Comments on: Walk on by

By: OB

OB — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:03:22 +0000

Ohhhhhh, I see. That explains it.

Quite wrong of course. Liberalism and commitment to human rights doesn’t require love – that’s setting the bar much too high. Protection of people’s rights mustn’t depend on their lovability. That’s part of the point. Lovable people don’t have to worry so much about their rights, but non-lovable people damn well do.

By: Josh Slocum

Josh Slocum — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:04:49 +0000

Whoops, I forgot to close a blockquote tag. Sorry for messing this up.

OB, don't be naive. You understand, don't you, that:

1. Since B&W is politically liberal

2. Most of the commenters are politically liberal

3. Liberals are well known for being tolerant and wanting everyone to love each other

That therefore:

4. RQ has called our bluff by catching us not tolerating and acting lovingly toward bigots like Warren who support inhumane treatment of other human beings.

I mean, where's our tolerance now, huh? See how perfectly it makes sense?

By: OB

OB — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:06:18 +0000

What?! Where is it supposed that we all have ‘the love’?

By: rq

rq — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:04:06 +0000

It’s amazing all the love all of you supposedly have…

By: Josh Slocum

Josh Slocum — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:39:27 +0000

Thing have not changed as much as one had hoped and perhaps expected.
Sigh. Too true. Too many of us expected Democrats to enter the phylum chordata.

By: pf

pf — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:05:05 +0000

Rick Warren was chosen by Barack Obama to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration. Not an auspicious choice and rather depressing. In addition, the Catholic Church has been allowed to dictate policy on family planning in the health bill. Thing have not changed as much as one had hoped and perhaps expected.

By: Josh Slocum

Josh Slocum — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:55:01 +0000

Well, bring on whatever adjectives you think are appropriate, Grendel's Dad. Warren deserves the maximum contempt, disgust, loathing, and general shunning that can be applied. Be creative.

By: Grendels Dad

Grendels Dad — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:47:31 +0000

I don’t know if it’s evil, ‘full stop’, Josh. I can think of several more disparaging adjectives that apply. Granted, most of them are just synonyms for evil, or at least imply evil intent. I just hate to see some potentially creative descriptions of this despicable behavior cut short.

The double standard Warren applies burns my biscuits too, OB. ‘As a pastor in America’ he seems to have no qualms about trying to influence everyone from individuals, communities and governments the world over to adopt his dubious, faith based morality. It’s only when people are following his obviously flawed delusions that he becomes so coy.

By: Josh Slocum

Josh Slocum — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:13:57 +0000

Let’s call Warren what he is – evil. Damn him, and damn people like him who would consign suffering people to misery for political gains. It’s evil, full stop.

By: jackpantalones

jackpantalones — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:59:52 +0000

He cares about Ugandans, just not gay ones. Haven’t you heard all about him and his “charitable” work against AIDS in Africa? His allies in Uganda–supporters of this bill, by the way, one of whom has spoken more than once at Warren’s Saddleback Church–have helped reverse the downward trend in infections there by scaring people away from condoms and telling them to put their faith in Jesus, instead.

This bill is purportedly intended to combat the spread of HIV, as well, so it’s no surprise that Warren won’t come out against it. It’s not that he doesn’t care. It’s that he’s in favor of it, or at least doesn’t want to alienate his allies who are behind it.