around in there during the evening so we don't turn it on haphazardly. This way, we only watch television to unwind for a few minutes before going to sleep. The only TV the kids watch is PBS on Saturday mornings. They come in, wake us up and we watch Thomas the Tank Engine or Bob the Builder together. I cannot imagine letting kids watch more than an hour or so of television per week. Cable and satellite TV are out of the question for obvious reasons.

Jeanette said...

I thought there were supposed to be parental controls on tv's. We have DirecTV, a satellite company, and it has parental controls to lock out channels you don't want your children to watch.

My son-in-law has so many controls on their computer network at home that the children can't visit a site he doesn't know about.

The tools are available if the parents will just take advantage of them. My granddaughter doesn't even know her email password so her parents can check for x rated spam before she sees her email.

Anonymous said...

I am intolerant of intolerance, and that is all.

The same goes for other liberal bloggers, as well, I'm sure.


Antipelagian said...

I am intolerant of intolerance, and that is all

that's just a flowery way of saying you do not tolerate dissidence.

In our culture, when others have a differing worldview, they are typically not allowed a voice since the worldview of "tolerance" is simply an un-argued, pre-packaged metaphysic that biblical Christians cannot accept.

It is telling that Rome allowed many kinds of cults, orgy worship, beastiality, and more...but when the Christians said the emporer wasn't god, they were called atheists and persecuted. There is a certain amount of diversity pagans will allow, but it's only on peripherals or perversions...there's always a central assumption that must never, ever be questioned...that assumption will always be totalitarian, non-inclusive, and intolerant.

Don said...

"Masoni, that's just a flowery way of saying you do not tolerate dissidence."

No s***, Masoni. What's with all the verbal gymnastics? Can't you express your thoughts in simple, straightforward prose?

"In our culture, when others have a differing worldview, they are typically not allowed a voice..."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, AP, but are you suggesting that "biblical Christians" are the "differing worldview" in our society that is "typically not allowed a voice?"

Second, what do we mean by "tolerance," anyways? It seems to me, the concept can mean anything from "you're different from me, but I guess I won't kill you" to "go ahead, have sex with my daughter." So, what are we talking about? Non-interference? Open-armed acceptance? Complete relativism?

Antipelagian said...

No s***, Masoni. What's with all the verbal gymnastics? Can't you express your thoughts in simple, straightforward prose?

Was that directed toward me, or Masoni? I assume me.

I think my comment was straight-forward, and clear.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, AP, but are you suggesting that "biblical Christians" are the "differing worldview" in our society that is "typically not allowed a voice?"

Yes. And more specifically, I mean a biblical voice isn't long as Christians spout off from the assumed pagan starting point of tolerance, we may have a voice. Note, for example, Rick Warren adopting a secular view of homosexual unions.

Second, what do we mean by "tolerance," anyways?

You're right...that's part of the problem. Tolerance will mean almost root, from the pagan view, it will have to do with intolerance of anyone that rejects a man-centered view of reality. Other than that, almost anything is acceptable.

Barb said...

a friend told me that on CNN, some were so mad at Obama's choice of Warren --they even said people like Warren should not be allowed to vote. She is a missionary and said there definitely is anti-Christian bigotry the world over.

There is a liberal blogger who posts consistently a view that Christians are so intolerant that they should have no voice --should even be imprisoned. They should have no say about pubic policy because they merely want to violate church and state separation.

This is an intolerant view toward a vast number of Americans whose motivation is NOT theocratic gov't. or intolerance of anything but moral corruption, porn (recent blade column by Mona charen addressed this and what a blight porn is on the social landscape) and a culture that encourages people to have a mismatch between body and brain such that they crave the abnormal and immoral.

Chrsitians believe there is a God to account to who at least expects us to live decently and uprightly concerning family life, parenting, marriage-and if they are right, the secularists are moving in the wrong direction in the area of public policy when they legalize gay marriage. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves to hear what today's people want to do in the name of liberty--not that they were saints either with their slavery. but it was Christianity that pricked the conscience about slavery and finally abolished it.

the only hope regarding the decline of family life in america is Christianity and its pro-marriage message of love and forgiveness.

Tolerance is co-existance --and when you say you are intolerant of what you call christian intolerance, Masoni, you aren't really listening to the well-thought out positions presented here particularly by Rob. Or mine at your blog. We aren't coming from a position of hate for people who don't agree with us. We see the encouragement of homosexuality as bad for present and future generations.

Tolerance is allowing homosexuality --it doesn't include celebrating and legitimating it and presenting it postively to youth as though homosexuality is as good for them as heterosexuality.

kateb said...

Strange how "intolerant" the "tolerant" party becomes when it has to do with Christianity.

If he'd chosen a Muslim - no problem! If he'd chosen a Wicca - no problem.

Only when it comes to Christianity is there a problem.

The tolerant party has become the INtolerant party.

Jeanette said...

The lefties who claim to be tolerant are only tolerant if you agree with them, but if you disagree even once, they are no longer tolerant.

I've noticed this for over twenty years. There used to be a lefty on the radio station I listened to on my way home from work. He would be very rude to those who disagreed with him. It was then I began to pay more attention and discovered how intolerant these supposedly tolerant people are.

It isn't just here in the US. It's all over the world. Laugh at their dead baby jokes and you're a great person, but tell them abortions are the taking of innocent blood and one of the seven deadliest sins and they go off and call you the crazy one. Go figure.