Subscribe via RSS Feed

Rick Warren: Scumbag

[ 100 ] July 21, 2012 | Erik Loomis

I’m glad that Rick Warren, America’s Pastor (TM), responded to the Colorado tragedy with such grace and class. He did what any good American would do–connected the shootings to teaching the theory of evolution.

H/T

Comments (100)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ironic irony says:

    Living on the surface of the sun is looking more and more appealing everyday.

  2. eli says:

    Looks like he deleted it.

  3. M. Bouffant says:

    Oh yes, teaching evolution teaches the youth that life is w/o value & yada. Same old same old.

    Now cue the chorus of gun-fondlers screaming about cowardly leftists politicizing a tragedy.

    • Aaron says:

      Warren simply wants his flock to know that scientists are ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing – savage wolves who would come in among them and who will not spare the flock. So he ventured into a nest of vipers, cast his pearls before swine, and sure enough – the swine trample his pearls beneath their feat, turn on him and tear him to pieces.

      The inescapable lesson here is that people are nothing like animals.

  4. Manju says:

    Scumbaggish comment. Not quite Krugman level Scumbaggishness…I mean, at least he didn’t blame the American left for the acts of a non-leftist…but pretty high up there.*

    *This should not be interpreted as a swipe at Krugman’s daytime job. His work there is as spectacular as can be found.

    • Amok92 says:

      I know it’s a mistake to ask but WTF?

    • Pith Helmet says:

      Not quite Krugman level Scumbaggishness

      Yes, Warren is much worse.

    • Manju says:

      Jared Loughtner is a Bush-hating 911 conspiracy theorist with anti-Christian views. He is neither a republican nor a conservative. There is no known connection between him and the TeaParty. Those who know him describe him as either liberal or apolitical.

      There’s no evidence that he even heard a single TeaParty slogan, let alone acted on one. Early reports of connections to RW anti-govt groups have been completely debunked. At one point, the SPLC asserted that his odd anti-govt conspiracy language matched that of militia guru David Wynn Miller’s. But it turned out that this came from an anti-capitalist pro-environmental film called Zeitgeist.

      This conspiracy film appears to be the most salient influence…since JLL thought Giffords a “fake” and was infuriated by her refusal to answer the question: “What is government if words have no meaning?”

      If it is truly important to identify which rhetoric bears moral responsibility, this is where we would start. Given the anti-capitalist and environmentalist theme of zeitgeist, and since this was his major obsession leading to the crime, if I were you guys, I would blame the left and environmentalists in particular…for their culture of hatred and paranoia.

      But I am not you. I don’t start at a conclusion and work my way backwards. Thats what Paul Krugman did in his repulsive column.

  5. c u n d gulag says:

    What does anyone expect from one of the great American religious grifters of his era?

    A tragedy is a great time to grift for “souls” with money – maybe the best time!

    Rick Warren, reading from the Bible:
    “And The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7).

    And now, Rick’s pitch:
    “Come to my church (We accept cash, credit/debit cards, and certified checks – sorry, no personal checks at this time), and learn that you didn’t evolve from monkeys!
    NO!
    You came from God taking some dust, making a mud-pie in his image – it was white mud, so don’t worry – then breathing life into the mud-pie through its nostril, taking a rib from the now alive mud-pie and turning it into a woman – then there was a tree with an apple, a talking snake, Original Sin, and generations of incest! (Secondary sin?)!
    See?
    It wasn’t evolution? It was magic and incest!*”

    *Incest would sure explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

    • Dr.Doom says:

      How is Rick Warren different than Eric Loomis
      asking you to connect the recent heat wave with the theory of anthropogenic climate change?

      Both are connecting theories to events with little evidence.

      • DrDick says:

        Demonstrating once again the dark and restricted view from the inside of your rectum. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. As usual.

      • You misspelled ”Dr.Dumb”

      • Matt T. in New Orleans says:

        Like you’d know anything about “evidence”. Why should we pay attention to you? For going on fifty years now you’ve totally failed to destroy the accursed Richards and his foolish family. I’d pay attention to the Mad Thinker or even the Wingless Wizard before I gave your claptrap the time of day.

        “Doombots” my ass.

      • How is Rick Warren different than Eric Loomis
        asking you to connect the recent heat wave with the theory of anthropogenic climate change?

        The vast majority of relevant researchers agree with the causal theory Erik relies on, while absolutely no criminologists or psychiatrists think that understanding biology causes gun crime.

        • Dr.Doom says:

          You have a point. However, these same scientists in charge have shown themselves to be deceitful lying bastards who manipulate the data to fit their preconceived theories.

          That’s why no one’s buyin’ what Erik Loomis is sellin’. And it’s so bad that Erik has posted about the lack of belief of the general public on this issue.

          Bottom line is the scientific community doesn’t appear trust worthy on this issue.

          • firefall says:

            More lies – don’t you get sick of the taste of them in your mouth all the time?

          • (the other) Davis says:

            You have a point. However, these same scientists in charge have shown themselves to be deceitful lying bastards who manipulate the data to fit their preconceived theories.

            So what you’re saying is, you completely bought into the lie that a commonly used math term somehow indicates deceit? Or do you just perpetuate that lie in bad faith? Which are you, sucker or liar?

            • (the other) Davis says:

              Oh, I guess I forgot option 3: you’re a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist who thinks the entire scientific community is working in collusion to pull the wool over the eyes of good Americans like you, and that everything they say is a lie.

          • thebewilderness says:

            In charge of what?
            Your buckets got a hole in it.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        Dr.DUMBASS,
        Warren peddles what essentially are fairy tales for people who like to believe in them – all with no empirical evidence. Faith is needed to put 2 and 2 together.

        Global warming/weirding is something that you can track empirically over the century plus that we’ve been keeping data – and before that using something called “science.” This shows that we’re heading for the warmest temperatures since long before mankind was mankind.
        Who do you want to blame the warming on?
        Monkeys?
        Horses?
        The extinction of the wooly mammoth?
        The sun? Ok, maybe? But why now, why not 1,000 years before – or even 200 years, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, which needed man to strip the earth of resources to keep the industries going, and growing?
        Why now?
        And what is the cause?
        God’s wrath?

        If you can’t buy a brain, see if you can find one to rent for a short period of time, DrDUMBASS.

        • Dr.Doom says:

          I understand that anyone can read a thermometer.

          It’s the other part that is so conveniently conflated that no one is buying. There are a large percentage that understand that the earth is always changing and it’s been warmer and it’s been cooler.

          • GeoX says:

            I honestly can’t decide: are people like you just really, really stupid by NATURE, or do you CHOOSE to do so because if you had to face reality, it would be too psychically painful for you to handle? Which one would be worse, I wonder?

          • (the other) Davis says:

            Shorter Dr. Doom: Fucking science, how does it work?

          • hickes01 says:

            “It’s the other part that is so conveniently conflated that no one is buying.”

            What? This statement make no sense. Let me translate, “gibberish, gibberish, bullshit, twaddle, ergo – it’s Obama’s fault.”

          • Pseudonym says:

            The earth hasn’t been changing at this rate before. And I demand some evidence to back up your assertion that you can read anything, including a thermometer.

  6. JoyfulA says:

    Silly. Other animals don’t even use guns, let alone use them to mow down all their peers they can reach.

  7. bradp says:

    After millennia of wars and millions of deaths that are pretty directly traceable to teaching people that they have an obligation to god above their fellow man, I think it might be time to try the animal route.

  8. MAJeff says:

    But it’s purpose-driven, jeebus-loving scumbaggery, so it’s all good.

    • Mike G says:

      I would better describe it as porpoise-driven, but on second thought I think marine mammals are more intelligent and compassionate creatures than televangelists and the parochial, tribalist cattle who graze in their megachurches.

  9. g says:

    When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it.

    Actually, there is no other animal who deliberately plans to kill and terrorize other random animals, simply for self-aggrandizement or to lash out about its own frustrated life.

    Animals only kill to eat and to defend themselves.

    It takes humans – particularly those who feel they are “exceptional” beings with morality on their side – to commit mass murder.

    • bradp says:

      Animals only kill to eat and to defend themselves.

      Yeah, not really. When you start getting into animals that are more intelligent and have more complex social structures, you can find some pretty meaningless brutality.

      • DrDick says:

        I am not an ethologist, but I do not think you are correct. I know that humans and chimpanzees are the only species to engage in warfare.

        • MAJeff says:

          But, think about lions. Males will kill another males’ young when taking charge of a new group. It’s not really “warfare” or “sport,” but it’s also not defense or food.

          • proverbialleadballoon says:

            killing another male lion’s offspring is defense, though; defense of one’s bloodline, ensuring that you and yours thrive and survive.

            • Not from the lion’s subjective point of view, though. The male lion isn’t thinking like that. He kills those cubs because the sight and smell of them them makes him feel like he wants to kill them.

              Similarly, there are likely some biological drives, with evolutionary explanations, behind the actions of low-status, young male human beings who kill for fun.

              • exo says:

                Male lions who take over a pride kill cubs so the females will immediately mate.

                Bottlenose dolphins may attack and kill porpoises for fun.

                • so the females will immediately mate

                  I understand that that is the underlying evolutionary cause for the behavior. Male lions who felt a drive to kill the existing cubs reproduced their line more than those that did not.

                  But is that the individual lion’s subjective motivation? That’s a different question.

                • Cody says:

                  Dolphins don’t count though. We all know they’re much smarter than us.

                  And all the mass beachings leads me to believe they’re already leaving the planet, so it’s about time for us to go too.

            • John says:

              That’s getting much too abstract for the point to work anymore. The cubs are no immediate threat to him. By your standards, Herod’s murder of the innocents qualifies as “self-defense.”

            • DrDick says:

              Infanticide of that sort is pretty widespread among a number of species, but does not qualify as “pretty meaningless brutality,” is its purpose is to increase the killer’s reproductive success (it causes the female to go into heat sooner).

        • Jeremy says:

          It seems like that, and then we find out that dolphins are some something nasty to each other.

          • DrDick says:

            From what I have read, the evidence for dolphins may be a bit problematic, though I do not know enough about them or the research to say for certain.

        • bradp says:

          Well, I wasn’t really speaking about war alone.

          For example, infanticide is extremely common amongst social mammals. Whales and dolphins are at times extremely aggressive and will out of what seems frustration and/or sport.

          • DrDick says:

            Infanticide of this sort is not “meaningless brutality” as it enhances the reproductive success of the killer.

        • Scott S. says:

          Ants, for crissake.

        • (the other) Davis says:

          For most definitions of “warfare,” ants engage in behavior that probably qualifies.

          • DrDick says:

            I will give you the ants, but I was only thinking about higher animals, as that is what Brad specifically addressed.

  10. DrDick says:

    So it is all my fault now?

  11. Dr.Dumb says:

    I don’t get money from the oil companies to shrill for them but they do occasionally give me new photos of Lee Raymond to ‘bate to.

  12. That’s true. They start licking each other, smelling each other’s interesting scent areas, and gamboling in clover. We need to teach students to act less like humans and more like animals to have a safer, happier world.

  13. Davis says:

    So Richard Dawkins is the next mass murderer?

    Tom Delay blamed the Columbine killings on the teaching of evolution, too. Something about tadpoles, I think.

  14. rcoover says:

    He’s awful. But what makes you think this was about the shootings and not just more of his generic patronizing horseshit? His Twitter feed seems to feature such sayings at a regular basis.

  15. scott says:

    I wonder if he gets another super-respectful pilgrimage to his church from Obama this year.

  16. calling all toasters says:

    Apparently the Right still has a butthurt from Clarence Darrow, and the only thing they can come up with 90 years later is to confuse Scopes with Leopold and Loeb.

    • firefall says:

      Of course they do .. they still have a butthurt from the Civil War, for gods sake

      • calling all toasters says:

        …and from the Enlightenment, come to think of it.
        I think they’re split on the rise of the Mongol Empire (killing good, Asians bad).

      • gmack says:

        they still have a butthurt from the Civil War, for gods sake

        Speaking of (the Civil War, not the butthurt), yesterday I saw my nominee for the most awful bumper sticker: It was a Confederate battle flag on one side, with the statement “Protecting the country from terrorism since 1861″ written on the other. I was in the north central PA, for the record.

        • Pseudonym says:

          Well, the Confederates did kill a lot more Americans than even Al Qaeda managed to, so what’s wrong with calling them terrorists?

          • hickes01 says:

            I saw a Native American bumper sticker that read, “Original Homeland Security”. That one hurt a little…

        • elm says:

          Worst one I ever saw: “If I knew they’d be this much trouble, I’d have picked my own damn cotton,” on the back of a beat-up ole’ pick-up truck.

  17. DMN says:

    I suspect that Mr. Elmer Gantry knows that “descended from apes” is different than “descended as apes,” but he’s got a revenue stream to, ah, animate.

  18. cpinva says:

    perhaps the real problem is that we humans haven’t evolved quite enough yet.

    • hickes01 says:

      Why do anti-Evolution Christians always focus on the “Ape to Man” discussion? It’s my understanding that just about every natural science can demonstrate how the Earth, and it’s occupants, evolved over billions of years. Don’t like the Ape part? Let’s talk Geology? How about Physics? Astronomy? Chemistry? Materials Science? Earth Science? Oceanography? Atmospheric Research? They all debunk the idea the earth is 5000 years old.

  19. Nate says:

    I can think of few things more calming than understanding myself as a pawn in a cosmic war between the first and second most sadistic entities ever imagined.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site