A Disappointing, Divisive Choice

To everyone who asked about the Episcopal Church's involvement in the lawsuit, I'd like to quote an article about it at: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/18889/

"The diocesan official informed me that Bishop Chane's participation in the lawsuit is as a private citizen, not in his capacity as Bishop of the Diocese of Washington. The Diocese of Washington is not involved in the legal action."

****

I personally think that it's commendable that a member of the clergy is such a staunch defender of the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state inherently implies that every person, including clergymen, can have religious ideas and political ideas that don't necessarily agree. Many Christians would never get an abortion, but they remain pro-choice because they don't believe that the government should legislate based on religious doctrine.

Bishop Chane:

As an Episcopalian and a big fan of you, I'm glad my Bishop has the moral character to take a stand as a citizen of the District of Columbia.

tbarks,

Comparing Warren to the KKK is absurd on every level. Regardless of my opinion of the man, it seems to me that his stance against gay marriage is shared by a majority of the population. In fact, if you look at the ballot initiatives and the voting referendums on this issue across the country back in 2004-2006, you'll see that an overwhelming majority of people opposed gay marriage. I hardly doubt that you would find that kind of support for the KKK, even in the most southern states.

Also, I don't believe Mr. Warren is intimating that gays are child molesters. He is making the obvious point that if you redefine marriage and remove the man/woman exclusion that has been tied to it for the last 200 years, then you very well need to redefine it for EVERYONE. That is, redefining marriage to include man/man or woman/woman now discriminates against man/man/woman or father/daughter (of legal age), doesn't it?

Finally. I wonder if you have issues with him speaking considering his anti-abortion platform as well?

Amen to you, Rev. Chane.

I have posted the idea that, to understand the implications of Obama's invitation to Warren, imagine if Lyndon Johnson had given a prominent role in his 1964 inauguration to the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. I raised this theoretical idea specifically in response to the plethora of commentators who justify Warren's role under the "big tent" rubric: it's always a good thing, they argue, to reach out to people with differing viewpoints, even to those who might oppose your position. Let everybody have a voice. Unity is better than divisiveness. Unity, in fact, trumps everything.

I hope the idea of LBJ's inviting the KKK Grand Dragon to his inauguration shows the phoniness behind the "big tent" rationalization. It would have been seen as palpable nonsense for the KKK to be given a role in an inauguration in the midst of the Civil Rights battle, all in the name of unity. In fact, it still would. No American would be taken seriously if he argued that giving the KKK, or any extremist voice, a seat at the table in the name of unity trumped all other considerations. On the contrary. The right and moral thing to do would be to explicitly deny such voices a role in an inauguration.

But in addition to this general argument, I also have specific words of Warren in mind. Those are the ones in which Warren offered a list of partnerships that he believed would be wrong: "a brother and sister being together, an older guy marrying a child and a guy having multiple wives."

Comparing gay relationships to incest, child sexual exploitation, and bigamy, in my opinion, is the equivalent of referring to blacks with the "N" word. It bespeaks a bigoted mind and a bigoted outlook. It's bigotry, no less than the bigotry exhibited by those who openly call for discrimination against blacks. Neither viewpoint should be given legitimacy in America.

To those who argue that Warren is part of mainstream America, let me remind you of something I have a feeling that you and many other Americans have forgotten, or never knew: The KKK was once considered a respectable organization, and not just by flaming racist fanatics. The KKK had widespread support among "respectable" Americans. The KKK regularly marched in civic parades, and not just in the South.

And let me make my central point again: We decent Americans relegated the once respectable, mainstream KKK to the margins of this society, not by inviting them into the tent in the name of unity, but by kicking them out of the tent and telling them never to return. Rick Warren, with his hateful characterization of gays, has shown himself as just one more bigot. I could not care less that many "respectable" Americans worship at his feet, any more than I care that many Americans still consider the KKK respectable. It's time to put the Rick Warrens of the world on the dust bin of history, just like we did the other bigots, the KKK.

Dear DMZ1:

Actually, I like Barney better than Rick. Maybe Barack should have him speak. But seriously, I like Barack too, and I think we should give him some room to maneuver. I am not ready to go nuts over this two-minute speech from a popular self-help author, whatever his shortcomings.

TheModerate:

Early in this thread, you posted in direct response to Chane: 'Yes he can. During the campaign, Obama said repeatedly that he wanted to create a centrist governing coalition because neither of the extreme wings could govern effectively.'

Yes, Obama did say that, but all it did was demonstrate his lack of knowledge about U.S. history and reflect poor judgement. There has never been a left wing President of the U.S. There have been several ultra right wingers. So, in fact, only one 'extreme' has ever been tested, and, therefore, Obama could not possibly know that neither 'extreme' could govern effectively.

I will be the first to acknowledge that both Warren and Frank are human beings. But, to my knowledge, Frank has never sought to deny equality under the law to some subset of American citizens. Both Warren and Obama have. Frank never said that he would not vote for someone because they were straight or atheist or Christian or Jew or anything else. Warren has. I'm straight, but I'll opt for Frank over Warren any day.

John? *Crickets chirping* The silence is deafening... What are you doing? And why?

Farnaz:

"My post on the lawsuit Chane is involved with seems to be self-explanatory--that is, if you clicked on the link to the WaPo article."

I did read the WaPo article. It is still not clear to me why this matter is being taken to court by John Bryson Chane (using his position in my church as an implicit credential to suggest his authority as a Plantiff).

The question for your consideration is this: Would it matter if Central Union Mission helped the homeless of all faiths or no faith?

The distinction being that if they only served Christians, there is a clear separation of church and state issue involved with providing abandoned land to the organization to get it off the city's books and into the service of the homeless. On the other hand, if they serve all comers, and make no requirement that those served adopt a particular religion to be served, then the separation issue is much less clear.

What are your thoughts?

Dear Bishop Chane:

In regards to your lawsuit against the District of Columbia in the matter of Central Union Mission: Are you using any money that comes to the Diocese from the parishes? Are you using Diocese staff and resources? As a concerned Episcopalian I would like an explanation for your suit, and one of what makes Central Union Mission worth suing over.

MOderate:

My post on the lawsuit Chane is involved with seems to be self-explanatory--that is, if you clicked on the link to the WaPo article.

Any other questions you have would seem best directed to him.

Farnaz

Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

Moderate:

You posted again to me, but did not address this:

"But what you were doing with your Morton Smith thing was "Christian Baiting", and you know it."

What are you talking about? I think you have me confused with another blogger.

December 24, 2008 9:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Farnaz:

"Chane's position seems unobjectionable..."

As an Episcopalian, I would like to know if Chane is using my money to pursue this. I would find that objectionable. There are enough anti-religious people to spend money on that. They, and Chane, are welcome to do it without my help.

Do you presume that the Central Union Mission refuses help to people of all faiths or none? Now that would be objectionable, but do you have any indication that is the case?

Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it.

Good Solstice to all who celebrate it.

Happy Hanukkah to all who celebrate it.

Best of the season to all.

Farnaz:

"I see nothing in your posts that bespeaks moderation,..."

Do not mistake "moderate" for "wishy-washy" or spineless.

My style is to research the facts carefully and state them as best as I can. While my research is not uniformly perfect, I do it in good faith and am open to correction on the facts. That the facts of history were unwelcome to many anti-religious extremists who frequented this forum early on does not make me any less moderate.

Dear EFAVORITE :

"To the Moderate - Yep - I voted for Obama too.

I voted for Kerry in the last election and Gore in the one before that.

How about you?"

I also voted of Kerry in 2004, but I made the mistake of voting for Bush in 2000. By 2004, seeing the damage he was doing, I had learned my lesson and switched.

NEVERMORE53:

Thanks for the links. I will follow them to see where they lead.

Listening to Rick Warren in his sermon on C-Span as I type. Just said "I have no right to hate anyone. I am a called to to love others." Big problems he identifies are endemic disease, self-centered leadership, and lack of educational opportunities. Not all bad, so far. Maybe he will get to evolution by the end. :-)

He has gotten rich on his best selling books but has become a "reverse tither". That is, he gives 90% of his income to his ministry. He also repaid his entire salary from before he got rich to his church.

Wikipedia on Rick Warren:

"Warren holds conservative theological and political views. Though maintaining traditional evangelical positions on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, Warren has called on the church to also focus its efforts on causes not traditionally associated with evangelicals, such as fighting international poverty and disease, expanding educational opportunities for the marginalized, and caring for the environment. During the 2008 presidential election, Warren hosted the Civil Forum on The Presidency featuring both John McCain and Barack Obama at his church."

So the question might be: Can you work with someone who has a mixed bag of beliefs but some good goals? I think that is the question of Barack is addressing. That said, he does seem to have some extreme positions, and not a few antediluvian ones.

Nevermore,

Thank you! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Happy Hanukka (sp??) to you and yours!

Rob-Roy, the Moderate,

Here is a recent WaPo article on the lawsuit Bishop Chane is involved with. At least as described in the article, Chane's position seems unobjectionable to me. But I'd certainly like to know more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803380.html

Hi again, Moderate!

I was a little surprised that you asked me about links corroborating what I thought about this issue. I thought everyone knew that marriages are only recognized legally when a marriage certificate has been filed with the appropriate gonvernmental institution. Is far as Mr. Warren is concerned, I believe the Wikipedia account to be correct and to the point.

Definition of marriage: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Rick Warren: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren

Merry Christmas!!!

Mr. Chane,

I'm not in agreement with all of Rick Warren's positions, but I would not say that he is divisive. He has just as much of a right to campaign for the things he believes than we do for the things we believe. Responses like yours that condemn Rick Warren for being divisive are rather divisive themselves.

Moderate

"But what you were doing with your Morton Smith thing was "Christian Baiting", and you know it."

What are you talking about? I think you have me confused with another blogger.

To the Moderate - Yep - I voted for Obama too.

I voted for Kerry in the last election and Gore in the one before that.

How about you?

Dear Rev Chane

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2009!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Dear NEVERMORE53:

Interesting points. Can you provide links? I really don't know much about Rick Warren myself. I do know that this kind of person attracts a lot of attention from all quarters. Do you have links to substantiate your suggestions?

Dear Farnaz"

"Thank you for the pardon: As a Jew I don't believe in hell, but do believe in bigots."

I offer you no pardon, because as you know, none is needed.

But I believe in bigots too.

Dear John Chane:

Can you tell us what is going on here? We understand that websites have strong opinions, but this law suit against the District of Columbia does list you as the first Plaintiff. Are you doing this out of your own funds, or are you using the funds and resources of the Diocese of Washington to prosecute this? Either way, why are you doing this?

Here is one of the references that Rob-Roy makes:

http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2008/09/bishop-chane-files-lawsuit-against.html

"SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2008

Bishop Chane files lawsuit against Central Union Mission, home of CANA mission Don't blink. The Episcopal Church is fast replacing its former motto "The Episcopal Church Welcomes to You," with "The Episcopal Church Sues You."

Bishop John Chane's lawsuit is here.

Central Union Mission is a highly-respected mission outreach to the homeless of Washington, D.C. Where other city outreaches to the homeless fail, Central Mission remains a crucial component to the church's commitment for justice and compassion for all. You can read more about the amazing work of Central Mission here.

I first became engaged in Central Union Mission when I assisted on an Alpha Course that was sponsored jointly by Central Union Mission and Christ the Redeemer Church in Virginia.

To better serve the city and it's people in crisis, Central Union Mission plans to relocate to the former Gales School which it is all ready renovating for the move. You can read more about that here.

That the Bishop of Washington - with the backing of his allies - would seek to destroy this model for mission in the city is one thing."

The lawsuit is here:

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/D.C._Central_Mission_Complaint.pdf?docID=3101

Dear Farnaz:

"Of course they are not all the same. That isn't the point."

What is the point then?

You rightly complain about anti-Jewish bigotry. But what you were doing with your Morton Smith thing was "Christian Baiting", and you know it.

Farnazz, there is, of course, a story behind the story. One of the sponsoring churches of the homeless shelter organization just happens to be a Virginia that split off from the crumbling Episcopal denomination.

It turns out that Mr. Chane's diocese is somewhat disavowing the action and stating that he is acting as a private citizen. However, in the formal complaint, Mr Chane describes himself as "The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane is the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington."

Rob-Roy:

I found the link for the law suite you referred to. I've started reading it. The search results don't yield a lot of explanation.

Could you give us an idea of what the stakes were? Seems like an awful lot of money was involved.

NOw, why, oh why, doesn't that surprise me. It disappoints, yes, but surprises? No.

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/D.C._Central_Mission_Complaint.pdf?docID=3101

Doesn't Mr. Chane have some more homeless shelters to sue (Google "chane sue homeless" if you haven't heard about Mr. Chane's inclusive love.)

So Christians aren't Christians if they don't pass Mr. Chane's litmus test of "inclusivity" (code word for giving blessing on people involved in sexual relations outside of Christian marriage)?

Sorry, Mr. Chane you empty theologically. People are abandoning the Episcopal denomination (the fastest declining) in droves. It will soon be so "inclusive" that it will consist of a few Caucasian homosexuals.

Nevermore,

We are in agreement on all points.

Farnaz

The Moderate:

Of course they are not all the same. That isn't the point.

Farnaz,

Also, I have taken some of the Christians you are talking about to task, or at need apart.

Farnaz:

Not all Christians are the same. You have to get to know the ones you are dealing with. Isn't assuming the contrary the very definition of "prejudice"?

Moderate;

Thank you for the pardon: As a Jew I don't believe in hell, but do believe in bigots.

I posted a link on Jacoby's thread to an article in the LA Times, which I'd never trust in and of itslef. However, this is the third newspaper to speak to his antiJewish racism, not an unusual phenomenon among Christians as we've see frequently on this blog, most recently on Edgar Bronfman's thread.

Now, I'm awaiting comment from Ms. Evans on said racism and how it fits in with Christmans "humility," btw. Will let you know if she replies.

Mr. Warren's stupid antisemism is one thing. It's stupid. His "love" for gays is another--its oppressive. And then there is his "love" for Muslims.

What I'd like him to write to me is a statement on his personal and "professional" finances.

Dear Farnaz:

As a Christian, I don't think you are going to hell. I don't know about Rick Warren on this but I doubt that he thinks the Jews are automatically hell-bound. Why not write him and ask?

As for considering opponents in an argument human, I do not think that is intellectual or moral surrender to do that. I can still heartily disagree with both you and Rick and think you are both human. I also think Barack and Barney are human.

Be well.

Mod

Moderate,

Warren is one of those "Love the sinner, hate the sin" Christians, which is one the the most moronic phrases ever coined and regurgitated by some of the most moronic people alive.

As far as I am concerned Warren doesn't love anyone but himself. He is building himself a little tax exempt empire, yet consistently meddles in politics. Where on earth is the separation of church and state. Revoke his tax exempt status!

He hijacks "marriage" as if it was a Christian institution. Last time I looked you are not legally "married" unless the government says you are.

Therefore, marriage is a civil right and merely a religious rite. It's about time that the good pastor and others of ilk his understand that.

What is your take on this, Farnaz?

I truly cannot understand preachers who promote hate from their pulpit. Why would Rick Warren spend so much time and energy to take away existing rights to a segment of the population that he doesn't even come in contact with? I am so upset at Obama's choice, now I think maybe I should not have voted for him.

The Moderate:

I see nothing in your posts that bespeaks moderation, nor have I seen any in Warren's pronouncements. Yes, I've heard Warren profess his love for gays and Muslims. Somehow, those I know, including two Muslim academics in Pakistan, just can't feel the love. Read the article for which I provided a link. Scroll down.

As a Jew, I've been listening keenly for some retraction of the barbaric notion that I'm going to hell because I don't think the way he does.

Maybe, he can't see it, what with all the hellfire and damnation smoke in his eyes. Now, you have every right to oppose gay marriage, while "loving gays," consign me to hell, presumably while loving Jews, fight for the restoration of separate but equal in southern schools, whatever.

Just don't think that everyone else will go along with your moral and intellectual surrender.

Farnaz,

As "the moderate" it is my job to offend everyone from time to time. Today may just be your turn. :-)

The liberal wing nuts are characteristically tolerant only of people who are ideologically pure enough not to offend them. Isn't it easy to be tolerant of people you agree with?

Just like the conservative wing nuts, the liberal wing nuts go off the rails when they encounter disagreement, and demonize their opponents.

Does it help to demonize one another at the outset with statements like:

"This Rick Warren has pledged himself to injustice. To me and to many others, he is despicable: a homophobe, a sexist, a racist."

Did you know that Warren recently said:

"Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

What was that about? Could he be coming to a new understanding of his brothers and sisters on planet earth?

Maybe Rick Warren and Barney Frank are BOTH trying to do what they think is right as seen from their backgrounds and points of view. Could Obama be trying to bring the communities they represent into dialog?

Bishop Chane:

From a Jewish perspective, he has "sat with hypocrites" (David).

As you probably know, for Jews, justice and love are nearly one. This Rick Warren has pledged himself to injustice. To me and to many others, he is despicable: a homophobe, a sexist, a racist.

Who will we get for the next inauguration? Minister Thomas, Aryan Nation? Is he worse than Warren. Of course. Are there better than Warren?
Everywhere.

Right here, Bishop Chane, on this blog, there is you. I do not believe that clergy should have a place at inaugurations. But if they must, then someone like you would have made a far better representative.

FROM TODAY'S LA TIMES:

But on the signal issues of the religious right he is, as he himself has said, as orthodox as James Dobson.

And as inflammatory. Warren doesn't just oppose gay marriage, he's compared it to incest and pedophilia. He doesn't just want to ban abortion, he's compared women who terminate pregnancies to Nazis and the pro-choice position to Holocaust denial. (Hmmm ... If a fertilized egg is as precious as a born Jewish human being, does that mean a born Jewish human being is only as valuable as a fertilized egg?)

Speaking of Jews, Warren has publicly stated his belief that they will burn in hell, presumably along with everyone else who hasn't accepted his particular brand of Christianity (i.e., the vast majority of people in the world). And forget about evolution -- the existence of homosexuals, he's argued, disproves Darwin. And while we may not know how old the Earth is, the Saddleback website assures us that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-pollitt22-2008dec22,0,6597471.story

Dear John,

The homosexual issue is a red herring.

The real issue is that you have lost your way. Doubt it? Ask your self: "Do I actually believe a word of the Nicene Creed?"

... or are you okay with Katharine Jefferts Schori when she said: “Those creeds are not about checking off a bunch of propositions."?

... or are you okay with John Shelby Spong when he said: “Life has taught us that theism is dead.”?

It is okay to be an Atheist, or an Agnostic, or a Deist. Many fine people are. But should you be taking pay as a Bishop and occupying a prestige pulpit of the Episcopal Church if you have decided you are one of those? If you lost the faith you swore to when you were ordained, why are you still there?

Dear EFavorite:

"-- did you vote for Obama?"

Yep. How about yourself?

Hello, the Moderate -- just curious -- did you vote for Obama?

Dear John,

"In selecting Rick Warren, president-elect Obama was trying to signal his willingness to work with both sides in our country's culture wars."

Yes he can. During the campaign, Obama said repeatedly that he wanted to create a centrist governing coalition because neither of the extreme wings could govern effectively.

So now you are surprised that he can treat both Rick Warren and Barney Frank as a human beings at the same time? Sounds like adults are coming to town in January. Personally, I couldn't be happier.

Do you actually have a problem with that?

Something Joe Biden said in one of the debates...Senator Obama and I do not support same sex marriage. We do support civil unions. On this issue, the president-elect an Warren seem to agree. It must only be a divisive choice if you disagree with it.

Rev Chane: "in selecting Warren to deliver the invocation at his Inauguration, the president-elect has unfortunately conferred legitimacy on attitudes that are deeply contrary to God's all inclusive love."

Really - is that how Obama explained it? NOOOO - That's completely your interpretation. Here's what Obama said in a press interview: "Let me start by talking about my own views. It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my Presidency. What I have also said is that it is important for Americans to come together even though we may disagree on certain social issues."

There - now perhaps you could write something based on what obama actually said -- assuming you think there's any value to his exact words.