Gay Bashing As Means of Ending Division?

by: David Sirota

Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 18:00


Has anyone bothered to explain how giving a gay basher a national platform is a decision made in the name of ending division? I'm really confused - there are lots of clergypeople in America who haven't gay bashed. And remember - it's not just that Rick Warren is against gay marriage, it's that he's very publicly attacked gay people with the worst kinds of slander.

How are Barack Obama and Joe Biden publicly claiming that their selection of Rick Warren to deliver a prayer at the inauguration is in the interest of ending division?

I mean, if they want to say its in the interest of appeasing right-wing Christians, fine - at least that makes some logical sense (as odious as such a motivation would be). But in the interest of ending division? Say what? Since when did elevating a person who bashes one group of Americans become a move specifically designed to stop division?

Sounds like Obama and Biden are interested not being dividers in the George W. Bush "I'm a uniter not a divider" kind of sense. That is, they seem interested - at least during the inauguration - in injecting a little bit of dividing, not uniting. Either that, or they are suggesting they believe that a great way to bring the country together is to unify America around the promotion of a gay basher.

Is that what they're saying - that they think gay bashing is the best way to build national unity?
David Sirota :: Gay Bashing As Means of Ending Division?

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Gay Bashing As Means of Ending Division? | 159 comments
yup... that is the problem. matt was on this a few days ago -- we are being thrown (4.00 / 3)
under the bus so that obama can score points with bigots.  

 

Your point is well taken David, and I agree with the (4.00 / 1)
sentiment, though I think you missed this quick hit.

Gay Representative Named Honorary Inauguration Co-Chair
And as I said in comment there:

This is the result of the beginning of the demands of the left, and blogistan.
Aaaaand, as I just saw Milk tonight, with Penn's brilliant portrayal, I have to quote Harvey leaving Moscone's office, "A gay man with power... look out."

"CoChiar of the inaugural", step one in the inclusion, step one in the beginning of pressure to complete the promise of change we have been demanding for generations. And as Milk says as the credits are about to begin (forgive my memory) "and not just for gays, not just for lesbians, but for latinos and blacks and the Irish immigrant- for all the "we's" that have been left out."

Pressure is not despondent, or depressed or low. It is a call in the most eloquent way possible to our higher angels, with a reminder, backed by organizing, fundraising, registration and voting, that elections and power rest on the outcome of these decisions.

All those who have been waiting too long for some other part of their coalition to fit them in to the agenda, waiting for the serious issues to be dealt with until we have time for these little issues.

Human rights are important issue.

I DO NOT mean to imply that this is now soemhow all OK, it means just and only just what I said it means:This is the result of the beginning of the demands of the left

As in - more to come.

And BTW thank you for the post.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

That's not exectly balance (4.00 / 2)
There are 15 co-chairs.  Only one is gay or lesbian.   Two are Republicans.  

The good news: None, so far as I can tell, is a bigoted preacher.  

[ Parent ]
Correction (4.00 / 2)
Three are Republicans.  Overlooked Powell.


[ Parent ]
15 co-chairs (4.00 / 1)
This co-chairing thing has really gotten silly.  
[ Parent ]
I agree with all responders. (0.00 / 0)
I DO NOT mean to imply that this is now soemhow all OK, it means just and only just what I said it means:This is the result of the beginning of the demands of the left

In discussions someone asked well so we include everyone even people we dont agree with. And then someone said oh yeah? who is your gay inclusiveness representative? And they couldn't find one (who was out) so they found one.

I mean only that this small little token effort points to the wind blowing, points to effect.

I mean only encouragement.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I think you're using a strawman argument. (4.00 / 7)
If Rick Warren were going to inject gay-bashing into his invocation, then your argument would be accurate.  But that's not what you're suggesting.  Instead, you seem to be saying that inviting someone who's against gay marriage--and has used faulty rationality to explain that opposition--to give a prayer (not even a speech!) is somehow not only condoning gay-bashing, but rallying everyone behind it.

Look, the true position you tried to argue with in this post is that Obama's inviting Rick Warren is a sign that he's willing to work together with the religious right on issues they do agree with.  As for myself, I have strong disagreements with Rick Warren on a wide variety of social issues.  But he, and his church, do good work in alleviating poverty, hunger, etc.  If he's willing to work together with us in doing these good things, we shouldn't turn him away just because we disagree in other things.

And before you ask, yes, I would want our government to work together with the KKK to do good things.  Unlike Rick Warren, the KKK simply doesn't desire to do any good acts.

Feel free to say you're disappointed with the Rick Warren pick--I'm right there with you.  But it's just a stupid invocation that everyone will have forgotten 6 months from now.  There are better ways to spend your time.

And if you do argue against the pick, at least avoid basic logical fallacies like the strawman argument.  You're better than that.

Nah, you didn't bother to read (3.43 / 7)
The post says Warren isn't just against gay marriage, he's very publicly and repeatedly gay bashed.

The John Birch society is against NAFTA. It's also a racist institution. Nobody would have their leader on stage at an inauguration, and certainly not in the name of unity.

There's a double standard - you can avert your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, but it might be better if you fessed up to reality, rather than sucking up to the Dear Leader.  

[ Parent ]
No, I did read your post. (4.00 / 1)
And I don't think every decision Obama makes is correct, so I would like to request you not suggest otherwise.

I have seen people cite these "gay-bashing" incidents of Warren.  To me, they seemed to mostly be against gay marriage and poorly-chosen analogies to explain his opposition.  To me, gay-bashing would be explicitly saying "Gay people are bad" or something similar, and I have not yet seen any examples of Warren saying anything like that.

If much of the country were as racist as the John Birch Society, just like much of the country unfortunately agrees with Warren regarding gay people, then someone from there might be chosen to do a similar symbolic role.  A double standard?  Hell yes.  But a sensible, and dare I say, pragmatic one.

[ Parent ]
Strawman (4.00 / 1)
I actually think its you who is making the strawman argument.  Every gay person that has been speaking out of this issue has said- its not about policy, its about pain.  This is not about Warren being against gay marriage and using "poorly-chosen" analogies.  It is about those analogies being hateful and representing an extreme position about gay relationships.   For an event that is supposed to represent the best of the new administration, Obama has chosen a speaker who represents the worst- the willingness to inflict pain on a core constituency in order to woe an unlikely one.  You may be the one deliberately misunderstanding what this means; that it not about a two minute prayer.
[ Parent ]
*sigh* (4.00 / 1)
My comment was made specifically in response to this post of David Sirota's, which did not mention anything you just wrote.

I can understand the emotional reaction.  But Sirota's post was an attempt to rationally rebut an argument he was seeing, and in my opinion, Sirota's post used the strawman fallacy.

That's all I'm saying.

[ Parent ]
Oh sigh yourself (4.00 / 2)
  You may think we are all too stupid to understand your superior logic, but its actually you who is just not getting it.
[ Parent ]
This "Dear Leader" crack is totally unjustified (4.00 / 8)
David N made a totally thoughtful, nuanced reply, whether or not you agree with it (and whether or not I agree with it). Why belittle him by claiming he doesn't see reality and suggesting he is just "sucking up to the Dear Leader"?
[ Parent ]
Seriously (0.00 / 0)
The hatred of disagreement is a bit nauseating some times.  To be fair Sirota isn't the worst.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....
[ Parent ]
argeed (0.00 / 0)
its like we've entered a period of intensity were they just can't argue without including an insult.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
Not really. (0.00 / 0)
He threw out the favored term of blog commenters who don't want to have to deal with an argument. He made an accusation of "straw man," proving in the process that he doesn't know what the term actually means.

undercaffeinated
[ Parent ]
In this context, "strawman" is a term for a logical fallacy. (0.00 / 0)
It only applies to counter-arguments.  A counter-argument is a "strawman argument" if and only if it deliberately misconstrued the argument it was attacking, in order to make it easier to defeat.

Strawman arguments are considered to be logical fallacies because they do not actually prove what they purport to prove.  They do not defeat the argument they claim to be attacking, but instead defeat a completely different argument.

I believe this post of David Sirota's is a strawman argument.  I provided reasons to back up this assertion.  You might want to start doing that yourself.

[ Parent ]
A more accurate title (0.00 / 0)
Obama Bashing As A Means Of Maintaining Division
[ Parent ]
You have it backwards. (4.00 / 4)
Left bashing as a means of maintaining division is more like it.   I suppose it would be fine to have David Duke up there as long as he didn't wear his hood.  

Warren is an intolerant bigot who hates women and gays.  As an atheist, I also result his ability to force his religious mumbo jumbo on the rest of us.

But he, and his church, do good work in alleviating poverty, hunger, etc.  

In return for finding salvation in jesus?  Evangelicals are like Jehovah Witnesses, only you can't shut the door on them.  



They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Why is Rick Warren (4.00 / 5)
considered "special" because he wants to work on poverty?

Isn't that just a sign of how depraved and bankrupt Evangelical Christianity really is, that when they actually focus on something Jesus did talk about (instead of homosexuality, which he NEVER talked about) we are supposed to get all excited about it?

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
He's not special because he wants to alleviate poverty. (4.00 / 2)
He's special because he runs a really big church, with lots of members and lots of money.
[ Parent ]
None of Warren's devotees voted for Obama. (4.00 / 2)
Look, if you are now arguing that it's a matter of power for power's sake, even there Obama is fucking up because he has divided his own base for nothing. He has sold the cow without even a handful of magic beans to show for it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
It's not a matter of elections. (0.00 / 0)
It's a matter of being able to execute the policies one desires to execute.

If you want to eliminate poverty in this country--and on this blog, that's a safe assumption--Rick Warren can help.  If you want to legalize gay marriage in this country--again, a safe assumption--Rick Warren cannot help.  He has power, so if we can get his help on policies we want, it will be good for us.  Power is not inherently a bad thing.

And I somehow doubt Obama's lost very many votes because of this.

[ Parent ]
Rick Warren is going to help eliminate poverty. (4.00 / 1)
Now I've heard everything. You really believe a Conservative Republican wants to eliminate poverty.

And if you don't realize how much power this boneheaded move has already cost Obama, you have not been paying attention to the internets the past few days.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Rick Warren pays himself first (4.00 / 1)
...the core of their proejct is laid out: set up a community they control, including the political leaders, and make them meet every week to study the Bibles that they pass out and the materials they send. This is Disaster Christianity. Find hopeless people, give them a few goods and services, and then build a theocracy. It is the model of Hamas in Palestine.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/12...

Of course it's the model of Christian Good Works going back a long long time. The poor will be with us always.

[ Parent ]
Remind me... (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't it Dubya who said "If you're not with us, you're against us"?  Don't progressives often criticize the fact that Dubya casts the world in black and white terms?

He may very well be a corrupt hack.  But even if he is, his followers aren't.  It is possible to work with people you disagree with, you know.

And I don't doubt this move has cost Obama power, but votes it has not.

[ Parent ]
It's even easier to work with people you agree with. (0.00 / 0)
That's the real problem here.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
So, all power is good (4.00 / 1)
no matter how it has been attained?

Personally, I think that if the US central government and the office of the President focused on reducing poverty and hunger in this nation by mobilizing thoughtful citizens they could meet that goal without having to abide hater-mongers like "Rev." Warren.

Perhaps Mr. O didn't lose votes over this issue, because it came up after the election, for one, but he has lost the faith of the some folks in his base.  Problem with bowing to the likes of Warren is that their "support" will be fickle at best.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
That's probably not true (4.00 / 1)
I think we all might be surprised just how many Warren fans cast votes for Obama. (I know you didn't literally mean none.) Obama got about a quarter of the evangelical vote, and he doubled Kerry's numbers among evangelicals 30 or younger.

I'm not saying that anything in particular follows from this, I'm just saying.  

[ Parent ]
No, I meant none. (4.00 / 1)
See here if you don't believe me:

http://www.salon.com/news/feat...

Obama kissed Warren's ring at Saddleback and got punked for it. Naturally, he gives Warren a primo slot at the inauguration.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
That's just silly (4.00 / 1)
and the article in no way shape or form proves your point. You can't seriously believe that there was not a single individual in the United States, in an election that saw, what, 130 million votes, who was both a Rick Warren acolyte and a Barack Obama voter.

I'm sure there were quite a few. I'm sure the vast majority voted for McCain, but the exit polls make it quite clear that a lot of evangelical/born-again types, especially younger ones, voted for Obama.

[ Parent ]
Not one who would come forward and admit it in front of their friends. (0.00 / 0)
Is that better?  

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
That is true (4.00 / 1)
I was also struck dumb by a column in the Chicago newspaper.

 There was a feeling among African Americans that the invocation coming so close the MLK day and since it is the inauguration of the first African American president should be an African American Minister.

  It would have honored their role in the civil rights movement and would be a display of the struggles yet to come.  It would be an acknowledgement that racism and prejudice is not behind us yet.  

Many Black churches have large outreach working on poverty. Many Black churches have been the cornerstone of their communities.

That would have been a real sign of trying to heal some of the wounds this country has had since it's inception.

What better way to honor those that have been part of the struggle for so long?

[ Parent ]
Now this is interesting (0.00 / 0)
"Rev. Rick Warren, who is President-elect's controversial pick to give the invocation at his inauguration on Jan. 20, will be the keynote speaker at Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual Commemorative Service at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church on the day before the Inauguration, Atlantic Progressive News reports. Before she passed away, King's wife, Coretta Scott King, declared that gay marriage was a civil rights issue and denounced a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it."

[ Parent ]
You just made everybody's point.... (4.00 / 4)
He isn't special because of his preachings, selflessness, or good deeds.  He is special because he runs a really big church, with lots of members and lots of money.   Who else could we possibly want preaching morality to us?  

Warren is an insult to good people everywhere, and it was Obama who did it and defends it.  Obama would rather suck up to bigots than reward good deeds.  This is just another example of why I am an Independent.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I take exception with your characterization... (4.00 / 4)
If he's willing to work together with us in doing these good things, we shouldn't turn him away just because we disagree in other things.

No one has ever implied that we should turn anyone away. Warren's work on AIDS and the environment is great and I'm happy to see Obama reach out to him and his congregation in the appropriate forum.

But choosing not to elevate Rick Warren to a position of honor at the inauguration is not equal to "turning him away." Had Obama simply chosen a non-controversial pastor to deliver the invocation, I'm certain Rick Warren and his followers would not have given it a second thought.

As David said, this action will unite nobody

[ Parent ]
Largely, I agree with you. (4.00 / 2)
You're right, they wouldn't have given it a second thought.  But because Obama's done this, maybe some of them will think "Hey, maybe Obama meant all that stuff about reaching out to us."  Which might make them more amenable to working with him in the future.

Will that actually happen?  Who knows.  But if there's a chance it will, and all we have to do is allow a purely symbolic gesture, I'm all for it.

[ Parent ]
At what cost though? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe, MAYBE, some of those folks will appreciate Obama reaching out. At the same time it puts a huge damper on the inauguration for a lot of the very people who worked so hard to get Obama elected in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I do want Obama to reach out and do some uniting. We all can be a part of that and there will be plenty of opportunities to reach out that don't involve Rick Warren being honored at the inauguration of the first black president of the United States.

[ Parent ]
Again, I agree. (0.00 / 0)
In the end, this pick will probably end up doing more harm than good, for precisely the reason you describe.

Of course, that wasn't the reason Sirota gave in his post.

[ Parent ]
It that gamble worth taking (4.00 / 1)
when the stakes are dividing your base?

I think not.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Warren's work on AIDS is not great. (4.00 / 6)
It's all about abstinence, which is far from great, or effective.
[ Parent ]
its insulting is what it is (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
Ugh... (4.00 / 1)
I didn't know that. Obama sure knows how to pick 'em, doesn't he?

What a cruel joke...

[ Parent ]
It's also, as Aravosis points out, (4.00 / 1)
focussed on heterosexuals.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
To be fair (4.00 / 2)
From Warren's perspective EVERYONE is a heterosexual. Gays are just misguided or sick and in need of "curing".

PS: I'm being snide.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Here from Rahm Emanuel is why this pick NEDS to be noticed. (0.00 / 0)
This from a discussion about another thing, the opening discussions with soon to be impeached Blagojevich:

The sources add that the report will show Emanuel also had four phone calls with Blagojevich Chief of Staff John Harris.  During those conversations, the Senate seat was discussed.  The pros and cons of various candidates were reviewed, and the sources say that Emanuel repeatedly reminded Harris that Blagojevich should focus on the message the pick would send about the governor and his administration.

Taken form mydd.com
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008...

Emphasis mine.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
So...what? (0.00 / 0)
Obama screwed up because he misjudged the message this pick would send to certain groups?  Of course that's true, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion.
[ Parent ]
Because politics, when it isnt about voting, (4.00 / 2)
which is for one day, every two to four years, is about messages, reactions, eloquence, power in organizing and theatre.

This is the message the soon-to-be-Admin gave. This the reaction they got. This is learning, this is power, this is politics.

You want to play a different game?

Politics about gay people changed when the gays of New Yprk rioted in the middle of another "ordinary round-up" of gay people, who were just not going to take it anymore.

Not going to take it anymore.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)
But, again, what does this have to do with my original comment?

I actually agree with your comment here.  But I've never said that this choice of Warren is a good political move.  So I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me here.

[ Parent ]
Because all the people here arguing in support of Mr. Sirotas point and against Obama's choice is trying to say ---NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Obama was a genius throughout his entire campaign. (0.00 / 0)
Now, he made a huge gaffe and didn't know it?   BS  He threw his own GD minister under the bus when he was in the way of "winning".  Now that Warren is in the way of "governing", he doesn't care because he is scoring political points where it matters to him ~ and it ain't with us.    

Battered wife syndrome.  Its always a mistake, and they never mean it.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Faulty rational (4.00 / 5)
Warren equates being gay with sexual abuse of children and incest. That seems way beyond faulty rational. to me.



~* the * Will * to go on *~

[ Parent ]
Poor choice of words. (4.00 / 1)
In context, I didn't get the impression that he was saying homosexuality was the same as incest and paedophilia.  He was saying that redefining "marriage" to include gay people is the same as redefining it to include paedophiles.

Like I said, faulty reasoning.  Not all redefinitions are the same, and not all are bad--we need to compare the results of each redefinition, and then decide which one is the best.  I think he's completely, 100% wrong on this issue.

But he's not gay-bashing.

[ Parent ]
Oh for gods sake ! give it up! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 1)
I will not give anything up unless you provide a convincing reason to.

Look, we can't just dismiss arguments against gay marriage as gay-bashing or bigotry or whatever.  We need to show, through rational argumentation, why they are false.  And they are: every single one of them can be very easily defeated.  Because of that, there's literally no reason to put words in peoples' mouths and argue against those.

I provided a cogent, rational refutation of Rick Warren's actual argument.  Personally, I think that's better than misrepresenting him, and then calling the misrepresentation bigotry.

[ Parent ]
the argument (4.00 / 2)
mr warren,

the story Christian's cite, with it's vague objection to homosexuality is offensive in its core substance. this is because i fundamentally do not subscribe to your religious dogma which demonizes sex and instead fundamentally believe people have the right to not be judged based on whomever they choose as their sexual partners (one or more) so long as those partnerships are consensual - e.g. do not infringe on the inalienable rights of the other. Lets be super clear mr warren sex is not a sin. that you mr warren equate consensual sex between two consenting adults with sex between an adult and a child, where manipulation is really the issue, means that you are not just conflating what the real 'sin' is here - the manipulation - with something which is not wrong - sex - but you are deliberately not recognizing the true nature of the injustice for your own personal gain.

it is offensive that you equate 'gay' sex with pedophilia on two counts. one you falsely demonize a group, and two you do so by exploiting suffering of another group - namely children in this case. You do offense to the offended by not recognizing the true nature of the exploitation they have suffered. we could even suggest you not only ignore the true natural of the expoitation at hand, but you further saddle the victims (children!) with another injustice, you burden them with the core idea that some sex acts are 'evil' to participate in; and thus as participants they have engaged in something most hideous to your community. Sadly your reprehensible behavior goes even further.

You do all this for your own personal gain, to the enrichment of your stature among your community. rather than seek the righteous path, you exploit the fears and ignorance of your community. you're actions are akin to that of a parasite, you feed on your flock. rather than steer them toward enlightenment and greater fellowship with their common humans, as a courageous leader would do, you amplify their desire to ostracize and debase others, others which deserve no such treatment. you are a bigot and a charlatan; for you demonize and sow division in the name of healing and love. your rhetoric is the definition of bigotry and you engage in it to please your ego, you are not fit to be recognized as a leader, you are a follower.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

[ Parent ]
Are we having some error in communication here? (4.00 / 1)
I am not defending Rick Warren.  I disagree with him greatly in this area, as well as in several others.

But he's not equating homosexuality and paedophilia.  For the third time, he's saying that redefining marriage is wrong, whether it's to allow gay marriage or paedophilic marriage.

It's a bad argument.  Its premises, line of reasoning, and conclusion are all wrong.  Furthermore, it has an extremely offensive implication that can very easily stir up unproductive emotion, as we can see.

But let's refute the actual argument.  It's what rationality demands, and it's good politically too.  There are plenty of examples of true bigoted statements that we can get offended about.

Rick Warren may well be a bigot.  In fact, he probably is.  But dismissing what he says because of that is textbook ad hominem.  Your last paragraph is not only unrelated to the point you're trying to make, it's pointlessly inflammatory were you actually in a debate with Warren.

Like I said above, I understand the emotions this topic can stir up.  If you just want to vent, that's fine.  But if you want to argue rationally, you can't let your emotions enter into your words.  It's all a matter of what you're trying to accomplish.  I feel I may have misread what you are trying to accomplish, hence, we might be having an error in communication.

[ Parent ]
you are wrong (4.00 / 6)
Mr Warran is not abstractly arguing against redefining marriage. He's arguing against defining what he considers to be sinful acts as acceptable through the term of marriage. He would no sooner give credence to gay sex then he would to sex between an adult and child because it is a sin. If you ASK him, why wouldn't he allow marriage between an adult and child he would say because pedophilia is an abomination to god and marriage is holy to god. He would laugh at the question because the inherent dichotomy, between pedophilia and marriage, is so obvious and in terms of what God considers holy. he's not playing some silly semantics game that you are trying to ascribe to him. he's talking about, and if you ask him he will openly admit, that he's talking about good and evil, what is sinful and holy, in God's eyes, with a capital G. this is precisely why i started my argument the way I did, because this nonsense is rooted in "God's law". what is sin and what is holy is THE argument.

It's not just some crossword puzzle game with them. They're talking about shit that will turn you white. Old testament, real wrath of god type stuff, fire and brimstone coming down out of the sky, and cats sleeping together, mass hysteria!

~* the * Will * to go on *~

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
More likely than not, you are right.  

But the reason I say "more likely than not" is because I haven't seen a quote of his where he actually did say that.  Until I see that, it seems inaccurate to me to call him a "gay-basher," and you probably shouldn't assume you know why he has the beliefs that he has.

We shouldn't put words into peoples' mouths.

[ Parent ]
dude (4.00 / 1)
see my comment just below. you are either in denial about what Christians are all wound up over, or you're just not familiar with what this whole deal is about.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
Please (4.00 / 1)
don't describe what Warren is up to as "Christian."

He's an Evangelical, not a normal Christian.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Catholics (4.00 / 1)
are in with the Evangelicals on this. So too the weirdest of branches the Mormons. The Protestants are doing all they can to just hold their nose at the idea. Lots of pent up sexual energy throughout many denominations.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
dogs and cats (0.00 / 0)
I made a funny mistake, which is apropos of the conversation, cats sleeping together.

but that line from Ghostbusters is SO memorable, is SO funny, because it hits at the heart of THE argument - original sin, sex!, and who should have it and who should not, and who gets to say so.

abomination unto god is not some cute catch phrase invented on the internet. its in the bible, and when christians start talking about what the 'abominations' are, Numero Uno is SEX.

SEX SEX SEX SEX. that disgusting filthy filthy nasty disgusting thing. Christians have their panties all in a crazy bunch about.

Leviticus 18!
http://usccb.org/nab/bible/lev...

They have it memorize, this is where it starts and ends with them. You have to defeat line 22. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." This is an ABOMINATION to God. I repeat, an ABOMINATION!

"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves... otherwise the land will vomit you out also for having defiled it!"

Do it and you will not be saved by God, his son, the holy spirit or any other yahoo flying around in their head. Its serious business to them. AND it is bigotry. The bible promotes bigotry. its old, out dated, insane anti-humanistic blather, and its the problem.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

[ Parent ]
Yes but don't forget (4.00 / 1)
the Bible also refers to eating catfish as an abomination.

Makes you wonder just what that word meant to people back then, doesn't it, in comparison with how we use it today?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
does it (0.00 / 0)
where? that sounds awesome, id enjoy reading that.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
well there's this (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
right (0.00 / 0)
maybe everyone should dress up as lobster for the inauguration.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
Catfish, really? (4.00 / 1)
But I love catfish!  
[ Parent ]
Sinner! (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Lest we forget (4.00 / 4)
Yes. This isn't about reconciling those who like broccoli and those who don't, or having a cat lover address a kennel show.

This guy thinks we're sinners; gays because they're gay, and progressives because they turn a blind eye to sin. Unless and until he gives that nonsense up -- is cured of his sin, you might say -- he doesn't have anything to say to me. Period. Obama should know this, must know this, and act accordingly, if he truly intends to be a fierce advocate of anything beyond his own convenience.

[ Parent ]
fierce (4.00 / 3)
that Obama called himself a fierce advocate for civil rights really is insulting. it makes a mockery of how hard this whole fight is.  

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (4.00 / 1)
Love the bigot, but hate the bigotry.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I think you are defending Warren (4.00 / 2)
You have consistently attempted to downgrade his hateful rhetoric toward gays as "badly chosen words".

His bigotry is based on hatred, not poor speech writing. Do you really think he would have the big church, piles of money, and large flock if he were making poorly worded speeches on aregular basis?  No. He chooses his words carefully - carefully enough to cover up his hatred, just enough so that some people might pass them off as nothing.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
So tell me then what's (0.00 / 0)
the difference between your hatred and Warrens? Hate is hate and right now you're no better then him.
[ Parent ]
Because right is different from wrong. (4.00 / 2)
It sounds like you can't tell the difference anymore, like eight long years of up-is-downism has completely disabled your moral compass.

Rick Warren hates people because of who they love. Spitball dislikes Warren because of who he hates. Do you see the difference?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I don't hate him (0.00 / 0)
Nor do I wish to "cure" him of his addiction to Jesus.

I'd just feel better about Mr. Obama is he wouldn't have invited the guy to fill such a high-profile role at the inauguration.

Please show me where I suggested that he is no better than a pedophile, or a bigamist?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Obviously (4.00 / 1)
"the same as" does not mean "the same as."

Get with it man, it's postmodernism! Or something.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
UM (4.00 / 1)
when you equate homosexual marriage with pedophilic or incestual marriage than YES, yes you ARE "saying homosexuality is the same as incest and paedophilia."
[ Parent ]
Yes, but he didn't do that. (4.00 / 1)
Look, it's a subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

Warren's stance is that he doesn't want to change the definition of marriage.  He thinks that any change in the definition is equally bad.  This includes changing it to accomodate gay people, as well as changing it to accomodate paedophiles.

That is not saying that homosexuality has just as much moral worth as paedophilia.  It is therefore not equating homosexuality with paedophilia.

It's a stupid argument, on many different levels.  But it isn't gay-bashing.

[ Parent ]
To maintain the distinction you are making (4.00 / 3)
we have to believe that Warren, when he was making his argument, was completely unaware that people would take him to be saying, by implication, that homosexuality was like incest etc. Maybe he is that clueless but I doubt it. I have to think he was aware of how he would sound.  
[ Parent ]
Not really. (0.00 / 0)
Note especially that this is during an interview, not a prepared speech.  When you're speaking off-the-cuff, you oftentimes say stupid things, even if you're smarter than Dubya (and I'm not sure Warren is smarter than Dubya, so...).

And even if he did, what are you suggesting?  He's speaking in some sort of code, using implications to suggest to evangelicals that homosexuality is as bad as paedophilia?  Or suggesting that to homosexuals?  Or both?  Color me confused.  If he wanted to say that, why didn't he just say that?

[ Parent ]
No code (4.00 / 1)
I would just think that it would be more or less obvious that if you're asked about homosexuality, and you respond by talking about incest and child rape, people are going to take you to be comparing them.

If he really did just misspeak or something, fine, I don't think he should be crucified (NPI) for that. But he hasn't come out and corrected himself (to my knowledge - happy to be wrong about that).  

[ Parent ]
It would be like (4.00 / 1)
if somebody asked me why I wasn't voting for McCain, and I said "for the same reasons I wouldn't vote for Hitler." Most people upon hearing that would take me to be comparing McCain to Hitler, I think.  
[ Parent ]
Well, yeah. (0.00 / 0)
There is a comparison, definitely.  The question is, what type of comparison is it?  Is he comparing each in their entireties, or only specific aspects of each?

In my opinion, he's comparing the effect each would have upon the definition of marriage, and saying they're the same.  In other words, he's only comparing specific aspects of each, in a way that is not really offensive.

Again, it's a bad argument.  But that's what it is.

[ Parent ]
How many angels (4.00 / 1)
can dance on the head of pin in your world?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
So the examples he chose just happened to be (4.00 / 2)
incest, pedophilia and polygamy.  I mean, that was simply an accident?

Never mind that the biblical definition of marriage includes things like polygamy, or a man marrying the wife of his deceased brother.

[ Parent ]
Not an accident. (0.00 / 0)
If you want to argue Warren's stupid argument, you need to cite couplings that are not currently allowed.  What would you suggest?

And yes, that is one of the many reasons Warren's argument is bad.  I completely agree with you there.

[ Parent ]
"Couplings" (4.00 / 1)
nice.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Jeez, go back to your 8th grade grammar books. (4.00 / 1)
A metaphor is precisely an equation. When you construct 2 elements as parallel, yes, you are equating them.
[ Parent ]
Turn Back Hate (0.00 / 0)
I'm offering a way for people to protest Pastor Warren. I think it's perfectly acceptable for ordinary Americans who reject the Pastor's hateful rhetoric against all kind of groups by turning their backs on him during his invocation. You can show your support by signing my petition at TurnBackHate.com.
Personally I preferr Paul's suggestion of carrying a pink triangle (0.00 / 0)
or a pink triangle sign.

It is most appropriate, because it is a reminder that this is about rights and being treated as a human being, and because it cannot be misinterpreted, on purpose, merely as disrespect for Christians, or pastors, or prayer or whatever lie the right will state.

A million pink triangles held aloft in silence as the bigot speaks. Eloquence. \

Eloquence.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Pink Triangles (0.00 / 0)
I think displaying a symbol of one's identity is a wonderful idea. But from a practical standpoint, it would be very difficult to purchase and distribute 3-4 million pink triangles on Inauguration Day. Turning your back is an eloquent and easy gesture because it's something everyone can do, even if they're watching the event on TV or listening on the radio.

From a movement standpoint, I think it's important that we acknowledge that gays and lesbians aren't the only victims of Pastor Warren's hate speech. Women, Jews, Holocaust victims, atheists, and non-evangelicals all have legitimate grievances against Pastor Warren that should be acknowledged. No one group should be singled out because we're all in this together.

I appreciate your input though, and will proudly wear whatever symbols are available to me to protest Pastor Warren's hate speech. Likewise, I hope you'll sign the petition.  

[ Parent ]
put them on your iPhones (0.00 / 0)
I know I know...I'm in the Bay Area, so it seems like everyone has an iPhone. It just struck me as funny, though, to picture people at the invocation holding up their iPhones with glowing pink triangles. They could be downloaded through the iTunes store...

Just a random thought.

[ Parent ]
printing them at home. Taking them to the inaugural. (4.00 / 2)
And it is far more than identity. It is an acknowledgement of the historical castigation of gay people. Remember the pink triangle is the symbol German rightists placed on the chests of gay men in concentration camps. It was the way they were organized on their way to the ovens.

Its a historical symbol of the oppression of those that seem different from you.

It is the symbol thats reminds, "what side are you on?"

What side are you on?

Take a (big) pink triangle to the inaugural if you are not on that side. Not only if you are gay, if you stand with our gay brothers and sisters.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I think it's kind of like (0.00 / 0)
"Whacking Day" on the Simpsons.

Montani semper liberi
The invocation was a dumb choice (0.00 / 0)
Obama has clearly articulated a preference to work with people on issues on which they agree even if they disagree on other issues.  I generally support that approach, although Obama takes it to an extreme -- and in my opinion counterproductive -- extent.

I honestly wouldn't care if Warren were just invited to the White House or otherwise to discuss issues with Obama.  If Obama can sit down with Ahmedinejad then he can sit down with Warren.  The problem with picking Warren for the inauguration invocation is that the selection is viewed much more strongly as an endorsement.  After all, if you pick someone to give the invocation then presumably you are picking the best possible person to give the invocation.

Obama's sentiment that "we can disagree without being disagreeable" feels like a non sequitor.  Sure you can "disagree without being disagreeable", but why the hell would you want to at your own inauguration?  Did Obama run out of people that he agrees with?  Now he's giving affirmative action to people he disagrees with?  

I agree, yet (0.00 / 0)
I agree that the choice was unnecessary and unwise; there simply is no need to make the point that you are going to listen to all points of view by giving Warren such a symbolic position.  The same point could have been made without making anyone upset.

But at the same time, I also think that we're making far too much of this: an invocation is just an invocation.

[ Parent ]
Because they are Gay Bashing Respectfully (0.00 / 0)
Somebody help me here (0.00 / 0)

 Does Rick Warren have any nasty anti-Catholic statements in his past? I figure that, as a fundie, he hates Catholics, but it would be helpful to have a quote or two.

 Reason I'm asking is that Christmas with my ultrawingnutty Catholic family is approaching. I expect to hear boundless heaps of praise of Rick Warren. I need an antidote.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Well, I had a comment up before when this went up a few hours ago... (0.00 / 0)
But since that apparently was deleted, it's gone now.

In any case, I think you are being over-dramatic and unfair. Your post implies a couple things:

1) That Warren's sole or main position that he advocates is "gay bashing".

2) That Warren will somehow use this "platform" that he's been given to promote "gay bashing".

This is just silly.  Let me be clear... I'm not a big fan of Obama's pick here, but on the other hand, I think people are overreacting just a bit to this too.  Warren is not going to get up in front of everyone and talk about how terrible gays are.  (If he does, then I'll admit I was wrong). To suggest, or at least imply otherwise really just seems like a way to incite more anger.  Criticize the pick, sure... but let's not imply things that are simply not true.

Imagine if he was just as outspoken about marriage between (4.00 / 1)
African American's and European-American's? Not equating it with or even trying to imply that it will lead to child abuse, just putting, "accidently" all those words in the same sentence, would that enrage?

Would it be unacceptable to have "that" Rick Warren invoke at the inaugural?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
That would be just as annoying to me, and as of today, much less socially acceptable to be sure.

I think in either case it shows a substantial character flaw and I wish that Obama had picked someone else, but at the same time in both cases would not be reflective of Obama's presidency or necessarily of Obama's views.  I'll wait for his actual presidency for that...

I think it's worth considering the overall scope of the person, which is sort of my point here.  David is sort of implying that Obama is bringing in Warren to do some gay bashing and I think that's wrong and unfair.  I'm NOT saying that the pick shouldn't be criticized, but I want to be realistic about it at the same time.  Obama didn't pick Warren to make a statement about gays or gay marriage or whatever...  

[ Parent ]
Thats the point. (4.00 / 1)
much less socially acceptable to be sure.

it is not acceptable to honor this man, with these views.

"You will get push back, angry push back, honorable, principled push back that will make you look like an idiot if you do this. People will wonder loudly if you meant anything you said at all."

Here are some sentences that might make it clearer from the perspective of one just assaulted similarly..

"OK we can argue but don't insult my mother."

"Oh no you didn't!"

or on the other hand does this help?

"He's just trying to jew you down."

"That's mighty white of you."

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Two different points here... (0.00 / 0)
I agree with what you're saying.

I don't agree with what David is saying.  He's equating having Warren speak at the inauguration with Gay bashing... as if just having Warren there is gay bashing.  I disagree with that, and I think it's unfair to imply it.  

I don't think Obama should have "promoted" Warren, but I probably wouldn't have really cared for anyone he promoted... though yes, it would've been better if it was at least someone that was pro gay-rights.

[ Parent ]
Gay bashing is not just physical violence. (4.00 / 1)
Surely you can agree with that.
[ Parent ]
Are we really getting that technical? (0.00 / 0)
Umm, yes... I, of course, agree with that.  If Warren starts talking about the evils of being gay at the inauguration, I'll rescind all of my earlier statements.
[ Parent ]
An ally of the people who do promote violence (4.00 / 1)
an ally of the people who use this lie, this calumny to attack, fire, beat and castigate. Al;lies who the use the same words to send children off to be fixed. An ally of the people whoi say don't hit the sick gays, just arrest them.

A man who finds in the "not able to be argued with" book reasons to look down upon, who ignores reasons to accept, to embrace and to respect their brothers and sisters who are different than him, whose existence is a trouble to him.

Allies.

I do not stand with him. I do not promote him.

Rahm Emanuel says "remember what message this sends" one of the most important parts of the political process, "what message does this send" is central to the administration's effort. So. What message does it send to honor this man?


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Likely an impossible standard... (4.00 / 1)
You're basically arguing that any moderate position equates to an extreme one.  I'm sure there are plenty of examples of your beliefs that wingnuts could (and do) easily play the same game with and equate you with, say, Chavez or Castro or whatever.  I'm going to try and avoid the same trap.
[ Parent ]
The wily leshrac55 (4.00 / 2)
Yes, you've avoided that trap with admirable dexterity. The trap you haven't avoided is the one which confuses Warren's program with moderation, and mistakes Obama for Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.
[ Parent ]
Excuse me... (4.00 / 1)
I was responding to the assertion that Warren is an "ally" to those that promote violence against gays.  I suppose this is true, in the sense that they both believe that gays should not have the same rights as everyone else.

My point is that this is, essentially, the slippery slope argument.  I suppose that all the people who opposed the Vietnam war in the 60s/70s "allied" themselves with the Weather Underground or other extremists who may have been against the war and used it as an "excuse" to carry out their violent acts.  I guess they should all be condemned then, huh?

[ Parent ]
Seriously.... (4.00 / 2)
Your analogy is a false one, that's the point. Warren does indeed consider homosexuality a defect (I'll happily leave his pseudo-Christian notions of sin and redemption for some future argument.)

The fact that he considers it a curable defect is even greater evidence of his ignorance, not to mention an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can walk and chew gum at the same time. With him, and others like him, there can be no marriages of convenience, even if he's never expressed an interest -- in public, at least -- in dragging some poor young gay man behind his pickup truck.

I'm sorry, but politics or no politics, Warren is 1) a moron, and 2) part of the industry of fundamentalist demagoguery which, no matter how many knuckle-dragging followers he can deliver to the polls, needs to be sent back to Mississippi where it belongs, and never, ever be allowed the dignity of a national forum again.

Otherwise, we might as well concede that, 250+ years after Voltaire and Diderot, ignorance and superstition have a point after all. Is that what you really expect us to do? If so, we might as well argue theology with the Taliban, for all the good it will do us.

[ Parent ]
So... (4.00 / 1)
Saying that Homosexuality is a "defect" is the same as promoting violence against homosexuals then? This seems to be what you're arguing, so I don't see how the analogy is false.
[ Parent ]
No, it isn't.... (4.00 / 2)
You're quite right about that, and your defense of the distinction is both honorable and astute. My point was tangential to your argument, but it was, I think, equally germane. Someone who won't grant you the status of an equal is your enemy, your mortal enemy, even though he has no apparent connection whatever with the folks who beat you up in alleys.

I lived this experience in the South of my youth. Butter wouldn't melt in the mouths of the white folks on the hill, who seemed to feel quite paternal toward our nigras. And yet...how was I to reconcile that with the bully boys, fellow students at Memphis State, who showed up one day, four of them, with a half-dozen baseball bats in the trunk of their car, and invited me -- very pointedly, since they knew I was a Yankee -- to go nigger-knocking with them?

To make a long story short, I concluded that the subtext of Southern white culture wouldn't bear the light of day. The folks on the hill knew what my bully-boy fellow students were about, in fact they depended on them as an essential, if hidden, part of the social order. Can I not be forgiven for believing that Warren is part of a system which prides itself on being, as the Talking Heads put it, the same as it ever was...

[ Parent ]
I'm certainly sympathetic to that... (4.00 / 1)
Though this is the same argument that hardcore atheists use against any religion, and it bugs me the same way.  People like Richard Dawkins argue that "moderate" religious people, or even "moderate" atheists/agnostics basically excuse religious extremism by allowing for "magical thinking".  

I'm actually agnostic myself and sympathetic to this argument, but at the same time I find it counter-productive and unrealistic.  There are lots and lots of people out there who are "moderately" religious who I don't think present a "danger" to the world. Similarly, I don't think someone who thinks gays are "defective" is the same as someone who wants to physically hurt gays. It may be a position that's unpalatable to me... one that I think we should hope to change, but one that doesn't equate with violence.

[ Parent ]
All we need is love (and a bit of begging the question, to season our good will) (0.00 / 0)
You have reason to hope, I have reason to doubt. Au fond, we don't seem to have any real quarrel. Perhaps we should consider it a matter of honi soit qui mal y pense.

I think I'll leave it at that, except to say that I've enjoyed our exchange.

[ Parent ]
You are wrong. (0.00 / 0)
But I find it hard to tell you so you can hear it. What child slavery? Is it OK to speak in soft terms about the need for cheap labor, and moderately about the need for families to get food from anywhere, is it OK to give a Nobel Prize to someone who promotes the economics of slave labour?

Promoting to a position of honor, such as giving a Nobel Prize, is different from you not speaking to an in-law who is confused and uneducated.

Now do you understand?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
When are responces closed? (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Yes, I understand... (0.00 / 0)
But as you are accusing me of going too soft, now you're equating "being agianst gay marriage" to "child slavery."  Are these really at the same level?

I'm against both of these, but it's probably not fair to equate the two either.

[ Parent ]
I do stand with elected leaders who respect votes. (0.00 / 0)
I do stand with altering economies so that they benefit everyone in the society, I do support people who organize to solve problems first, I do support Chavez as far as these things go.

I would work, were I Venezuelan, for different policies, and against things that did not meet my principles. Just as we do here.

I am strongly against the rightist effort to smear Chavez so that an attempt to overthrow him and bring in rightists who have no love for people or democracy, just they did before, we will not stream into the streets and demand justice.

Hands off Venezuela. And for that matter, res[ect the UN's near unanimous decades of protest against the US's illegal blockade of Cuba.

I won't accept that critique at all.

Please place that tripe in th trash.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
thank you for informing me on how I should react. (4.00 / 5)
I'm just a "silly" fag and I'm clearly way too emotional to be taken seriously. So I'll just stop overreacting and go back into the closet.

Let's say you were an African American, and Obama invited a racist to speak at his inauguration. And that racist said only a prayer, and made no racist remarks. Does that make it ok?

Of course not.

The only reason this is "OK" is because it's still ok to bash gays publicly. You can deny it all day, but it's true.

I guess when someone is a bigoted homophobe its ok as long as they don't talk about it sometimes huh?

How many gay kids will go another day in the closet because the public de-legitimization of their sexual orientation has now be reinforced just a little bit?

You insult me. But I doubt you care. I'm just a silly fag who should shut up.

[ Parent ]
Great, that's exactly what I said... (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I said all you fags should just go away and deal with it.  That's fucking awesome, especially when I said "I'm not a big fan of Obama's pick here, but on the other hand, I think people are overreacting just a bit to this too."  You're right.. exactly the same thing.

Would I have preferred he picked someone else that didn't hold this view?  Yes.  Of course, I think I'd be annoyed with any pick, because any major religious figure would probably rub me the wrong way as I'm agnostic anyway.

This, for me, takes some (perhaps a lot of) shine off of his inauguration.  As for his presidency, I'm going to judge that based on what he does, not about who says what at his fucking inauguration.

[ Parent ]
OK, it pisses you off, it annoys you, it takes the shine off the innaugural. (4.00 / 2)
Not that far different from what others are saying. But others are even angrier. Angry enough to start the process NOW of putting pressure on the "soon-to-be" administration, because apparently they need to be pushed.

Angry because there are so few advisers close enough in to Obama's 'circle of non-partisans' that this 'slipped by', to say nothing of Obama's now apparent need to learn more deeply what these issues are. To learn what needs done. To learn what has to be avoided.

You lost the shine of what could have been a very shiny historical moment indeed. An important historical moment indeed.

Obama! Dude! You killed my buzz!

But with importance beyond even that.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
But this IS what he does... (0.00 / 0)
The woeing of a wealthy, white, pop psychology (the worst sin to me) leader of a mega church??  
[ Parent ]
What if we have a universal Don't Ask Don't Tell policy regarding (0.00 / 0)
a person's Sexual Orientation-in workplace,military. and Have a Federal Constitutional Amendment allowing Civil Unions for Gay Couples. and allow Gay Couples to adopt children as long as they don't have a criminal record.  
"Don't Tell" = STFU (4.00 / 1)
It's separate and not equal. It's not good enough.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Are you a lesbian- (0.00 / 0)
It would be an appropriate time to say if you are.
[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 2)
But this bothers me anyway. I can't stand bullies like Warren, and hate it when they get away with stuff. I especially hate it when they get rewarded.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
What an odd question. (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
and the jews can just cover their noses.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
I was trying to defend this to a gay coworker earlier today... (4.00 / 5)
...and it can't be done. It is impossible. This is indefensible. There is no spin, no long-term strategy, no 'secret plan' that can possible justify this.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
This simple admission of personal truth is mighty powerful. (0.00 / 0)
He tried. Which is an admission. He failed, which is a realization.
\
Powerful stuff.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
David, for the divisiveness, look at your own post (0.00 / 0)
And compare with the thoughtful exchange of Melissa Etheridge and Emma Ruby-Sachs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The characterization of Rick Warren's appearance as gay-bashing is your projection.  

We all deserve better than hysterics.

Engage Warren and stop throwing silly tantrums.

There is a difference between engage, and promote. (4.00 / 1)
It is an honor to be the representative of the  people's spirituality at the highest point of the ritual that is more than ritual, of America's most important act of
democracy.
Rick does not yet earn that honor, and to have the "soon to be administration" say he is, points to their blindness on this.

Engagement yes, honor no.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Power and privilege (4.00 / 1)
What everyone seems to be forgetting is power and privilege.  There is still heterosexual privilege and Warren's view is the dominant one in society.  LGBT folk are not the ones with the power to exclude.  The correct position is to struggle against power, privilege and institutionalized oppression, not to defend it in the name of inclusiveness or engagement.
[ Parent ]
I'll play Devil's Advocate (0.00 / 0)
Take this as a premise:

"A major problem in our country today is the polarization of politics, the divisiveness and animus between left and right."

If you believe this, as Obama clearly does (going back to his 2004 convention speech), what kind of actions would you take, as a new president, to remedy it? One idea: at his inauguration, invite a religious figure from the left and a religious figure from the right to make appearances. Sounds reasonable, right? Sends the message that we're all Americans, all in this together, etc.

But here is the problem: it is almost certainly impossible to find a figure of the religious right who has not said things about homosexuality that people who believe in gay rights will regard as bigoted. If you're going to do the left-right religious reconciliation thing, almost by definition you're going to have to include one person who is anti-gay.

(Like I said, I don't necessarily buy this argument - primarily because I don't buy the premise. I don't really give two shits about "divisiveness." But the above, it seems to me, is the strongest argument that can be made for the Warren pick. It would also help a LOT if, as M. Etheridge and partner recently indicated, Warren actually regretted some of the comments he has made (and admitted as much in public).)

Except the diagnosis is ass-backwards. (4.00 / 1)
The problem is not polarization, it's capitulation. More capitulation is not the remedy. More capitulation is the recipe for eight more years of turmoil and heartache but so be it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
There always has been a contingent in this country of assholes who fight tooth and nail against the rights of others, and the well being of society as a whole. I really don't see that going away anytime soon. So making nice with these people is, IMO, pointless.
[ Parent ]
Que? (4.00 / 1)
"Is that what they're saying - that they think gay bashing is the best way to build national unity?"

Well, unless gay bashing is in the inauguration I fail to see how this is anything but a weird strawman.

And in all seriousness, as despicable as Warren's views are, this idea that a dude that's got millions of followers and a book that's sold tons of copies is being "elevated" because he's at a political function is beyond me. It's not like Obama picked some douche off the street, it's a guy that already has considerable political power THAT WAS ALREADY ELEVATED BY GETTING HIS OWN SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL FORUM. I don't mean to demean people's legitimate feelings over Warren, but I don't recall David Sirota (or matt, or chris) throwing a bitch fit over the Saddleback Forum. Hurray for taking convenient stands.

So, it's OK with you that Obama picked a douche with real power? (4.00 / 1)
I think there's space for you on the bus, my man!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
For a while, anyway. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
"throwing a bitch fit" (4.00 / 2)
?  Maybe not, but Matt didn't think it was a good idea:


I think Obama's going to do very well in the Saddleback forum, but it's worth noting that Rick Warren is hardly the kind of figure to be validating.
[...]
I'm so glad this is the man hosting the first major Presidential forum.  

And in response to the critiques of Obama doing the Saddleback event, Mike Lux wrote a defence of the move.

It was controversial, but no, no one made a big stink because it was the middle of the election and we were being constantly harangued not to ruin Obama's chances by speaking out against him.

[ Parent ]
That's the problem (0.00 / 0)
It was controversial, but no, no one made a big stink because it was the middle of the election and we were being constantly harangued not to ruin Obama's chances by speaking out against him.

Like I said, hurry for convenient stands. The "we'll roll with the punches except when we don't" strategy. Very coherent.

No qualms about the man having a forum where he's given weight to millions of people as some sort of moral authority, during the election. But say a prayer at a function that will have a diverse group of people including a preacher that supports gay marriage saying a prayer at the end and it's Armageddon?

The fuck is that?

I don't mean to make it sound like i'm ranting at you in particular, it's just that the posts by the aforementioned 3 guys seem to get more and more hyperbolic about the Warren issue and I have to call out people that didn't take a stand when it certainly mattered more.

[ Parent ]
uhm (4.00 / 2)
I just demonstrated there were qualms about it.  And yes, honouring the man with a spot in the inauguration is worse than attending his forum during an at the time tough election.  At least the latter can be justified on plausible grounds of electoral necessity.  Now it is pure indulgence.

It also isn't bizarre or even remarkable that people held their fire on Obama during the campaign and speak more freely now.  Everyone gets that a general election campaign is a poor time to aim a lot of fire at the nominee.  People weren't happy about it, Matt noted it, Mike even wrote a rebuttal to the criticism (it was hardly just Matt complaining).  What would be an acceptable level of outrage over the Saddleback forum?  

There's also an argument to be made that we "got over" the first time Obama chose to give credence to this man, but now this is a bridge too far.  For the gay community, they had forgiven the inclusion of that other anti-gay preacher in an Obama event.  Having let certain things slide in the past, does that mean everyone is bound to ignore them forever more?  

[ Parent ]
Some Qualms (0.00 / 0)
I just demonstrated there were qualms about it.

You showed me that Matt objected to Warren's justification for the war in Iraq. Not even a call to reject the forum.

Mike even wrote a rebuttal to the criticism

Criticism that seemed made purely out of political concerns if you read Mike's post.

At least the latter can be justified on plausible grounds of electoral necessity.

There is no justification. Either you're a political opportunist or you aren't, either you consider validating Warren equivalent to gay bashing or you don't. You can't straddle both sides of the fence and expect respect. And you're seriously giving more weight to giving a prayer at a ceremony as compared to moderating a forum on morality?

There's also an argument to be made that we "got over" the first time Obama chose to give credence to this man, but now this is a bridge too far.

There is an argument if one holds blatant inconsistency to be a virtue.

How could the Obama team misread the situation? Because they underestimated the ability of bloggers to create conflict where there once was none, out of thin air.

[ Parent ]
aoei (4.00 / 2)

Either you're a political opportunist or you aren't, either you consider validating Warren equivalent to gay bashing or you don't. You can't straddle both sides of the fence and expect respect. And you're seriously giving more weight to giving a prayer at a ceremony as compared to moderating a forum on morality?

No, your dichotomy doesn't stand.  Every politician is an opportunist to some degree.  The degree matters.  If it didn't there would be no difference between Obama and Cheney since Obama has compromised on his stated principles a number of times.  

Yes, I am quite seriously taking the position that the inauguration gig is a greater honour and endorsement than the forum was.  For one thing, Obama is President-Elect now, rather than just a Senator trying to win an election.  He has deliberately chosen Warren for this honour when he was under no real pressure or obligation to do so.  Refusing to do the forum would have had a political cost, since McCain agreed to do it.  

I think that is the core of the disagreement here.  I don't see Obama arriving to debate Warren as badly as singling him out for a high honour.  I would rather he had avoided the forum, but this is a bridge too far.  If I was wrong not to scream about the forum, so be it, but better late than never.  

[ Parent ]
How about some positive action (0.00 / 0)
So Rick Warren was a dumb choice, we get it. After the 20th post about it can we move on and do some positive organizing?

The Courage Campaign wants Warren to publicly debate his views with a pro-Equality minister. With over 16k page views a day a front page post about it could add a lot of signatures and would have a whole lot more impact then the last 20 posts about Warren.

Sign the petition!

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

David, haven't you ever learned how Happy Valley works? (0.00 / 0)
All very predictable... (4.00 / 2)
... and  predicted.

All the emphasis on "talking" to Warren, and how that's g-o-o-o-d, seems like a one way street to me. The central concern should be, and should have been, who Obama doesn't talk to.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Well said, David.  I couldn't agree more.
Are you really about peace or not? (4.00 / 1)
...
I hadn't heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this. When I heard the news, in its neat little sound bite form that we are so accustomed to, it painted the picture for me. This Pastor Rick must surely be one hate spouting, money grabbing, bad hair televangelist like all the others. He probably has his own gay little secret bathroom stall somewhere, you know. One more hater working up his congregation to hate the gays, comparing us to pedophiles and those who commit incest, blah blah blah. Same 'ole thing. Would I be boycotting the inauguration? Would we be marching again?

Well, I have to tell you my friends, the universe has a sense of humor and indeed works in mysterious ways. As I was winding down the promotion for my Christmas album I had one more stop last night. I'd agreed to play a song I'd written with my friend Salman Ahmed, a Sufi Muslim from Pakistan. The song is called "Ring The Bells," and it's a call for peace and unity in our world. We were going to perform our song for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a group of Muslim Americans that tries to raise awareness in this country, and the world, about the majority of good, loving, Muslims. I was honored, considering some in the Muslim religion consider singing to be against God, while other Muslim countries have harsh penalties, even death for homosexuals. I felt it was a very brave gesture for them to make. I received a call the day before to inform me of the keynote speaker that night... Pastor Rick Warren. I was stunned. My fight or flight instinct took over, should I cancel? Then a calm voice inside me said, "Are you really about peace or not?"

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.

I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in my heart. I know we are headed in the direction of marriage equality and equal protection for all families.
...

-Melissa Etheridge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...


I adore (4.00 / 1)
Melissa but am not sure she has been in the trenches long enough to know when she is being manipulated by someone with a massive ego and what passes these days for charisma.
[ Parent ]
Peace? (4.00 / 3)
Tacitus said it best: ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. There is no peace possible with someone who doesn't believe you have a right to exist.
[ Parent ]
the problem is not bigotry (4.00 / 3)
the problem is patriarchy.  This is what unites the new politics and the old.
The 5,000 year lie (4.00 / 1)
One of the things that I have not seen discussed here is the 5,000 year lie.  Warren has said that the definition of marriage has been one man and one woman for 5,000 years.  Now Warren HAS to know that this is completely untrue.  At the time of Jesus, Jews could have more than one wife.  More than 3,000 years ago, probably most, if not all, cultures premitted more than one wife.  Does anybody remember King David and his wives?  To this day, Mulims are permitted more than one wife, at least if they live in a Muslim country.  And most of the money to oppose prop 8 came from a church that officially supported polygamy only 120 years ago, and unofficially as recently as perhaps 70 years ago.  So any statement about the 5,000 year definition of marriage is a LIE, and Warren has to know that it's a lie.  So his two main pillars of opposition to prop 8, freedom of speech for pastors and the 5,000 year definition of marriaage are both lies.  I don't care how pleasant his personality is or how many gay friends he has - he campaigns against civil rights with lies.  Tell me how that makes him any better than your garden-variety old-style racist.
Gay Bashing As Means of Ending Division? | 159 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox