5. What did you do when you heard about the proposed Ugandan law?
I wrote to the most influential leader I knew in that country, the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda, and shared my opposition and concern. He wrote me back, saying that he, too, was opposed to the death penalty for homosexuals. There are thousands of evil laws enacted around the world that kill people (For instance, last year, 146,000 Christians around the world were killed because of their faith.). In this case, I knew the Archbishop in Uganda, so I did what I could, but my influence in that nation has been greatly exaggerated by the media.
And I went on to write:
So, is Warren saying that 146,000 Christians were killed because of their faith in accord with "evil laws"? What laws, exactly would those be?
I called his PR organization, hoping to get some clarification. When they called me back, it was just sort of a "what is it exactly that you want to know?" kind of call. I talked to them a little about what I discovered myself below, just to push them a bit, and maybe they'll get back to me on Monday with something substantive. But on the face of it, this is simply a bald-faced lie, and there's really no way out.
While there certainly still is widespread religious persecution in the world (a reminder of why America's separation of church and state is a good thing), there is relatively little religious killing as a matter of course.
Open Doors is a decades-old organization identified as "Serving persecuted Christians worldwide." It produces an annual World Watch List of the 50 worst countries in terms of persecuting Christians world-wide, but its literature is remarkably free of any sorts of mass murders on the scale one would need to get anywhere near 146,000 martyrs--as I explained to Warren's PR flack, who at first seemed pleased that I was referring to this site.
Later the next week I received an email reply, not from Warren directly, and after puzzling over it a bit, I've decided to return to the matter, because it's not just Warren. Apparently, the mythology of mass martyrdom is one of the religious rights' big lies that somehow never gets discussed in polite company. I kind of think it's time for that to stop.
Back when it was just about telling gays they couldn't get married and publicly humiliating them, Rick Warren never bothered to disavow this news report from the Kampala Monitor:
Dr [Rick] Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said.
But then, horror, elected officials in Uganda took him a little too seriously about the not tolerating people "at all" and were planning on outright killing them. I don't see where that's out of line with not tolerating them at all, and it didn't seem like Warren did for a while, either. But now, not only has he written a sternly worded letter on the matter, he says this on his homepage:
Did you say that homosexuality is not a human right?
Absolutely not. What I said in an interview in Uganda was that there is no civil right to gay marriage guaranteed by the United States Constitution. All Americans, and I believe all people, are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," as spoken by the United States Declaration of Independence.
Fascinating clarification and long, long after the fact. Also, is there much of a difference between human rights and inalienable rights? I guess that's an exercise for the reader.
A recent development in the Ugandan 'kill the gays' bill story once again shows how the religious right is permeated lies. Indeed, violating the Ninth Commandment--"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"--seems to be the core belief of the religious right. (Not to mention the rest of the right, as well.)
Ugandan Member of Parliament David Bahati, who introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Act into Parliament, appeared on the BBC's Focus On Africa program to talk about his handiwork. Bahati appears not to have gotten the memo about the death penalty being eliminated or the trial balloon of dropping the whole bill that was floated on the Uganda government's official Media Centre web site. Bahati remained firmly behind the bill, saying that it is all about responding to child sexual abuse:
David Bahati says the new offence of "aggravated homosexuality" is a penalty against "defilement" of under-18s. "There has been a distortion in the media that we are providing death for gays. That is not true," he said. "When a homosexual defiles a kid of less than 18 years old, we are providing a penalty for this."
This, of course, is an outright lie.
The story goes on to quote the bill in full, but most telling is this:
3. Aggravated homosexuality. (1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
....(f) offender is a serial offender, or....
So a second offense--potentially charged simultaneously with a first offense--was sufficient for the death penalty. And the man who wrote the law simply lied flat out about it.
Some paragon of virtue he is!
But that lie to the BBC was not an isolated one. Indeed, the entire rationale of the Uganda crusade to kill gays is permeated with the same vast array of lies that have been used in the US to attack gay rights since the 1970s. That it's unnatural, that gays are child-molesters, that gays are sick, that gays are a product of cultural decadence, etc., etc., etc. And, of course, those big lies bring innumerable smaller lies in their wake. Which is why it's no surprise that--as Rachel Maddow indicated on Thursday --Rick Warren lies so effortlessly where gay-related issues are concerned:
Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, was in Maine for the election and he and I sat down for some chatting. I'll have more clips up this week of what we talked about, but let's start with Joe talking about the Democratic Party's commitment, or lack thereof, to LGBT issues in response to the OFA/DNC fiasco.
As I've written before, OFA and Obama's refusal to get involved in a major way was not just disappointing but a slap in the face on top of what the Administration (and by extension, the campaign through actions like inviting "ex-gay" homophobe Donnie McClurkin to speak at their rallies) has already done. The Maine fiasco was, for me and others, the straw that broke the camel's back, and in response, John and Joe at AMERICABlog have launched a donor boycott of the DNC until the Administration accomplishes legislative priorities.
Now, I've called for more patience on LGBT legislation, and I don't entirely agree that DOMA can be repealed "today" as they do, but I think these kinds of actions are on the right track, and the Administration is going to see a lot more of this coming down the pipe. HRC gave a tacit endorsement of the action as well.
But what really gets me is the smaller, stupid things they do to smack gays around. As Solmonese said, taking action in WA and ME "is by no means a risky strategy, and at the core of what they ought to be doing." It would not cost them anything to ask for a No vote in the Maine e-mail blast. Obama called for a No vote on Prop 8 but the tepid statement they issued regarding Maine didn't even mention the words "Maine" "No" "Question 1" or anything that would actually influence voters. Rick Warren at the inaugural, Donnie McClurkin, abolishing White House and DNC LGBT liaison positions, refusing to interview with LGBT press, or even apologize for any of these actions... the list goes on and on. In fact, John and Joe have a full list here.
Just like the "internet left fringe" comment, either don't advance Obama's position among voters or, if they do pick up votes, do so at the cost of endorsing McClurkin and Warren-style bigotry. The White House needs to both push harder for action on LGBT priorities as well as shut this kind of crap down.
Is Tim Geithner another bad choice, like Rick Warren, that Barack Obama is simply incapable of recognizing, admitting and acting on? And is his unwillingness to recognize this a symptom of some much deeper problem with how he will govern? I fear it very well could be.
There was a headline at Huffington Post, it's gone now--I blinked and it went away--but it made a sharp impression before it was replaced with something far more benign. I forget the exact wording, but basically it was the Obama told 60-Minutes there was no way he was letting Geithner go. It came across like it was a point of honor with him. And I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that.
Obama fends off Geithner doubters
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will not be allowed to resign amid criticism of his short term in office, President Barack Obama has said.
Mr Obama told CBS News he would turn down any offer by Mr Geithner to quit, and would tell him: "Sorry, buddy, you've still got the job."
I'm having a flashback right about now, to Barack Obama posting a diary at Daily Kos, telling all us dirty fucking hippies to lay off his buds in the Senate. That was the first instance when Obama used his popularity with the Democratic base to shield his personal friends from justly earned criticism--criticism that had nothing, necessarily, to do with them as private people, and everything to do with their public duties.
Then, there was his still-unexplained infatuation with Rick Warren....
Natasha and I are just about finished packing, and we will be heading to D.C. in a few hours. It is harder to pack for an inaugural ball Monday night, standing outside in the cold for several hours Tuesday morning, and a Wednesday trip to the Senate than it looks. This is especially the case if you have to fit everything into a single over-the-should bag because you have a broken arm.
While it may come as a shock to a few of you, I am actually very excited about this trip. What's more, the inauguration itself is, by far, the top event to which I am looking forward.
There is one question in the back of my mind though: what am I going to do when Rick Warren starts talking? Given my lack of spiritual inclinations, I am not very happy that we have to sit through a prayer at all, but being captive to him feels particularly uncomfortable. So, I'd like to do something about it.
In trying to think of an action, I am not worried about any anti-Warren action making us lefties look too partisan or ideological on TV, no matter how dirty those words have become these days. However, I am worried about any action that could turn the crowd against itself, even in small, localized areas. For this event, I think it is important that the crowd be happy and familial.
I'm open to ideas. Turning around? Booing? Singing Rick Astley? Any thoughts?
2009 already is shaping up to be a year of surprises. Yesterday, we learned that America's favorite TV doctor, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, will likely be the next Surgeon General of the United States.
TurnBackHate.com invites you to sign our petition protesting President-elect Barack Obama's decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural ceremony on January 20th, 2009. There can be no doubt about it: Pastor Warren is a minister of hate and has insulted gays, lesbians, Jews, atheists, practitioners of the social gospel, Holocaust victims, and ordinary Americans who want to put the politics of hate behind us. I hope you'll join us in silently and non-disruptively turning your back on Pastor Warren when he delivers the invocation.
Since launching my website and petition at TurnBackHate.com, I've heard dozens of ideas for how we should protest Pastor Warren at the inauguration: flying rainbow flags, singing a protest song, wearing special clothing or accessories, booing Rick Warren, and so on and so forth. These are all legitimate ideas but they all have a problem: they either needlessly limit the number of people who can participate or could potentially backfire. Turning our backs is the ONLY form of protest that both maximizes the number of participants and minimizes the risk of press backlash.
Raw Story has a pretty succinct take on the deteriorating state of Rick Warren's mental health:
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow believes that the uproar over Barack Obama's selection of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation might have been subsiding by now, except that Warren himself -- very much like Reverend Jeremiah Wright last spring -- has stirred things up again with a video address in which he accuses his critics of being "Christophobes."
"Not only it is getting worse," commented Maddow, "it's getting weirder."
In the 22 minute message to his congregation placed on his website last Sunday, Warren first denied ever "equating gay partnership with incest and pedophilia" -- which Maddow quickly disproved with a clip of him doing just that -- and then went on to attack his critics for their "false accusations, attacks, outright lies, and hateful slander, and really a lot of hate speech."
"It's what I would call 'Christophobia.'" Warren concluded. "People who are afraid of any Christian."
"Might those people possibly just be Pastor Rick-o-phobes?" Maddow asked.
But there's a deeper story than Rick's mental ticks.
You see, here's what Christ said about homosexuals:
That's right. Let me repeat that:
And that's just got to scare Pastor Rick, don'tcha think?
TurnBackHate.com invites you to sign our petition protesting President-elect Barack Obama's decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural ceremony on January 20th, 2009. There can be no doubt about it: Pastor Warren is a minister of hate who has repeatedly and unapologetically used rhetoric that is offensive, insulting, hurtful, and spiteful towards ordinary Americans of all walks of life. Whether you're watching the Inauguration on TV or online, listening on the radio, or attending the ceremony on the Mall in Washington, we hope you'll join us in silently and non-disruptively turning your back on Pastor Warren when he delivers the invocation.
I didn't vote for that guy. That's true of both title characters. The thing is I sort of liked one of them. If I got the opportunity to vote in Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, or Nevada instead of Minnesota, I would have voted for Obama. If Obama wouldn't have tossed me under the bus with his one-eighty turn around on retroactive immunity for telecoms, I would have voted for him no matter where my precinct stood.
Now I guess because I didn't vote for him I really shouldn't dictate what he should and shouldn't do but that's not how politics works in America and it's not the whole story. I am an active member in my local Democrats Abroad chapter. I organized the election night party for my neck of the woods. I even donated money to Obama and got others to do the same. See, I was starting to like the guy. He handled all the retrograde dung McCain and the RNC could throw at him. He was modest. He was intelligent. He was compassionate, and he is the voice of my generation.
I think that's why I am so upset with him right now. He's the voice of my generation-the most tolerate generation America has ever seen yet Rick Warren, self proclaimed James Dobson light, who thinks women must submit to their husbands in marriage, who thinks women exercising their constitution choice are hell bound sluts, forgoing their god given punishment of child, for easy tricks now. He compares homosexuality to pedophilia and polygamy and won't let gays join his church.
Shuush.... I can hear you. You're telling me to shrug it off. Khong Sao in Vietnam's vernacular. It's no big deal, he's just giving a two minute prayer where he won't say anything nasty. It's just a symbol. America is a diverse place and the inauguration should respect that. He's reaching out to those who disagree with him. The culture war is a relic, grow up you liberals!
I get it. I understand your arugments and no I don't think your dumb or are Jones town bound due to the kool-aide. But here's the rub. Those arguments don't convince me. Though these do:
* It makes Warren's brand of Homobigotry seem mainstream.
* It's shown the incoming administration that they can score political points by punching the LGBT and progressive communities in the face.
* The administration won't be able to call in the favor later. Conservative movement politics is based on backlash and victimhood. They won't be able to cooperate because it would destroy the underpinnings of their movement.
Further, let me use an analogy to put you in my shoes. Suppose you're a senior in college. You went to a "normal" college. It was left of center. Now the campus news paper comes out a few months before graduation announcing that Rick Warren will be your commencement speaker. How do you feel?
Betrayed? Couldn't we get anyone better? Most of the words that come out of that guys mouth would get him expelled here! Damn it, why can't we get Borat or Dan Savage?
Now the administration faced with push back from its supporters....err... I mean students tries to calm the masses with some talking points and then kind of just wishes the kids go and smoke some hope...err pot...and forget about the whole deal. The talking points slog on about diversity of though and how intellectual freedom and open minds are essential for the passage of health care... errr...success later in life. It will build character to hear someone you disagree with and be respectful of them. Who knows you may end up agreeing with him. Even though you are the only reason this event is happening-the commencement-your opinion doesn't matter because the administration (of the college) knows better!
Has the administration (of the college) convinced you? Me neither nor has the President Elect.
In the end though, I don't have much of a choice. Obama is going to (kind of) end the war in Iraq. (Kind of) bring about universal health insurance. (kind of) make that affordable. (Kind of) deal with reducing green house gases and the problems associated with the fossil fuel infrastructure of the country. (kind of) fix education. So hey, President Obama, when your buddies down there at NSA are listening to my phone conversation about how I disagree with you and am tired of being sold down the river, remember that I still think kind of is better then nothing-so don't send me to the (kind of) closed guitmo. maybe I (kind of) like it though. I though Obama was a crank during the primaries and I obviously didn't vote for him.
greeting Barack Obama and Rick Warren as Warren delivers the invocation at Obama's inaguration. Now, how would that be as a loving, tolerant way to tell Obama to stop beating up on the folks that put him in the White House?
Because it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight union member, environmentalist, peace activist, whatever. One thing is for certain--the contempt being shown for GLBTs today is the same contempt in store for all of us, if we let this continue. An injury to one is an injury to all. This moment, right now, we are all queer. Each and every one of us.
Whatever happened to this election being about "us", not Obama? It's time to remind Obama of what he himself said, before he destroys his own presidency, and everything that millions of supporters have worked so hard for.
"Respect is earned." It's supposed to be a conservative mantra. And Obama is supposed to be trying to reach out to conservatives. So, why does he insist we must bestow respect on Rick Warren that Warren clearly has not earned?
The fact is, there are a lot of "conservative" principles that I respect. Except they're not really conservative. And they're also not exclusive of other principles that might seemingly conflict with them. For example, I think that everyone is worthy of a basic level of respect. Being treated with a fundamental level of dignity is, to my mind, a human right. But I also think that there are higher levels of respect that must be earned, just as one must earn trust. And giving the invocation at a presidential inaguration certainly counts as a position of respect that must be earned.
So, like I already asked, whatever happened to the conservative principle that "Respect is earned"?
Too bad Rick Warren isn't so open-minded. After his over-hyped and intrusive interviews of Obama and John McCain this last August, the best-selling author of A Purpose-Driven Life disclosed to his congregation at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Ca., the one kind of person he couldn't vote for. "I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God,'" Warren preached, according to the Los Angeles Times. "They're saying, 'I'm totally self-sufficient by [myself].' And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It's too big a job."
It's hard to decide which is more laughable: Warren's conception of the presidency or of atheists. Unfortunately, both conceptions are widespread among Americans.
I second that. Warren posits atheists as people who are openly thumbing their noses at God--sort of like people who recognize there is a God but who just refuse to bow to "His" authority. As with many Americans, the notion that some people simply fail to believe in a self-conscious power that exists outside the laws of nature doesn't enter into the equation. Further, being an atheist isn't even a rejection of something--it is merely a failure to make an assertion. I always hate it when I have to answer the question "well, why don't you believe in God?" The burden of proof doesn't rest with me. God is a positive concept that must be proven, not an obvious construct that must be disproven.
It's worth noting, in this Rick Warren fiasco, that there isn't actually that much daylight between Warren and Obama on marriage equality. There is some, of course, since Obama was against Proposition 8 and Warren was for it. And I'm sure Obama is a whole lot more gay-friendly in general than Warren, and that will have important policy implications on things like hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace. However, on the basic principle of marriage, Obama and Warren agree that marriage is for a man and a woman, which the Yes on Prop 8 side did not hesitate to point out through a multi-million dollar campaign.
"Let me start by talking about my own views. It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my Presidency. What I have also said is that it is important for Americans to come together even though we may disagree on certain social issues."
This just isn't truthful, or rather, it's exactly how Bush would justify a policy on pollution, by talking about how strongly he believes in the public's right to clean air. Obama might push for equal rights for gays in some instances, yet think that it is politically unwise to push for it in others. Or he may simply not believe that gay people should be able to get married. But he's not 'consistent' on fierce advocacy for equality, he's consistent in being a politician that won't support marriage equality but will support other advances in equal rights initiatives.
Chris and I were pretty consistent in pointing out that you should believe what Obama says, and not try to pretend that he's lying to the public so that he can get progressive policies passed. Obama's pretty upfront about what he believes. He tends to do politician-y things like use liberal rhetoric to justify limiting rights for gay people and disembodying the left so he can punch us in the face every once in awhile. But that doesn't actually mean that he's going to go our way on policy. He never was in favor of marriage equality, he's been consistent on that point. If you were surprised that he picked Warren or think he's playing three dimensional chess, you might consider opening your mind up to the possibility that he's just doing what he believes is the right thing to do. And that might just mean leaving gays out of his big tent (though I'd point out that Warren has a record that goes far beyond attacking homosexuals, and that marriage equality is not a 'gay' issue but a human rights issue).
I just got this email from the Family Research Council.
With roughly 2,000 political appointments to make, Team Obama has had its hands full. This week, the President-elect concentrated on rounding out his Cabinet, naming his hometown school chief, Chicago's Arne Duncan, to head the Department of Education. Duncan is best known for advocating the use of the city's taxpayer funds to create a segregated high school for homosexuals.
That 'be nice to bigots' strategy is paying some serious dividends.
President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony will feature big names like minister Rick Warren and legendary singer Aretha Franklin, the Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced Wednesday.
Rick Warren, the prominent evangelical and founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, will deliver the ceremony's invocation.
There has been a lot of negative commentary, both in the traditional media and the blogs, about Obama's appearance at the Saddleback Church. Some didn't see the point of him going to a stacked forum, some didn't think he did very well overall, some were critical in both regards. While I didn't think he was as sharp as he could have been in terms of his performance, I think there were some very good things about him going to Saddleback. A couple of points on this:
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.
JG: So America has a duty to help.
RW: The answer is, we must do all we can. People say America is not the policeman of the world. We may not be, but the Bible says, if you have been blessed, then you are to care for people who can't care for themselves, you are to speak up for people who can't speak for themselves, and to defend the defenseless.
JG: Some people argue that we're not so great ourselves.
RW: The difference is that there are no death squads in America. The worst you can get here is that you can get blogged, you can get Lewinskied, on the Internet. There is a difference between that and living under oppression, living with fear for your life. That's why whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point. Saddam and his sons were raping the country, literally. And we morally had to do something. If you have a Judeo-Christian heritage, you have to believe it when God says that evil cannot be compromised with. It has to be resisted, it has to be overcome.
So invading Iraq based on lies is not bearing false witness, as long as the end goal is just? Good to know. And what a just end goal!
Also, it's clear that the worst that can happen in America or by Americans is that you get blogged, or Lewinskied. It's not like there are 2 million people in prison here or substantially amounts of prison rape, or punitive immigration raids on families. Nope, not here. We've got to make sure that we export our no-sin-no-suffering model to the rest of the world through violence.
I'm so glad this is the man hosting the first major Presidential forum.
