Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


Should Rick Warren Be Fired For His Position on Gay Partnerships?

posted by swaldman

Since Rich Cizik was just booted from his leadership role at the National Association of Evangelicals for supporting civil unions for gays, I found it fascinating that Rick Warren — the leading evangelical pastor in America — basically just said the same thing.
Here’s the relevant passage from a just-released interview with Beliefnet and the Wall Street Journal:

Beliefnet: Do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?
Warren: I don’t know if I’d use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.
Beliefnet: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?
Warren: You know, not a problem with me.

Of course the difference between Warren and Cizik is not substantive, it’s that Warren is untouchable — the much beloved “America’s Pastor” — and Cizik has been getting under the skin of religious conservatives for some time. They were looking for a reason to show him the door.
Warren, who supported Proposition 8, made a number of other notable statements on gay marriage and civil unions.
He chided religious conservatives for spending so much more time on gay marriage than divorce. Asked which was a bigger threat to the Ameerican family, divorce or gay marriage, he laughed and declared, “That’s a no brainer. Divorce. There’s no doubt about it.” The reason gay marriage gets more attention, he said, is, “we always love to talk about other sins more than ours.”
But Warren, who pastors Saddleback Church in Orange County, California, did not back off his support for Proposition 8 at all, and his general mindset about gay marriage will still strike many gays as insulting. He says gays marrying would be akin to siblings marrying or an older man marrying a child.
The full Rick Warren interview can be viewed here.
UPDATE: 12/15 Pastor Warren sent us some clarification of his views. They’ve been added to the transcript. The gist:

“I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. 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. It’s just not there….
I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no -zero -effect on those rights.
BOTTOM LINE:
1. God, who always acts out of love and does what is best for us, thought up sex. Sex was God’s idea, not ours. Like fire, and many other things God gave us, sex can be used for good, or abused in ways that harm. The Designer of sex has clearly and repeatedly said that he created sex exclusively for husbands and wives in marriage. Whenever God’s parameters are violated, it causes broken hearts, broken families, emotional hurt and shame, painful memories, and many other destructive consequences. There would be so STDs in our world if we all played by the rules.
2. God gives me the free choice to follow his commands or willfully disobey them so I must allow others to have that same free choice. Loving, trusting, and obeying God cannot be forced. In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.
3. If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God’s sexual instructions, it is not the US government’s role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government’s role to classify just any “loving” relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.
4. Much of this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don’t believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights. What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary. Any disapproval is quickly labeled “hate speech. Imagine if we held that standard in every other disagreement Americans have? There would be no free speech. That’s why, on the traditional marriage side, many saw Prop 8 as a free speech issue: Don’t force me to validate a lifestyle I disagree with. It is not the same as marriage.” And many saw the Teacher’s Union contribution of $3 million against Prop 8, as a effort to insure that children would be taught to approve what most parents disapprove of.

UPDATE #2: Warren’s comments on gay marriage have stirred a lot of anger in the blogosphere — especially his statement that he supported Prop 8 on freedom of speech grounds. Andrew Sullivan writes:

“Well, yes, you could be considered as engaging in hate speech. But so what? As long as there are no criminal or legal penalties for religious speech – as guaranteed by the First Amendment – being called a hater is part of living in a democracy. I should say that I would not use the term “hate” for a principled theological defense of heterosexual normativity. And I have engaged very deeply with the arguments on those grounds. But fanning paranoia among Christians that somehow civil gay equality requires that they lose any free speech rights whatsoever is irresponsible, and presumably a conscious untruth.
If Rick Warren refuses to acknowledge my husband as my husband, fine. But my pointing this out is not a denial of his free speech in any way.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(54)
post a comment
Michele McGinty

posted December 15, 2008 at 11:54 am


Oh for the days when you kicked out for your view on the Trinity or the deity of Christ! Now we quibble over marriage. Sad, very sad!



report abuse
 

LutheranChik

posted December 15, 2008 at 12:30 pm


Fired from what? He’s not [i]my[/i] pastor. And the whole idea of some celebrity clergyperson acting as “America’s pastor” is ridiculous anyway.



report abuse
 

REteach

posted December 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm


I suspect they would fire Jesus for his stance on a lot of things, too. Why love your neighbors as yourself when you can manufacture reasons to keep them down?



report abuse
 

Michael

posted December 15, 2008 at 1:19 pm


I don’t think Warren is saying the same thing as Cizik.
Warren is saying he believes in equal rights for everyone — which every social conservative leader in America believes. The difference there is that Warren and those leaders believe gays ALREADY have equal rights. As a social conservative who has followed this closely, I’m certain that’s what he’s referencing. Warren wasn’t clear, but he certainly doesn’t support civil unions or their equivalent.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted December 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm


Warren is right about divorce. being a much larger issue than whether gays marry.
To get equal rights such as health insurance from a partner’s employer it would seem some kind of legal arrangement would be needed.
It does not matter what it is called gay people deserve equal treatment. If they want to call it marriage, it should be called marriage. They should have the right to visit a partner in a hospital and other decisions.
Men and women have not been very successful in marriage. Seems ironic that people want to act high and mighty about gays getting married.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm


Dear Your Name, December 15, 2008 1:17 PM
“Warren is saying he believes in equal rights for everyone — which every social conservative leader in America believes.”
Pure and utter B.S. Warren demonstrably does not believe any such thing, nor do most social conservative ‘leaders’ in America.
“The difference there is that Warren and those leaders believe gays ALREADY have equal rights.”
More delusion (aka false witness, aka a big fat stinkin’ LIE).
There are more than 1,176 rights that gay Americans do not have that you betterosexuals have – because of the DOMA. Isn’t bearing false witness a sin anymore?
There are still 37 States in which gay Americans citizens can still be fired (or not hired in the first place) merely for being gay, sometime only for being suspected of being gay.
There are at least 30 States where gay people may NOT even enter into “civil” unions (or ‘domestic partnerships’ – pick your euphemism) – nevermind equal marriage, many of which forbid any of the ‘effects’ of marriage from being given to gay couples. This is the reason why, in Michigan, for example, corporations are now forbidden by law to grant same-sex couples health insurance benefits – even if they want to.
Why are so many self-described “Christians” such big fat liars?



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted December 15, 2008 at 5:41 pm


Rick Warren said Gays marrying is akin to brothers and sisters marrying and an adult marrying a child. This is ridiculous, and really insulting to Homosexual people and their heterosexual parents and relatives. He should be fired from something after saying this. I have not resubscribed to Ladies Home Journal because he is a monthly writer. I do not like to have my friends and relatives insulted by anyone.



report abuse
 

Tim

posted December 15, 2008 at 5:41 pm


Gays already have equal rights? That’s news to me. Wonder why I can’t get a marriage license then?
You write that Warren believes that “gays marrying would be akin to siblings marrying or an older man marrying a child.” What’s the reasoning behind that? My guess is that there is none; it’s just hyperbolic nonsense disguised as argument.
Given Warren’s theological ineptitude, I ask again: Why do you bother with this guy?



report abuse
 

Steven Waldman

posted December 15, 2008 at 5:43 pm


LutheranChik,
I was not intending Warren should actually be fired from anything.
I was merely using that as a provocative way (hopefully) of noting that Warren won’t get in trouble for saying something that just got Cizik fired



report abuse
 

JonAtFaithUCC

posted December 16, 2008 at 10:48 am


Just read the update. So he’s against civil unions, but is okay with California’s domestic partnership law. Apparently, he doesn’t give a toss about the gay couples in Arizona or Florida or any other the other states where we don’t have such laws and Christian legal groups are pumping money into lawsuits to dismantle any local DP registries or benefits. Whatever, Rick…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm


Frankly, we should not be concerned with any person’s opinion. If we are brutally honest with ourselves we can only come to one conclusion. GOD’S word does not support and can’t be interpreted as supporting homosexual relationships. HE said it and that does it!!



report abuse
 

Husband

posted December 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm


Tim,
“You write that Warren believes that “gays marrying would be akin to siblings marrying or an older man marrying a child.” What’s the reasoning behind that? My guess is that there is none; it’s just hyperbolic nonsense disguised as argument.
Given Warren’s theological ineptitude, I ask again: Why do you bother with this guy?”
What Warren said is no different that what Mike Hucklebee said/continues to say – namely, that gay marriage is the equivalent of “marrying a child – or an animal” – and the Huckster wants to be the President!
(And yes, it is “hyperbolic nonsense” disguised not as argument but as ‘sound theology!)
(Actually all of those things – and much, much worse – appear all the time on the CC blog and elsewhere here on B’net. And it appears that Mr. Waldman is okay with that, since he permits it to continue, despite numerous complaints.)
Having said that, I celebrate that today marks the one weekaversary of the CC blog not having any new threads on homosexuality. Hooray!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 16, 2008 at 2:07 pm


I disagree, “Your Name”. I can honestly and wholeheartedly assert that there are incidents of gay couples who weren’t condemned in the Bible.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm


I disagree with Your Name at 12:42’s interpretation of “God’s word”.
Besides,what “God’s word” says (or doesn’t say) should have no bearing in a land that “promises” freedom of religion. In order for (your version of) “God’s word” to have any influence on me in a free land, I would need to believe what you believe – and I don’t.
So that doesn’t do it, I’m afraid. Not in America. Certainly no more than what the Q’uran says,or the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Kells, or the Book of Wicca (if there is such a thing) or “Buddha’s Word”, or “Vishnu’s Word”, or Zeus’s Word.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted December 16, 2008 at 7:22 pm


People like Warren and the other anti-homosexual supposed religious people turn people away from Jesus.
They also fill people with the ideas that is is acceptable to not love your neighbor as yourself.
Sarah Palin encouraged people to fear and hate Obama, yet because she does not believe in abortion any other behavior is acceptable.
My God does not accept their behavior.



report abuse
 

Rix

posted December 18, 2008 at 12:13 am


I thought the solution was to just ignore Warren. Now it’s impossible. Like they say, “The rich get richer…”



report abuse
 

Michael David

posted December 18, 2008 at 3:51 am


Julie, you are sorely mistake as to what it means to “love your neighbor”. What you don’t understand is, Christians are supposed to agree with God concerning sin. God says that homosexuality is a sin. Christians have NO right to simply ignore God, or decide for ourselves that homosexuality is ok. It is not. I didn’t make the determination on that. Do you think if God said homosexuality was okay, that Christians would be standing firm against the acceptance of this “lifestyle”? No!
Personally, I hate discussing this issue, I’d rather never speak of it again. I’m with Rick… I have no desire to squelch someone’s rights under the Constitution. However, marriage is an institution that was *created* and *ordained* by God! He is the Author of marriage and has very, very clearly communicated to us what marriage is. It is the epitome of arrogance to consider that we know more about what is best than God.
Now, to Julie… many things turn people away from Jesus, and that is a GOOD THING sometimes. Some people don’t want to accept Christ because they don’t want to give up doing drugs, or they don’t want to stop having sex before marriage, or they don’t like the fact that Jesus said that people can only be saved by accepting Him as their savior. Should I then lie to people and tell them that Jesus said you can be saved by other “gods”? Should I pervert Christ’s message so I don’t “turn anyone away from Jesus”? No. As a matter-of-fact Jesus himself said that he would be a stumbling block, a rock that makes men stumble. He said that because people hated him, they will hate his believers. Is it strange, wrong or confusing as to why many people would be turned-off by God’s rules concerning sexuality? Of course not! I am very, very proud that some of my beliefs turn people away from Jesus, if they didn’t I’d know I was doing something wrong! I’m not a BIT happy that some are turned away, it HURTS my heart, but when someone turns away because they want to hang on to some sin there is no alternative to get them to not turn away without perverting God’s word.
Should I tell a pedophile that God is ok with him having sex with 5-year-old children so I don’t “turn him away from Jesus”? No, as a matter-of-fact God has commanded me to speak the truth and present the gospel of Christ in an uncompromising way. If people are turned away, so be it. I’m sorry they don’t accept the truth, I would much rather they become my brother or sister in Christ, but I won’t water down the message or pervert God’s truth so I won’t “turn people away from Jesus”.
You say, “my God does not accept their behavior”… who is this God? Does your God accept pedophilia? Why do I mention pedophilia? To show that there are absolutes, to get you to acknowledge that there are some things that are wrong and can never be “ok”, not to compare pedophiles with homosexuals (they are not the same). My point is, your God seems ok with homosexuality, and you are free to believe in this “God”, but Jesus Christ and the Father are not “okay” with homosexuality and therefore I cannot be “okay” with it. I don’t make any excuses or apologies for God’s rejection of homosexuality as a lifestyle. I don’t pick and choose what I’m going to agree with God concerning.
I do, however, believe that some Christians talk about this too much and some speak of homosexuals hatefully or cruelly and that is wrong and sinful. No Christian should be going on and on concerning this issue to the exclusion of other topics or trying to portray homosexuality as the “worst sin”. Rick talked about the issue because he was asked, not because he felt it necessary to harp on the issue. Being gleefully judgmental or haughty is wrong and turning people away from Christ doing THAT is repugnant and wrong.
You also twist the meaning of “loving your neighbor”. If I love someone, does that mean I condone anything they do? If I love someone, does that mean I am supposed to be okay with them committing murder? No. In fact, loving someone sometimes means NOT accepting their behavior. I knew someone who was abusing his wife and she came to me to talk to him. We weren’t close friends and I didn’t know what his beliefs were, and I didn’t feel it was any of my business, and yet I had a person asking for my help. I didn’t want to confront him, I felt I had sins of my own and I had no right to be judging him. I hated the thought of doing this, and yet (as I said) I had this person asking for my help. I didn’t want to rebuke this guy, but I felt if I cared about him and her I had no choice. Loving him meant being willing to confront and rebuke him for his criminal treatment of his wife. By the same token, loving gay people means being willing to be honest about the fact that they are sinning against God and never being okay with trying to pervert God’s law. This goes for ANY sin, not just homosexuality.
Christians also take stands against abortion, genocide, premarital sex, burglary, adultery, divorce, pedophilia, rape, and so on. The reason why the issue of homosexuality comes up so much is because gay people are FORCING the issue! If gay people weren’t trying to get married, and pervert the will of God I doubt I’d ever TALK about gay people! It is an issue that gets talked about because there was a vote in California concerning gay marriage! Christians aren’t “targeting” gay people, gay people are targeting specific things that Christians just disagree with and fight against. It’s not fun or enjoyable, but that is what we are supposed to do.
I spoke out against premarital sex before I got married, when I was dating my (now) wife. Did I want to have sex with my girlfriend? YES. Did I speak out against premarital sex because I was a “premarital sexphobe”? No. I spoke out against it because God says it’s WRONG, and I (try to) support what He says always. I don’t speak out against homosexual marriage because I hate gays or because I feel superior in my heterosexuality. I do it because God says it’s wrong and that’s it.
I agree with Rick Warren, I support gay civil unions, I vehemently support gay people being treated equally concerning their civil rights. I have no problem with a gay person being able to give their money to whom they wish, visit in the hospital, and whatever rights that other citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution. As Rick says though, marriage isn’t something that the government can suddenly reclassify. Marriage is ordained by God for one man and one woman and the government has no right to try to pervert that institution.
Rick is VERY right about gays using marriage as a way to gain approval. “What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary.” He couldn’t be more right, because they already have the same rights that marriage affords the husband and wife. When gay people try to force views that God says is wrong, then Christians must respond.
One thing is true, either the God of the Bible is the One, True God and Jesus Christ is His son and the propitiation for our sins, or it is not. Frankly it doesn’t matter what “god” I want to believe in or what “god” you want to believe in, Julie. What matters is what is true. If the God of the Bible is the One, True God and Jesus Christ is His son and the propitiation for our sin, then we have no choice in how we are going to view homosexuality, heterosexuality or whatever. If He is God, then we must obey Him and accept His laws and commandments.
Julie, I hope you don’t turn away from Christ, but if you do because you can’t stand his views on gay marriage, then that is your choice. The Lord isn’t going to change his mind to suit you, or anyone else, because He knows what is right and all good and perfect things come from the Lord, therefore His law that homosexuality is a sin is right and good and I can never water that down or pervert that message and no Christian EVER should.
It is good and right that some people are turned-off by Jesus, and it is good and right that some people are turned away from Jesus because of Christians accepting his law and standing up for what is right. It would be sad and wrong if Christians began to water down the message to suit people that don’t like it because of their own sin. I’m not happy that some turn away, God grieves when they do, but if someone is turned away because they are clinging to sin in their life, then it’s good that they are turned away… the alternative is lying and perverting God’s message and laws and that is bad.
To the One Name commenter who said:
“Besides,what “God’s word” says (or doesn’t say) should have no bearing in a land that “promises” freedom of religion. In order for (your version of) “God’s word” to have any influence on me in a free land, I would need to believe what you believe – and I don’t.”
This is a country that separates church from state, but not “God” from state. In fact, God is spoken of as the *author* of our rights in the Declaration of Independence – the founding document that directly impacted the writing of the Constitution. Consider the following words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.
Note what this says, that our rights are given us by our Creator and the government’s job is to “secure these rights”. The government is subservient to the rights given us by our Creator. The government did not give us our rights, which is a fundamental difference between our founding and any other country. In other places, governments give rights, here we have certain rights given us by our Creator and the government’s job is to make sure it secures and doesn’t interfere with our rights. The government didn’t give us our rights and therefore cannot take away our rights. By the same token, the government did not give us marriage and cannot take marriage away from us. Our Creator gave us marriage and it is the government’s job to make sure that this right is secured. To change the definition of marriage, to pervert the meaning is to destroy the right for those it was intended. Not everyone is guaranteed a share in a right. For example, there are laws concerning home owners, but not everyone is guaranteed a home. Not everyone is guaranteed marriage, but those that are married deserve that rigth to be kept pure.



report abuse
 

Beth Kirkland

posted December 18, 2008 at 4:42 am


RW is incorrect …
There are four commonly used definitions for the word marriage in American culture.
Legal, cultural, social, religious.
My marriage was before a judge, the word God was never used in the ceremony. My marriage has nothing to do with religion.



report abuse
 

Michael David

posted December 18, 2008 at 11:32 am


Beth, your assertion that marriage has “four definitions” in American culture means… what? How exactly does it matter that in “American culture” marriage has many meanings? I’m sure you could find hundreds of meanings for marriage all across America if you wished. How exactly does that matter when the government attempts to redefine the legal meaning of marriage?
What we are talking about here is the *legal* definition of marriage, not the cultural one.
This country was founded on the principle that our Creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Note that the forefathers said, “among those” not “these are all of them”. In other words, we have more rights given us by the Creator besides the three they mentioned and one of those is marriage as defined by Him.
The government of this nation does not have the right to redefine marriage. In fact, the Declaration of Independence clearly states that ANY government is NOT the giver of rights… the Creator is. The government’s job is to secure the rights the Creator has endowed us with. They may not interfere with our rights given and defined by the Creator.
When the government attempts to redefine the meaning of marriage, they are redefining it for ALL PEOPLE in this nation. This endeavor to change the meaning is a direct attempt to change the meaning of my marriage and all others (in this nation). It is not just about gay people and their relationships.
Because a judge didn’t use the word “God” in your marriage procedure may mean your “marriage has nothing to do with religion”, but it doesn’t mean God has nothing to do with marriage in this country. The institution of marriage is infinitely older than the founding of this nation, as are many of our rights, and the founders were correct in saying that their job was to create a government that would not interfere with those rights, but secure them. They were right to say that our rights are not given by the government, but by God. One of those rights is marriage.
So, your marriage may not have anything to do with religion, but it most certainly has something to do with God, because marriage is a right endowed by the Creator. When I bought my home, God was no where on the legal documentation, but this country was founded on the principle that among my rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights given me by my Creator. Therefore, God most certainly has something to do with me buying a home as defined by our founding fathers.
Don’t be confused by the separation of church and state, it doesn’t mean a separation of God and state.
Just because a person doesn’t use “God” in a ceremony doesn’t mean God is not a part of it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 18, 2008 at 11:56 am


I support Rick Warren’s comments as stated. The man is right.



report abuse
 

Josh

posted December 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm


Quick reflection on this post. Warren’s reasoning is articulate and right on, as well as historically and Scripturally sound. Just because Warren and Christians do not agree with the homosexual lifetsyle does not mean they are “intolerant bigots,” just people who are convicted by their Faith (which is protected for free expression and practice, including their involvement in the public square) on this issue just like Christians are convicted about the immorality of adultery, pornography, child abuse, pedophilia, incest or any other sin.
Sullivan quickly showed his small mindedness of this issue and downplayed the possibility of speech restrictions concerning religious opposition to homosexuality as has already been seen in Canada, Britain, and Sweden. Sullivan, quit making a “straw man” out of Warren’s argument; it only shows you lack of understanding of the Christian (which is a minority group with needed protections of speech and religion as well) perspective and your ignorant bias in the discussion.



report abuse
 

George

posted December 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm


Michael David is certainly correct: The Declaration of Independence refers to “endowed by their Creator”. Unfortunately for him, it does not say “endowed by YHWH” or “endowed by Jesus”. And even if it did, it would hardly be helpful. There are a variety of theologies and interpretations of the Bible. Which do we use to determine the rights given to us by YHWH? This is, of course, why we don’t make laws based on Christianity or any other religion. More fundamentally, though, the Declaration of Independence is not law in the US. It is an important historical document, but it means little to nothing legally.
As for his assertion that “The government of this nation does not have the right to redefine marriage”, he is simply wrong. The federal government may make or change any law that does not violate the US Constitution, just as a state government may make or change any law that does not violate its constitution or the US Constitution. Since marriage statutes in the US were and are laws created by (generally) state governments, those laws can be altered by those state governments in any way that does not contradict the state and federal constitutions. This is elementary Constitutional law. Michael David may wish or prefer that the government make laws consistent with his particular religious views, but it simply isn’t so.
Incidentally, Josh might be interested to know that 78% of Americans call themselves Christians. Most curious for a “minority group”.



report abuse
 

MattJ

posted January 15, 2009 at 10:20 pm


George ‘corrects’ David only by replacing David’s confusion with his own.
Yes, it says “by their Creator”. That George got right. But then he departed into fantasy-land by ignoring how ‘Creator’ was interpreted for so many years in so many states, and pretending that today’s stern secularism was the norm throughout our history. It was not.



report abuse
 

Nicholas

posted January 19, 2009 at 6:30 pm


I feel like God’s word has been edited to make it however they majority in power has wanted over the years.
I will say, I love the dialogue here.



report abuse
 

charles napier

posted September 23, 2009 at 10:52 am


Did Rick Warren approve gay marriages?and did he marry a guy couple?



report abuse
 

bc1r

posted June 23, 2010 at 8:14 am

payday loans toronto

posted July 26, 2010 at 8:12 pm


blog.beliefnet.com is great! Times such as these are what payday loans are for So what is a Payday loans are easy to avail and are helpful during our financial shortage



report abuse
 

Online

posted August 17, 2010 at 10:27 am


hello



report abuse
 

Online

posted August 17, 2010 at 10:30 am


Very interesting article, well I think gay marriage is a right for them to marry and have a family, is just there is a lot of controversy with religious principles.



report abuse
 

Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

posted September 8, 2010 at 3:53 am


I must say that overall I’m pretty taken with this internet site. It is apparent that you know you subject matter and you are passionate about it. I wish I had got your ability to write. I have bookmarked your webpage and look forward to more updates. cbjbxmjofsfbilldacmcopidyrvpmdneaci
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.



report abuse
 

payday loans online

posted September 21, 2010 at 5:03 am


Greetings everyone, This webpage is excellent and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments as well although I would prefer we all keep it on topic in order add value to the subject. It will be



report abuse
 

payday loans in canada

posted September 21, 2010 at 4:49 pm


Greetings everyone, This webpage is excellent and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments as well although I would prefer we all keep it on topic in order add value to the subject. It will be



report abuse
 

payday loans no fax

posted September 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm


Do you have any more info on this? tusswfaidhb



report abuse
 

no fax loans

posted September 25, 2010 at 4:17 pm


Do you have any more info on this?



report abuse
 

cash advance loans canada

posted September 26, 2010 at 2:03 am


Thanks for good news! Your site is very useful for me. I bookmarked your site!



report abuse
 

loans bc

posted September 27, 2010 at 3:23 pm


Hi webmaster, commencers and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely amazing! Lots of remarkable information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Keep them coming… You all do such a tremendous job at such Concepts… can’t tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!



report abuse
 

payday loan ontario

posted September 28, 2010 at 5:11 am


Greetings everyone, This webpage is exceptional and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments too although I would prefer we all maintain it on topic in order add value to the subject.



report abuse
 

loans for bad credit

posted September 28, 2010 at 4:02 pm


Thanks for really good news! Your web site is extremely useful for me. I bookmarked your web-site!



report abuse
 

loans bc in canada

posted September 29, 2010 at 4:26 pm


Very good submit. Thank for sharing.



report abuse
 

canadian loans

posted September 30, 2010 at 6:51 pm


The post is really the best on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the exceptional lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. De delightful work and much success in your business dealings!



report abuse
 

loss weight

posted October 1, 2010 at 9:00 pm


I will submit a link to this blog on my web site. I’m sure my readers will find this info really outstanding.



report abuse
 

weight loss

posted October 2, 2010 at 4:21 am


Thanks for such a remarkable submit and also the critique, I’m totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.



report abuse
 

loans in canada with bad credit

posted October 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm


Thanks for beneficial news! Your webpage is particularly useful for me. I bookmarked your site!



report abuse
 

payday loan online no faxing

posted October 4, 2010 at 2:34 am


I will publish a link to this blog on my website. I’m sure my readers will find this info really wonderful.



report abuse
 

bad credit canada

posted October 5, 2010 at 6:19 pm


Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care.



report abuse
 

payday loan online no faxing

posted October 12, 2010 at 2:07 pm


I’m happy to have found your highly good article! I agree with some of your readers and will eagerly look forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the superb lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. High quality work and much success in your business efforts.



report abuse
 

online payday loans

posted December 17, 2010 at 9:40 pm


This website is the very best web property. xcpuccee



report abuse
 

sample resume

posted December 22, 2010 at 2:32 am


This website is the most excellent site. dybdcadd



report abuse
 

calendar template

posted January 7, 2011 at 3:05 pm


Thanks for the info about Should Rick Warren Be Fired For His Position on Gay Partnerships?
– Steven Waldman



report abuse
 

digital photo frame

posted January 9, 2011 at 2:01 am


Amazing post about Should Rick Warren Be Fired For His Position on Gay Partnerships?
– Steven Waldman!



report abuse
 

fitness gym

posted January 9, 2011 at 1:08 pm


Unfogettable post about Should Rick Warren Be Fired For His Position on Gay Partnerships?
– Steven Waldman!



report abuse
 

green home

posted January 9, 2011 at 7:50 pm


Unbelievable post about Should Rick Warren Be Fired For His Position on Gay Partnerships?
– Steven Waldman!



report abuse
 

payday loans calgary

posted February 17, 2011 at 5:48 am


I like your bloge very much. Great job author of blog.beliefnet.com



report abuse
 

payday loans calgary

posted March 12, 2011 at 5:20 pm


Do you have a spam issue on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; we have developed some nice practices and we are looking to swap methods with others, please shoot me an email if interested.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.