Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Rick Warren is so frantic to cover his ass that he is even lying about people who are sympathetic toward him. Steven Waldman of Beliefnet, who has been and continues to be highly complimentary toward Warren, was also targeted by Warren in that Larry King Live interview. Warren tried to blame Waldman for his own idiotic statements about gay relationships:
After Rick Warren was selected by Barack Obama to give a prayer at the inauguration, attention turned to comments he made to me during an interview for Beliefnet and WSJ.com in which he appeared to equate homosexual relationships with relationships between siblings or pedophilia. A firestorm erupted.Warren now claims that he got into hot water because of the way I phrased the question.
"I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe," he told Larry King on April 6. (In a subsequent interview with Sarah Pulliam at Christianity Today he made clear he was referring to me).
Waldman provides the transcript of what was said, which you've probably seen before.
"WARREN: The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that [some partnership rights] as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman."
The problem there wasn't the question and now it was asked, it was how Warren answered it. But he cannot admit that so he has to lie and pretend that Waldman did something wrong. Waldman responds with only a portion of the sarcasm this lie warrants:
Had he wanted to clarify that he didn't equate gay marriage with those other relationships he might have slightly altered the wording from "oh, I do" to something like, I dunno, "oh, I don't." That might have been clearer.
Now here's the punchline. After the interview was over, Warren realized that he had said something he didn't want to say and asked for a correction. But not the part has now become so controversial:
After the interview ran, Warren wrote me a note asking if he could clarify some things he said. I gladly printed those clarifications. Interestingly, though, it was not this gay marriage comment he wanted to clarify. Rather he wanted to be clear that he didn't believe civil unions were a constitutional right. ("No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage.")
So you see, the only thing he was concerned about after the interview was that something he said might be interpreted as not being as opposed to recognition of gay relationships as he actually is. He wasn't at all bothered by the fact that he had unequivocally compared gay relationships to pedophilia and incest; he was only concerned that he might come across as not anti-gay enough.
It was only after the controversy began over his other statements that he had to start this series of ridiculous lies and blame it all on someone else:
After the controversy exploded, he issued a video clarifying that he did not equate homosexual relationships with those other kinds. Here's his full statement. He suggested that the misunderstanding happened because the "media loves to create conflict" and bloggers "who really need to get a life" aspire to practice rudeness from the safety of their homes.
Yes Rick, it's everyone's fault but yours. You just keep pumping out those lies and your credulous followers will continue to lap them up. But everyone else now sees perfectly clearly who and what you are, a fraud and a con man.
Politics
Comments
I watched some commentary about this on MSNBC last night. What does anyone think about this being a problem of Wright not knowing how to speak to a group of people that aren't his congregation?
Posted by: Umlud | April 14, 2009 9:27 AM
Another day, another liar for Jesus.
Posted by: The Egg Man | April 14, 2009 9:55 AM
Warren is also guilty of dishonestly inferring that our rights come from the Constitution. The 9th Amendment explicitly notes that:
Even if the 9th were not included, the states would still be violating at least the equal protection clause by marrying heterosexuals but not homosexuals. I would argue the 14th Amendment is not required. However, even if I conceded that it's required in order for the federal government to protect the rights of Americans within tyrannical states; a proper reading of the Constitution given the 14th Amendment demands federal protection of gays' equal protection and liberty rights if states attempt to prohibit the exercise of gays' rights - not that Justices Thomas, Alito or Scalia would agree. I'm sure they'd find some way to defend conservative political objectives.
Warren also continuously lies about atheists' role in using the power of government to commit mass murder, even going so far as dishonestly describing German atrocities in WWII as the work and result of atheism. A correct reading of mass murder by governments would not argue for any causal relationship between mass murder and atheism but instead a causal relationship derives from fiercely ideological one-party authoritarian governments who are not committed to the protection of individual rights but rather the suppression of those rights. This includes Warren's brand of Christianism as well; a topic the mainstream media is too gutless or ignorant to bring up when he lies about the root causes of mass murders by government.
Warren yearns for a state where the government doles out rights, and his kind of Christianist controls that government. He lies by revising history and lies about his intent to hopefully achieve that end.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 14, 2009 10:03 AM
Posted by: WScott | April 14, 2009 10:12 AM
What's funny is that he's wrong in a purely historical sense as well:
The Bible has extensive examples of "one guy having multiple wives", and Mohammed himself was "an older guy marrying a child". And if we're going to talk about every single religion and culture, certainly Egyptian royalty routinely married brothers and sisters.
Posted by: Tulse | April 14, 2009 10:14 AM
Doesn't Islam still allow a man to have 3 wives?
And of course the LDS Church isn't REALLY Christian, after all, their beginnings had polygamy as a basic tenent, until the Federal government abridged the free excersise of their religion for the purpose of conforming to the tyranny of the majority's sensibilities.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | April 14, 2009 10:46 AM
Blaidd Drwg, Islam allows a man to have up to four wives.
Posted by: Martin | April 14, 2009 11:02 AM
Boy marries dog to ward off tiger attacks
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 14, 2009 11:04 AM
And of course the LDS Church isn't REALLY Christian, after all, their beginnings had polygamy as a basic tenent, until the Federal government abridged the free excersise of their religion for the purpose of conforming to the tyranny of the majority's sensibilities.
That's okay, Warren still said every religion and every culture. He doesn't know crapola. He thinks the world is 5000 years old, and the flood happened, and it never rained before the flood, yada yada...
Wow, how very clever a retort.
Posted by: 386sx | April 14, 2009 11:18 AM
Strangely no one has asked the really obvious question
"Bearing in mind the earliest hominids appeared c 5M years ago,
and the earliest Homo sapiens appeared c 120K years ago,
and that the earliest migrants left Africa c 55K years ago,
and that the earliest cities appear c 9K years ago,
So Mr Warren, what of marriages existed before 2991 BCE?" - :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 14, 2009 11:20 AM
So Mr Warren, what of marriages existed before 2991 BCE?
He probably thinks the first marriage was Adam and Eve. I would say the odds he thinks Adam and Eve were the first couple are pretty good considering he thinks the Noah's ark was real! And it never rained before the flood! Good grief...
Posted by: 386sx | April 14, 2009 11:34 AM
Michael Heath:
This is a question about Warren's position, not a defense of it: is Warren's argument really for some atheist conspiracy theory? Or is he simply arguing a 'no true Scotsman' variant, i.e. anyone who commits atrocity was obviously not religious enough? The latter may be idiotic and somewhat offensive, but you hear it all the time. Its at least understandable. The former is just bats**t crazy, and I'd be surprised if he was saying that.
Posted by: eric | April 14, 2009 11:38 AM
As obvious as it is that Warren is lying, it's even more obvious to me that Michael Heath nails his true motivation:
Warren yearns for a state where the government doles out rights, and his kind of Christianist controls that government. He lies by revising history and lies about his intent to hopefully achieve that end.
Once you try to pretend that enforcing religious customs is not your aim, the whole charade falls apart. He's lying specifically to cover for his other lies, which means he needs to lie again. If he was upfront about his theocratic wishes, he wouldn't be able to gain as much influence. He's probably deluded himself into thinking that he's above that, but he's clearly not.
Posted by: Odie | April 14, 2009 11:45 AM
The thing with Islam allowing a man to have up to four wives is that he can only marry them one at a time; thus keeping the "one man and one woman" rule, even if only in a technicality. At least, this was how one anti- gay marriage person put it to me when I brought up various polygamous cultures, both ancient and modern, in response to his claim that marriage has been "1M+1W" since, like, forever. He also said that incestuous marriages, such as those of ancient Egyptian royalty, fit too since it was between a brother and sister.
As for Rick Warren, I doubt he really has a strong opinion regarding gay marriage either way, if any at all. Naturally, he'll claim which ever position he feels will increase or retain his popularity (and, by extension, his bank account). As a result, we have the dance he is performing right now. He simply has no idea which will keep him in the good graces of most people.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | April 14, 2009 11:48 AM
Posted by: llewelly | April 14, 2009 11:56 AM
Tee hee.
The people of Eridu (first occupied c5700 BCE) never seemed to notice the mysterious lack of rain*, or Jerico for that matter (first occupied c 7000 BCE). But then again they were on (or near) rivers. But how were the rivers filled with water?
Mr Warren enquiring minds need to know. ;) - DJ
*Curiously, Eridu had a large ziggurat dedicated to Enki, the god of the waters (amongst other things).
Posted by: DingoJack | April 14, 2009 11:58 AM
I'm originally from Southern California, and am familiar with the megachurches in the area (Saddleback among them).
I find the backpeddling apologist Rick Warren so much creepier than the out-and-out homophobe Rick Warren. His actions of the past few months (since the inauguration?) have been showing that he's no longer content just fleecing his flock. He's trying to go mainstream, and I'm concerned that the lack of mainstream coverage of his straight out lies means he might succeed in increasing his influence.
Posted by: Paul | April 14, 2009 11:58 AM
Eric asked me:
In both instances I've heard Warren bring the subject up, he was not making a no true Scotsman argument. Instead he brought the subject up by referring to supposed conversations with atheists where they made a claim that religion tied to government has caused those governments to commit gross atrocities against humanity. Warren claims he counters by stating that atheistic governments have committed far worse atrocities, where he refers to Stalin, two or three SE Asian atrocities (I forget which ones), and Germany. According to Warren, this leaves his atheist "friends" quivering.
I've heard Warren discuss this subject last year on the 2008 Easter Edition of Meet the Press and just recently, possibly the Larry King Live Show he was on recently. Neither host/moderator challenged him on his dishonesty.
What was particularly interesting about his lying about this on Meet the Press is that I've observed that it's somewhat rare for guests on the "expert" panel to lie on that show, even the big fat liars. Most try and make arguments as if they were above petty partisan politics even when lying for the cause is how they earn their keep. At worst, they keep their lies to a minimum. Warren treated the panel that day just like any other gig and lied his ass off, which is why I remember his performance so vividly.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 14, 2009 12:16 PM
Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage.
Well, I do not see anything in the constitution about this being a Christian nation.
Note to conservatives: This selective literalism wasn't funny the first time.
Posted by: Blue Nine | April 14, 2009 12:31 PM
Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage.
In fact, the U.S. Constitution offers no definition of marriage at all. So arguments against gay marriage can't be supported by reference to the Constitution.
Posted by: stinger | April 14, 2009 1:33 PM
Michael Heath:
Okay thanks for that answer, though it really doesn't clear it up for me. Sticking (Nazi) Germany on that list is a real nonsequitur and simply adds a possibility to the list of interpretations:
1 - Warren thinks the government was controlled by a cadre of atheists, so the copious evidence for Nazi involvement with religion doesn't matter (atheist conspiracy)
2 - Warren thinks no truly 'Christian' nation would have done those acts, therefore Germany must have been atheist despite the copious evidence of Nazi involvment with religion. (No true Scotsman)
...and now the newly added...
3 - Warren is blatantly ignoring the copious evidence of the government's involvment with religion (historic revisionism).
Posted by: eric | April 14, 2009 2:14 PM
Rick Warren explains that atheism is caused by daddy issues
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | April 14, 2009 2:47 PM
add 4) Warren believes that 'atheist' means 'non-Christian', and this definition varies with his immediate requirements.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | April 14, 2009 2:50 PM
Atheists hate their dads!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/12/rick-warren-explains-the-new-atheism/
Posted by: tweetybirdie386sx | April 14, 2009 8:03 PM
Sorry Herod the Freemason I didn't see you already posted that link. Sorry about that.
Posted by: 386sx | April 14, 2009 8:04 PM
I am not a scholar of the Constitution, but I would be interested in making a case that the refusal to allow religious institutions to perform same-sex weddings is a violation of their First Amendment "free exercise" right. Am I missing something?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 14, 2009 8:53 PM
People proud about how anti-gay they are will, in 40 years, be seen the same way we look back today at people blocking school doors to keep the nigras out.
Posted by: steve s | April 14, 2009 10:24 PM
Paul- as a fellow resident of SoCal, you must have noticed the distressing size of Saddleback Church- I think we can safely say that Warren IS mainstream. That church has more members than my university had students. Hell, it might actually have more members than my college town had residents.
>shudder
Posted by: Briny Deep | April 14, 2009 10:33 PM
Shocking, I know.
Posted by: Paul Murray | April 15, 2009 12:59 AM
"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one." [Qur'an 4:3]
So that's half the planet: Jews forbade polygamy in 1950, Hindus in 1954, Mormons in 1890 ...
Rick Warren is an ignoramus.
Posted by: Uzza | April 15, 2009 2:56 AM
There is not one single definition of marriage in every single culture and society all over the world. Surely even Warren knows that?
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | April 15, 2009 6:18 AM
@Brinydeep
Of course I'm familiar with the scale of the place. It has likely grown since I left SoCal, but as of 2005 membership was about 20k people. Are you saying that if a cult has 20k members it would be considered mainstream solely based on that?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic. Just pointing out that there's a difference between being a creepy big fish in a small (thinking national scale) pond and a creepy big fish trying to influence a huge pond. I'm just not sure that a lot of people he's trying to reach out to will pay enough attention to catch his lies and deception, and the thought makes me uncomfortable.
Posted by: Paul | April 15, 2009 12:44 PM
@ Paul-
my argument is that, if one big creepy fish has been able to survive in one small pond, then it is conceivable that all the other small ponds might be harboring similar creepy fish. taking into consideration the size of Saddleback, and the number of books Warren has sold, i think it's fair to say that he's appealing to a sizeable segment of the population.
as nutty as I think the cult is, I fear that they're not as far out on the fringe as one would hope!
Posted by: Briny Deep | April 16, 2009 1:38 AM