Waymon Hudson

Rachel Maddow on Rick Warren

Filed By Waymon Hudson | December 20, 2008 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Fundie Watch, Living, Media, Politics, The Movement
Tags: Obama and Rick Warren, Obama Inauguration, Rachel Maddow, Rick Warren

Rachel Maddow gets real about the Warren Fiasco on the Thursday edition of her show.

More video after the jump...

Way to call it out, Rachel. I especially like how she linked back to the history of the LGBT community getting thrown under the bus by our supposed allies.

And does anyone else find it a bit disconcerting that Newsom falls all over himself to say that Warren isn't a bad person?

Newsflash- yes he is, Gavin. Warren is a horrible, horrible person who thinks LGBT people shouldn't exist. That makes him a bad person.

And here's Rachel's follow-up from yesterday's show:

Rachel also brings up an interesting point about gays not being allowed to become part of Warren's church. While this is no surprise (and completely within their right to be exclusionary), to see it explicitly spelled out on their website should cause people to stop and think. I wonder if we would even be having this discussion if Saddleback's website said that some other minority wasn't allowed to be part of their church?

Again, it seems that since Warren just hates on the gays, it's an acceptable "difference of opinion." That's an interesting definition of "inclusion."

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Inviting Rick Warren to speak at the Presidential inauguration is tantamount to inviting O.J. Simpson to speak at a women's shelter. When will the talking heads on TV (like Maddow) stop sugar-coating this turd?

Evan Wolfson guesstimates we will have Federal Marriage Equality in about 30 years (which would almost certainly require equality in employment and the military also).

So we need to either EMBRACE the fact that most of us over 40 will NOT see Full Federal Equality in our lifetime and remain "patient" as our civil rights crawl to the finish line...- OR - We could begin to TREAT the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as it treats US.

Two American Myths:

* Equal Protection Under the Law (except for gays)
* Separation of Church & State (except when the law applies to gays or a woman's womb)

When Obama invited this "christian" to his speak at his inauguration, he invited a man who believes the Q-community are INFERIOR; "less than". Being asked to "respect other's opinions" doesn't fly when those "opinions" are harmful lies about an entire segment of the population. Those "opinions" are tantamount to the extremely offensive beliefs and ideas our country once had about "negros" and "wives", words and ideas that would NEVER FLY TODAY at an inauguration.

Words and ideas that would incite riots today.

The National Equality Tax Protest will be on Wednesday, April 15, 2009.

Let's show Rachel some love. She's taking a huge risk: that she might get shut up in a tiny little box like "our gay reporter, Trisha Takanawa". Instead, she blew out of the frame, showing that it isn't just LGBT people who are against Warren, it's smart, funny people who are against him.

Let's show her some love, please.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 23, 2008 3:27 AM

With dozens of her favorite flowers...Rebroadcasting the giant shocked blink of Anne Curry's when Warren owned up to wanting to fuck nearly every woman in sight was enough for bowers of flowers -- and Ms. Maddow's comment on Warren's suggestion that gay people having to wait until we're the subject of necrophilic interest or hell freezing over to have sex would be equivalent to his not being able to fuck all the women he's attracted to makes Maddow deserving of bowers of flowers for the rest of her (presumably not celibate) life.

Dear Obama:
Didn't you get the message that the American people didn't like Karl Rove and his theory of the perpetual campaign enough not to sully your inauguration with a pig like Warren? I mean, where's your heretofore well-honed care to create a JFK-esque legacy? Clearly, inviting someone who holds views equivalent to a Klansman isn't gonna get you there, no matter how many lies you're telling yourself about being big supporter of gay rights (that nobody who has actually paid attention to the difference between your rhetoric and your actions would believe anyway -- but that's a matter for another day...) Cut your losses while you still have a shot.

I don't have an issue with Rachel. I have an issue with bloggers like Bil saying that Warren is something we can live with.

As a US citizen I'm mad.

My government made me move to a foreign country because it wouldn't recognize my relationship. That's bad enough. Now to have this hate-monger invited by a President I thought would help bring me and mine home? It's infuriating. Absolutely infuriating.

"You gotta problem wif me? You got a problem?!"

Okay - so that's my best Stallone accent. Eh.


I don't like Warren any more than the next guy. I just think it's a strategic mistake to take him on now over something this minor in the grand scheme of things.

Warren is the Obama team trying to play "smart politics"

Inviting Warren starts to silence evangelical critics.

Obama ignoring our objections ends their claims that he is in the pocked of the liberals.

My question for you, Maura, is why any of that is necessary?

Was it evangelicals who got him elected?

No. It was women, and LGBT people, and educated people, most of whom would not feel welcome or comfortable in Warren's congregation.

I agree that Obama might be playing politics, but I wonder how 'smart' it is to infuriate key parts your base right at the start.

It turns out that Warren is a supporter of Bishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who lobbied to pass the most draconian anti-gay laws outside of states under Sharia law.

Penalties of 5 to 15 years hard labour are imposed for offences ranging from two gays being in the same place to possessing material about HIV to actual sex.

All bets are off...whatever Warren may say for American consumption, where the power exists to do it he supports crushing and imprisoning us.

Disrupt the inaguration if he is on the podium. Bring DC to a halt.

We owe it to our brothers and sisters doing hard labour thanks to Akinola and his supporter, Rick Warren...

Having wasted a lot of TBP's electrons commenting on how Obama is playing a deep game and Warren is tactics, not strategy, I finally saw the light.

"It isn't the burglary, it's the coverup."

Fierce advocate my ass!

Warren has supported the most oppressive non-Sharia acts against us, imprisonment and hard labour for JUST BEING IN THE SAME ROOM in numbers of two or more. He is a supporter of Peter Akinola.

He cannot give the invocation without us at least protesting, our brothers and sisters doing 5 to 15 years hard labour in Nigeria for things like handing out HIV materials deserve that much from us, that we not let one of their oppressors gain noteriety and respectability here without our speaking up

So here you are, thought that Obama would 'get it', because he is a member of a minority?

Yeah, he is, but it is a minority that has historically been anti-gay, and to some extent, anti-feminist. Black males have the same hang ups as white males when it comes to the sexes, and sex.

That is also not taking into account that he is just another slimy corporate party politico. The only difference is that he found a message that resonated well with the largest number of people, and he pretty well stuck to it. Remember Barnum and what he said about the American public? Well that applies just as well with politics as it does to show biz and hucksterism. Hell what is politics but a form of hucksterism.

And it doesn't hurt that he came along with his message at a time when the other corporate party was coming off an administration and president that is less popular than even Richard Nixon.

Sorry gang, Same old dog, just a couple of new tricks.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | December 21, 2008 12:15 PM

Yeah, I was also under the impression that white LGBT folks would "get it" because they are minorities. But, white LGBTs have proven again and again that they can be just as bigoted and racist as white straight people.

Sorry. Same old white dog in better outfits.

Not sitting meekly by while President-elect Obama makes the introduction of his Adminstration a prayer by an advocate of murdering heads of state in violation of international law, and an apologist for the man who is getting LGBT's in Nigeria imprisoned for 5 to 15 years while doing hard labour is NOT a mark of racism.

I said it before but I honestly believe that you all(LGBT's in the US) have lived with Bush's transgressions of human rights and international law for so long that you've all become immune to it to some degree.

To a world that was looking forward to a return to established principles of international law on the part of the United States, this sends a scary message.

Intimindation and white racism will get you nowhere, especially if you and Bilerico plan on applying for one of the new blog grants sponsored by priviledged white gay men who have set aside money for this purpose.

Charles, are you really trying to hang a dollar in front of Michael to get him to change his opinions? He's more principled than that, and apparently much more than you are.

A bit low and dirty;
Win by logic, not intimidation....

And does anyone else find it a bit disconcerting that Newsom falls all over himself to say that Warren isn't a bad person?

Not really surprising. Democrats have lots of trouble not calling Republicans and other bad sorts "bad people." Remember how Biden fell backwards over himself to compliment McCain in the VP debate.

But go Rachel. That's more analysis than I ever would have expected from the TV.

I am not giving a grant to Bilerico so I am not being intimidating. Just being realistic. You can't keep knocking a group "priviledged white folks" or "HRC", Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Equality California and expect to get grants or invitations from them. Diplomacy is good business strategy. To read Irene Monroe and Michael Crawford, they slam priviledged white's like they were the scum of the earth. In a way it's rather humorous and predictable. I never read this kind of language from Pam Spaulding. That's why I gave her blog over $2500.00 to send her group to the DNC convention in Denver.

If you've never read about white privilege on Pam's blog, Charles, you haven't been reading very closely. As a black lesbian, it's a common topic.

And a $500 grant isn't nearly enough to give up sharing our own common experiences.

You would have to ask Pam for the exact amount. It was what was needed with only days to go to the DNC. I think the final total of the donations I made was about $3,000.00. Pam was very happy and wanted to know if I wanted public recognition on her blog, and I said no. I was happy to do it having met she and Kate at Jim O'Neal's house in Chapel Hill when I was in North Carolina.
Pam is black not afro-centric. She is quite fair to all, as is President Elect Obama. He would never had been elected if he had mentioned "priviledged white men" in his campaign, and Stan ONeal would never had been made CEO of Merrill/Lynch with that slur.