Misogyny Kills: Rick Warren, Mark Dybul, and AIDS (Part Two)UPDATE: OBAMA DUMPS AIDS CZAR due to

[Captain_Nemo]

*****************

Since this series has been published I have read that Obama has dumped the AIDS CZAR:
Obama dumps Dybul at AIDS office: sources
Concern over support for abstinence funds
Washington Blade staff reports | Jan 22, 8:39 PM

President Barack Obama has decided to remove Mark Dybul from his position as the coordinator of the U.S. Global AIDS office, according to two sources who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity.

The sources claim that Obama's senior advisers were concerned about the negative reaction from some AIDS activists and reproductive rights groups to news that Dybul would be staying on.

The development comes just a week after Dybul reportedly was asked to rescind his resignation and stay in his job. Dybul, who is gay, was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

In his role as Global AIDS Coordinator, Dybul, a physician, has been in charge of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a multi-billion dollar program to fight AIDS in developing countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. The program enjoys widespread bipartisan support and is considered one of Bush’s most successful initiatives.

As the Blade reported last week, a number of AIDS and reproductive rights groups have urged Obama to replace Dybul with someone the groups see as more likely to change the Bush administration’s insistence that at least some international AIDS relief funds be linked to abstinence-only programs.

Among the groups calling on Obama to replace Dybul as AIDS coordinator are the International Women’s Health Coalition and the Sexuality Information & Education Council of the United States, which advocates, among other things, for gay-sensitive sex education programs.

The Blade will have more on this developing story as information becomes available.

___________________________________________________


Original Post with Part two of the series.

Editor’s note: This is Part Two of a three-part series on the links between the religious right, President Obama’s “AIDS czar” Mark Dybul, and the faith-based programs that are killing women and girls around the world. Part One was published yesterday, and Part Three will conclude the series on Friday.


God Hates Divorce

Rick Warren enjoys his reputation as a mainstream, compassionate champion in the fight against AIDS. But a close examination of his Saddleback Family website reveals a darker side to his ministry.
Warren instructs his parishioners that the Bible does not permit a wife to divorce a physically abusive spouse. In an audio clip on the church website that addresses the question “What should I do when abuse is happening in my marriage?”, Saddleback pastor Tom Holladay states, “Having been involved as a pastor in situations of abuse, there’s something in me that wishes there were a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them,” but no such permission is given. “God hates divorce,” Holladay explains.

The underlying message is that it is more important for a wife to save her marriage than to save her own life. A Christian who divorces another Christian will ultimately look back and say, “I told myself it was for a right reason but now I realize it was more my selfishness than anything else,” according to Holladay. This gives abusive spouses one more tool – the Bible – to control their victims.
On the Saddleback website Pastors.com’s Ministry Toolbox, women are instructed that God created them to be submissive wives: “Think of marriage as a three-legged stool. The legs are a submissive wife, a loving husband, and Christ.” The author, Beth Moore, exhorts women to look on the bright side; submission is not so bad if you lay back and enjoy it. “It is a relief to know that as a wife and mother I am not totally responsible for my family. I have a husband to look to for counsel and direction. I can rely on his toughness when I am too soft and his logic when I am too emotional.”

Rick Warren in Rwanda

Warren’s male supremacist teachings are not reserved for his North American audience.

click for rest of story: http://thenewagenda.net/2009/01/22/misogyny-kills-rick-warren-mark-dybul-and-aids-part-two/

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

1. Disgusting. I've gone to a very conservative church before and even the pastor said that

if there is abuse in a relationship that divorce is warranted.

Warren really believes that Jesus approves of a wife staying while she gets her head pummeled? Sickening.

[Captain_Nemo]

2. Patriarchy in action. We have to expose that male dominated religion is one way women are kept back

are exposed to a lot of dangerous ideas.

[madeline_con]

3. I'm confused...

Mark Dybul is Bush'sd AIDS Czar.

Anyway, what does he have to do with Warren and wife beating?

[Captain_Nemo]

8. Obama elected to keep him on yet he is controversial on his AIDS policies. Read the series and you

see the link to Warren and Dyubul (sp?).

[NYC_SKP]

4. Obama dumped Dybul (appointed by Bush). Please edit the OP.

Obama dumps Dybul at AIDS office: sources
Concern over support for abstinence funds
Washington Blade staff reports | Jan 22, 8:39 PM

President Barack Obama has decided to remove Mark Dybul from his position as the coordinator of the U.S. Global AIDS office, according to two sources who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity.

The sources claim that Obama's senior advisers were concerned about the negative reaction from some AIDS activists and reproductive rights groups to news that Dybul would be staying on.

http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=23619

Pretty Please. :hi:

[Creideiki]

5. Which goes to show

Obama can do the right thing if we put enough pressure on him.

That's much better than either Bush or McCain would have done.

[Captain_Nemo]

7. Good now lets see Obama dump the ethanol lobby!

[Captain_Nemo]

6. This is great!!! I will click on link to see!! THanks.

[sohndrsmith]

9. I really don't understand how the Bible is used, and I never have.

How is it that some things in the text are supposed to be taken literally, while others are not? Who decides that? And which version is the most legitimate?

This is so frustrating...

Note to Warren: AIDS is not a "foreign" disease, nor is it a "gay" disease. Ask my parents, one of whom is not gay, and one who succumbed to this horrible illness. Neither were African, both were highly educated, never divorced and were a heterosexual, monogamous couple until late in their marriage when they went their separate ways. AIDS is everyone's problem, and everyone's risk if they're sexually active or ever have been sexually active. After many years of not being intimate, my parent who did NOT die was advised by doctors to be tested because there was still the possibility of exposure and infection.

Who decides when and what parts of the Bible are taken literally and which ones are not?

What makes the concept that marriage can ONLY be defined as a union of a man and a woman - as an inviolate LAW (and the Bible seems to use the word "law" a lot, which is pretty interesting... ) of faithful, pious people, or all people, since this is supposedly something that should be secular (federal - and/or state) law as well... Because it SAYS SO in the Bible (even though it doesn't, actually, I don't think) - but other concepts as written in the Bible are dismissed or not taken seriously, apparently... like stoning adulterers or killing "men who like with men like a woman" or arranged marriage, etc. (I happen to be glad these things aren't taken literally, but who did the cherry-picking and why do people accept it?).

How does he substantiate the argument that "God hates divorce" when divorce is described in passages of the Bible that I read as acceptable in cases of abuse and adultery? Unless it is meant specifically and only okay for men... maybe that's the catch. It's not just Warren who seems to be misogynistic, it seems the Bible is as well, at least in the parts that I read in half an hour of research... Good grief.

This seems like such blatant hypocrisy.

I'm still looking for the definition of marriage, and according to my Google searches, so are a lot of people (but they always seem to be predicated by it's description in regards to gay marriage. I'm just trying to find out where the Bible defines marriage, period. Apparently it does not. So when and how was this term incorporated as being so finite in Biblical terms?

Man, what a racket... I shouldn't say that. It's disrespectful and mean. But I'm mad and confused. And the passages that I have found in the Bible do not match with what Warren claims, so is he just lying? Or is he using a version I haven't found yet...

I'm so confused.

[Aloha Spirit]

10. Beth Moore, what a hideous thing to actually think and say. nt