Corn is exactly right, and that is what a lot of us have been saying all day.
BHBuck
· 11 months ago
BINGO!
gizmo
· 11 months ago
I think Obama is suffering from kumbayah intoxication. He seems to think that we just need to reach out and all hold hands and things will be OK. I buy into that approach to some extent-- I can see the advantage in breaking down sociocultural/political barriers for the sake of accomplishing some good things. But there has to be a limit to who we're willing to get in bed with-- legitimizing homophobes and faux-religious hatemongers just isn't acceptable.
I'm betting that Obama is going to respond to the outrage over Rick Warren by including a prominent gay person or two in his inauguration ceremonies. But I don't think that would be adequate-- the fundamental problem here is that he is giving a bigot a prime-time slot on the big stage.
Psyche
· 11 months ago
Didn't you hear he's having a gay marching band in his parade? Cute. He's tone deaf.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
our straight allies will make a huge difference. thanks David, for not telling us to just get over it... it isn't just gays who see Warren's bigotry.
larry
· 11 months ago
Corn is dead on...finally someone puts it straight forward...and yes Obama and his boys stepped into a big one. Axlerod, you got it wrong. And you were not looking out for your guy...this was a mistake that will be remembered by the gay community which may at the tipping point and this may have been it...being thrown under the bus is just not longer acceptable.
Cointreau
· 11 months ago
Tell me, what exactly are the consequences going to be? A day without a gay? A letter writing campaign? If the Prop 8 no-show is any indication, this will blow over in three weeks. Maybe a tipping point is what is needed?
tnhilton
· 11 months ago
I thought, maybe shouldn't have, that the start of the era of Obama would have been the beginning of the end of the politilization of my life and family. The first words that we'll hear spoken at the very dawn of this presidency will be those of Rick Warren. The whole debate since the announcement that "America's pastor" would essentially bless the results of the very hard work that millions of disinfrranchised individuals and families expended to elect Obama has been centered around, once again, the issue of "gay rights". What we should have, what we shouldn't have, what we're asking for, and, unbelievably, what we deserve. We no more accept the elevation of Mr. Warren than we would accept the choosing of Father Cunningham of the infamous anti-semite radio tirades. It is time to lay down our arguments and our debates. We are citizens of the United States of America and we are owed the respect, dignity and kindness that our fellow citizens take for granted. If Obama doesn't get this, than shame on him.
BHBuck
· 11 months ago
"The appeal to dialogue is a canard. When Obama invites anti-Israel speakers on the platform with him, in a place of honor on his special day, we'll "talk" about inclusionism, okay? Otherwise, spare us the platitudes, please." -Amicus, The Spit Shine
Amicus rocks!
sherifffruitfly
· 11 months ago
Yes, we know.
An_American_Karol
· 11 months ago
Is anyone else getting "donate" emails from the Obama camp? Here is my response from Biden's latest:
"I am unable to support someone who shows such little respect for his supporters. I will be encouraging my family, friends, and students to withhold support as well. By asking Pastor Warren, a hateful homophobe, to speak at his inauguration, President elect Obama has shown contempt for the civil rights of a significant number of his base. Although I understand President elect Obama's desire to bring America together, I must humbly ask if he would have been willing to invite David Duke to address this Nation on such a monumental time in our history. Sincerely,"
Not as eloquent as I would have liked, but I am pissed.
BHBuck
· 11 months ago
Good one!
larry
· 11 months ago
Excellent and certainly eloquent.
JustAskin
· 11 months ago
Just curious.... does anyone think that Hillary would have invited Rick Warren to give the invocation? Would it have gone forward if she was VP?
An_American_Karol
· 11 months ago
I don't know, but a dear friend mentioned today he is rethinking his primary vote.
nicho
· 11 months ago
The problem is that, given her wretched primary campaign, had Hillary run, we'd be looking at President-elect McCain today.
Fifty eight million people voted for McCain -- even with Palin. Had Hillary been the nominee, there would have been a different VP candidate, many of the Obama supporters would have stayed home, and McCain/X would have sailed into office.
Obama was the lesser of two evils.
Cointreau
· 11 months ago
It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.- M.K. Ghandi
Warren and his fellow haters will be defnged by the afternoon of January 20.
Cointreau
· 11 months ago
defanged
nicho
· 11 months ago
Not really -- Obama is saying "This man has something to say to America and I endorse what he says."
Cointreau
· 11 months ago
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge. " Lao Tzu
michmike
· 11 months ago
If Obama really wants to "reach out" to his adversaries, then why didn't he invite the Reverend Fred Phelps to do his invocation? After all, Rev. Phelps is anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-USA, anti-African American, etc., etc., etc. What better choice of adversary?
Jackson Thersites
· 11 months ago
John this article should go on the front page. Michelle Goldberg has it all here. Read the full at the website.
Obama’s Divisive Choice of Rick Warren By Michelle Goldberg December 18, 2008
Warren is something of a magician. He has convinced much of the media and many influential Democrats that he represents a new, more centrist breed of evangelical with a broader agenda than the old religious right. This is, in many ways, deceptive. Yes, Warren has done a lot of work on AIDS in Africa, but he supports the same types of destructive, abstinence-only policies as the Bush administration. One of his protegés, Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa, has been a major force in moving that country away from its lifesaving safer-sex programs. He’s been known to burn condoms at Makerere University, the prestigious school in Uganda’s capital, and in his Pentecostal services, marked by much sobbing and speaking in tongues, he offers the promise of faith healing to his desperate congregants, a particularly cruel ruse in a country ravaged by HIV.
The truth is that the primary difference between Warren and, say, James Dobson is the former’s penchant for Hawaiian shirts. [...] Speaking to the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, Warren himself described his differences with Dobson as “mainly a matter of tone,” and was unable to come up with a theological issue on which they disagree.
If Democrats collaborate in positioning Warren as the centrist alternative to the religious right, they consign vast numbers of people, including many of the party’s most dedicated supporters, to the fringe. “It does strengthen Warren as kind of a new Billy Graham figure,” says the Reverend Dan Schultz, a United Church of Christ pastor and the founder of the progressive religious blog Street Prophets. That has especial relevance for Warren’s role in Africa, where a very conservative kind of evangelical Christianity is exploding, bringing with it virulently anti-gay politics. “What I have heard is that it will help Warren overseas,” Schultz says of Warren’s role in the inauguration. “He’s big into work in Africa. This will give him a lot of clout over there. Part of the reason this is kind of insulting for me is that Warren has supported some pretty awful people in Africa, including people who think homosexuals should be jailed.”
[...]
“This is not a gay issue, this is not about abortion, it’s about every aspect of sexual equality and dignity,” says the feminist writer and philosopher Linda Hirshman. “This is about every woman who supported the president-elect, not just the gay ones and not just the ones needing abortions.” After all, Warren is not just anti-abortion—he is anti-egalitarian. A page on his Web site Pastors.com, a resource for his fellow Christian leaders, features a woman named Beth Moore explaining and even celebrating the necessity of wifely submission. “God granted women a measure of freedom in submission that we can learn to enjoy,” she explains. “It is a relief to know that as a wife and mother I am not totally responsible for my family. I have a husband to look to for counsel and direction. I can rely on his toughness when I am too soft and his logic when I am too emotional.”
The point is not that Obama believes this stuff, or even that he should only surround himself with liberal spiritual advisers. But his inauguration is supposed to be a celebration of concord, of transcendence of the divisive culture war politics of the last eight years. By choosing Warren, he is suggesting that Warren’s positions on gay people, women and Jews aren’t really that bad, and that he can be a unifying force in American life. Whether Obama intends to or not, he’s pulling a Sister Souljah on some of his most ardent backers, writing them out of the American mainstream at precisely the time when, thanks to his election, they were so dearly hoping to reenter it.
Now, many are trying to get Obama to drop Warren. The comments on Change.gov, the Obama transition Web site, are full of heartbreak and disenchantment. At midday on Thursday, the very first of them read:
Saddened, betrayed, disappointed—I have to echo the comments of so many here. I feel a real loss this morning as I take in this news about Warren. Mr. Obama, I had such hope. On the night of your election, I waited anxiously and ultimately celebrated with a group of family and friends of all backgrounds and orientations. We felt that finally, people like us, people of intellect, creativity, and thoughtfulness, had a real voice again. If this is an example of what we can expect from your administration, then you made a fool of me.
Insulting your supporters to win the support of your opponents is no way to build unity.
- - Michelle Goldberg
afafkd
· 11 months ago
one could have admitted making a mistake and corrected it
Eclectablog
· 11 months ago
As an lgbt person, I'm not particularly thrilled by Obama's choice. But I can only see all this freak out as giving Warren power and visibility he never would have enjoyed otherwise. You gotta pick your battles and tilting against this windmill gets you NOTHING. He could have been a crappy choice that faded into obscurity but now he's "the anti-queer pastor that caused the left to completely freak out". We had a choice and he won/we lost.
Dang it.
An_American_Karol
· 11 months ago
I humbly disagree. I think this "freak out" will garner greater gay rights exposure, winning attention from those with the power to exact change in the rights of GLBT.
Psyche
· 11 months ago
Disagree totally. Warren will not go away simply because we ignore him. He's a shameless self-promoter and will use this opportunity to burnish his celebrity and gain leverage. Among other things, he'd love to be Obama's Billy Graham. We have to let Obama know that Warren isn't welcome in our White House and he'd better start thinking about the people that got him elected instead of pandering to the right.
Jackson Thersites
· 11 months ago
You misunderstand something central here, in choosing Rick Warren to deliver the prayer at his inauguration Obama is in effect saying 'I feel comfortable enough with this man of faith's beliefs to invite him to speak to God on my behalf.' If we had not spoken out Obama would never have had to say as he did today
" I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and -- well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."
In saying that, in being forced to say that by us, he has established a measure of distance between him and Warren, though it is a small measure.
Warren has said that his beliefs are the same as James Dobson’s of Focus on the Family, the only difference being in matters of tone. Think about that for a moment. Rick Warren is espousing the same bigotry and divisiveness as Dobson but his tone is kinder and gentler. It allows him to argue in the same breath he is not a homophobe but gay marriage is equivalent to incest and statutory rape. It allowed him in 2006 to be a signatory, along with 86 other Christian leaders to an initiative to fight global warming using "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms", a pro-business position. I can find no indication he’s done anything of any consequence on global warming since 2006.
The point I’m trying to make here is in a sense he is the most dangerous kind of right wing ideologue, he appeals to the middle. G W Bush was that man in the 1990’s under Rove’s tutelage. We know how that turned out. Rick Warren is the 2009 version and he just got a leg up from Obama.
My God!. As Obama demonstrated during his campaign, he is tone deaf on the subject of gay human rights, in fact his whole team, Biden, Axelrod, and Pluoffe, are complete fucking morons about human rights. Maybe some kind of sensitivity training session is in order. And his retort is particularly galling. He has not been a big defender of gay rights. There is a whale of a difference between HAVING a a religious view and attempting to WRITE it into the laws of the nation. And there is no equation whatsoever between speaking at the fat bastard's hick Church and sermonizing at the Inauguration of the President of the United States. We don't need a national pastor; there is none authorized in the US Constitution. Does Obama think we are stupid enpugh to swallow his platitudes and his evasions?
One thing is clear. He will keep blundering on this subject until he pays such a heavy price that he refrains from doing so again. THis is Bubba redux. We didn't go at Clinton when he betrayed us and he kept doing it. let's not repeat our past mistakes with the Clintons. Obama won at the caucuses. Exactly who the hell does Obama think all those people at the caucuses were? Santa's right wing heterosexual elves?....Pour it on.
obamophone
· 11 months ago
Call the Obama Transition Team office directly, voice your opposition to Warren, and let them know the DEEP disappointment of the gay and lesbian community with the president elect. If gays and lesbians wanted to be thrown under the bus, we could have voted for McCain. They need to know that Obama cannot treat gays like his own personal lackeys to use and discard, and get away with it. Voice your opposition directly to the source.
Transition team pone number:
1-202-540-3000 (dial the number then select option 2 to get a live person and ask to leave a comment)
anastasjoy
· 11 months ago
A good comparison is Louis Farrakhan. He is a thoughtful, eloquent and powerful preacher who has been relentlessly smeared and marginalized by Jewish groups for some admittedly over-the-top things he said in the distant past about Jews. His inclusion in such a position of honour — at which he would comport himself with unbelievable grace — would be greeted with howls of outrage by Jewish groups. But it would never even be considered for that reason, and politicians, including Obama, virtually grovel to assure Jewish groups they don't associate or agree with Farrakhan. (They should in many cases: his statement following 9/11 was the wisest and most perceptive thing i read in the days immediately following). They fear the power of Jewish groups and respect their feelings. Clearly, they don't extend the same respect to gays. I'm not gay but I feel placing Warren in this important role is deeply, in unintentionally, un-American. You are exactly right: reaching out and talking to people is one thing; placing them in a central role at the inauguration is something entirely different - and a step too far.
afafkd
· 11 months ago
knethomai
lucky hussein
· 11 months ago
The only way I can see warren making sense for bo, is if somehow this brings us to a better place faster than without him. A better place being defined as many more people knowing what soul-destroying pigs he and his ilk are. I just can't picture how that could play out.
rmichels
· 11 months ago
Corn and others have it backwards. Obama isn't legitimizing Warren. It's OBAMA'S inauguration day, not Warren's. Warren is the supplicant, Obama the leader. How many times does Barack Obama have to pull the masterstroke before you fellas get hold of the fact that he knows exactly what he's doing, that his grasp of power is subtle, effective and, yes, new.
Millions of at least somewhat suspicious Rick Warren supporters, both here and around the world, will tune in and see a man they greatly respect welcome this new president into office. Do we gain more from these people's respect or their scorn?
But what if Obama keeps slapping us in the face???? Good grief, get a grip and peruse their civil rights policy agenda over at change.gov . Folks, we've got a majority in both houses of Congress. Obama is going to enact into law the entire gay rights agenda, with the symbolic (and not trivial) exception of marriage. Hate crimes, workpace discrimination for gays, lesbians, gender identity and expressions (when did a president ever empower gender identity and expression?!), full federal legal rights for civil unions, and more. That's the policy agenda promoted by Obama on his transition website. You think he's lying? Get real, peeps.
nicho
· 11 months ago
I love how the Obama cultists are circling the wagon on this one. Obama can do no wrong. What happened, did Obama just hire the Bush dead-enders from Free Republic?
Jackson Thersites
· 11 months ago
Unfortunately you're wrong about Warren's international supporters especially those in Africa who are some of the most homophobic in the world. Obama choice gives Warren credibility undermining further the precarious, often life threatening work of gay rights advocates all over Africa. Obama is lending his prodigious international prestige as the first American President of African dissent to Warren who's abstinence only approach to AIDS in Africa is supported by savage often pernicious attacks on advocates for reproductive rights for women and gay people.
Whatever Obama may or may not do for American gays and lesbians, he is contributing to a further eroding of security for gay people in Africa.
I'm thankful, too, that Rick Warren isn't going to be heading up Obama's health or general assistance policy for Africa in particular and the world in general. America's role in the world is going to get a lot saner and more constructive beginning on the first day of Obama's presidency. Executive orders are wonderful things.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
peruse this:
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."
"There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community"
I believe Obama is fundamentally a supremacist, but also a libertarian when it comes to gay rights. To me, that suggests that he will quickly lose interest in the "gay agenda" if we take your advice to get a grip.
rmichels
· 11 months ago
Well, to be clearer, by 'get a grip' I don't mean to relax. We ought to be keeping our eye on the ball, though. Full equality, nothing less. Rick Warren doesn't have the key to this equality. President Obama, the Congress, the Supreme Court of the United States, the state governments and courts--that's where the key is. Let's push. Let's push hard. Obama has been consistent about claiming that he's going to push hard too. When we demonstrate in cities and towns all across the country, we're strong. When we boycott businesses or states that deny or work against full equality, we're strong. We'll be strong passing the Matthew Shepard Act with President Obama too, and when we pass an anti-workplace discrimination statute that covers lesbians, gays, transgendered, and simply differently gendered and gender expressive people. I guess I have more faith in the president-elect's sincerity on this topic than you do at present. Both of us will see in the weeks and months ahead how things play out.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Thank you , Steve. Marriage has always evolved. Biblical marriage was mostly polygamous. A hundred years ago or so the wife was still the legal property of the husband, and the husband could beat his wife any time he saw fit. Divorce was once rare or impossible. Fifty years ago divorce was a major scandal. Now it is common. Marriage has always kept pace with the times. It will continue to evolve, and that means including gay couples. Keep in mind that "sanctity" involves religion. But many people who marry are not religious at all. Atheists who get married at the court house are just as married in the eyes of the state as a devoutly religious couple who marry in church. God did not write the US Constitution. The power of marriage in the US comes from the State in which the wedding takes place, not from any god. Neither do all who believe in a god believe in the same one. Though some see a marriage as something blessed by their god, their beliefs have no effect on the status of another person's marriage. And finally, the institution of marriage in America suffered a major blow recently, not when gay couples were granted legal marriage, but when thousands of perfectly valid marriages were put to a popular vote and revoked by strangers in a polling booth with the stroke of a pen. This was supposedly done to protect marriage from the likes of someone like myself. Instead it cheapened marriage, making it something even more arbitrary and temporary than the shockingly high divorce rate had already made it. Now, I've always been told that that sanctity is a good thing, but it hasn't prevented born again Christian from having the highest divorce rate in the country. Meanwhile my husband and I have managed to be happy together without sanctity for almost twenty-five years.
It's hard for me to imagine them respecting anyone who isn't 'one of them'..
Gary SF
· 11 months ago
Sorry - everyone knows that you don't invite a vampire into your house. I won't go as far as to say that Obama was lying about supporting us; but I will not be surprised if he ends up tossing us under the bus. The first time that happens, I will actively work against Obama. If we can't get our rights, we may as well vote in a Republican and flush the whole god damned country down the toilet. And I don't give a fuck who gets hurt in the downfall. If the ignorant masses can't understand that prejudice and hatred against any group is a threat to democracy, then they don't deserve to enjoy the fruits of democracy. Yeah, I'm pissed.
smallhandff
· 11 months ago
i remain skeptical yet i believe that this, as well as the lieberman rehabilitation, are both aspects of his "master plan"
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
It's not just Obama's inauguration day. It belongs to all Americans. And choosing someone to give the invocation does indeed elevate and legitimize their viewpoints and beliefs. You make some very good points, but you start off completely wrong and missing the point that Obama has just made a major blunder, slapped his constituents and supporters in the face, and given them legitimate reason for concern. It is in fact the backlash that may move him forward on his promises to the gay community. Get a grip? Get real? Not if it means ignoring the facts.
No Hope In Politics
· 11 months ago
Simple question: would Obama allow a minister who opposed granting equal rights to interracial couples to deliver the invocation at his inauguration?
No Hope In Politics 13 hours ago Would Obama "play nice" with a preacher who compared interracial sex to zoophilia?
Invite him to pray in front of millions while the product of "sin" stood behind him and bowed his head?
Obama is all of the evidence anyone ever needs... Government is the enemy of liberty.
Always & forever.
Amen.
afafkd
· 11 months ago
duplicity
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
"Simple question: would Obama allow a minister who opposed granting equal rights to interracial couples to deliver the invocation at his inauguration?"
Yes, that question MUST be answered by the Obama team. I'm waiting to hear the answer to that simple question?
Gary SF
· 11 months ago
So let's look at this from another perspective. Below is from Time.Com, except I substituted the word BLACK for gay. If Warren had said this, he certainly wouldn't have been invited to the inaugural; but gays are still fair game:
More recently, Warren told beliefnet that he thinks allowing a BLACK couple to marry is similar to allowing "a brother and sister be together and call that marriage." He then helpfully added that he's also "opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage." The reporter, who may have been a little surprised, asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to BLACKS getting married?" "Oh, I do," Warren immediately answered. I wish the reporter had asked the next logical follow-up: if BLACKS are like child sexual abusers, shouldn't we incarcerate them?
The problem isn't Obama. It is our culture that allows religions to perpetuate hatred and that proscribes that we are not allowed to criticize someone for their religious beliefs, no matter how hateful or idiotic they may be.
An_American_Karol
· 11 months ago
I think it was on Olbermann where someone mentioned the two classes of people society allows bashing are gays and atheists.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
And isn't it interesting that we have to substitute the word "black" for gay, or the word "interracial couple" or "Jew" in order to point out how outrageous the words are. And that is of course because we are so accustomed to hearing bigoted speech about gays from preachers that it doesn't shock any more.
Bluebear
· 11 months ago
Saddleback membership criteria: If you're gay, you cannot be a church member:
"Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives."
And this is the man chosen to open the pageant celebrating our new President.
paulbe
· 11 months ago
Why would you want to be an elder for this, or for that matter any church? Fine if you go to church for the singing, but anything more is intellectual suicide.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Evangelicals will ALWAYS be Talibangelicals in my book... even if they ARE packaged in a skin tight Hawaiian shirt.
EdNSted
· 11 months ago
" would Obama allow a minister who opposed granting equal rights to interracial couples to deliver the invocation at his inauguration?"
Ding, ding, ding! Yes! This really is the key question because it clearly and unequivocally demonstrates the completely disingenuous nature of Team Obama's response to this debacle. As far as I know, MLK never invited a Klan member to open for one of his speeches. As Gregg Levine at FDL said tonight, "That’s not a dialogue—that’s a signal." Quite right. That this choice was not properly vetted speaks volumes about Mr. Obama's inner circle and his understanding of how he came to be president. And despite Team Obama's less than credible claims to the contrary, it quite clearly signals that the GLBT community does not have a place at Mr. Obama's "all inclusive" table.
Cointreau
· 11 months ago
"So this morning, as I look into your eyes, and into the eyes of all of my brothers in Alabama and all over America and over the world, I say to you, "I love you. I would rather die than hate you." And I’m foolish enough to believe that through the power of this love somewhere, men of the most recalcitrant bent will be transformed. And then we will be in God’s kingdom. We will be able to matriculate into the university of eternal life because we had the power to love our enemies, to bless those persons that cursed us, to even decide to be good to those persons who hated us, and we even prayed for those persons who despitefully used us."
Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, on 17 November 1957.
John
· 11 months ago
Where was all this outrage when Black people was dying for civil rights, I didn't see the Gay community out in force standing with the Black community, even today the Gay people of color have to take a back seat to the white Gay community, where is the out rage at the Gay Republicans who has done more harm to the Gay community than anything that a 1 minute prayer can ever do, I am afraid there is going to be a split between the Bacl community and the Gay community, because there are those who still see the Gay community blaming the Black community for the passage of prop 8, and now the Gay community is attacking PE Obama for what, a 1 minute pray, so be it.
Webster
· 11 months ago
Gay people were there--starting with Bayard Rustin. At the time most had to stay in the closet--they even kept Rustin from doing more because they were afraid of the "image" of the civil rights movement if he were exposed. But you can be sure that many, many gay people were involved with the civil rights movement.
Jeanie
· 11 months ago
MLK Jr. never supported homsexuality or abortion either... he supported the Biblical view in these areas.
paulbe
· 11 months ago
Who said Ahmadinejad was the bad guy? The paid liars at MEMRI, the Israeli (MOSSAD) translation service. That's who.
Christopher
· 11 months ago
It could be that President Obama is using this to affirm his support for gay rights. think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. OT, but the real worry is the new "Conscience Law". Through this, whole classes of people can be refused service. A cashier can refuse to give you your medicine because she does not approve of your lifestyle. This is worrying.
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
Keep it up, John. This guy Warren is more dangerous than people think. I did some research on him, and he's building a vast "empire" of his "purpose driven" bullshit. He's been described as a marketing genius, having "trained" 350,000 preachers in how to use it in 160 countries (from the jacket cover of "Purpose Driven Life"). How accurate those figures are, I'm not sure, but on the success of two books, "The Purpose Driven Church" (no sales figures) and "The Purpose Driven Life" (50 mil at last count) with another just out, "The Purpose Driven Christmas" (a compilation of old stuff), he can afford to "reverse tithe" at 90%, all of which go to his foundations which specialize in proselytizing his "purpose driven" bullshit.
This guy has also been criticized heavily in many more traditional evangelical churches for some of his associations and preaching methods and the way he sells religion.
He sees himself as a successor to Billy Graham but Graham filled stadia; Warren is building his own Ponzi scheme.
And now he gets to "preach" in front of millions, even surpassing the 20 thousand he claims he preaches to at Saddleback. Isn't it all about Rick Warren in the end?
(A young neighbor, with good intentions, gave me a copy of that $21.00 book--to me, it's unreadable, and besides, I'm an atheist which she knows, so she wasted her money, but it was in a gift bag and I had no idea it was in there--hard to give back and I wouldn't want anyone else to have it either.)
Upland_Oddball
· 11 months ago
Years ago, when the Clinton era was just underway, the comedy show "In Living Color" ran a skit that answered the question of the day, which was "Is Michael Jackson black? and does he know it? by having him beaten by white cops and then seeing the light.
This knuckleheaded move of Obama answers the question in the same way. Obama does in fact perceive bigotry and discrimination in the same way nearly every person of color does, and so the question is answered: he is indeed, black. And because he perceives the problem of bigotry throught the prism of racial "skin-color" prrejudice, he apparently can't see or feel why he is so insensitive to what gay people experiene in the unique form of prejudice and hatred they receive. It isn't that he is religously hostile to us, it is that his life experiences and ours lead us to see things differently. We gays face two levels of fundamental resistence in enlisting heterosexual people of color to our cause. First is the hostility created by religious and cultural influences. The second is the great difference in how we both receive and react to the experience of harsh prejudice. It is in fact, two different type of prejudices, creating two different life stories.
I can keenly see this because as a gay man of color, I have lived through both types and have come to understand the difference. As a Mexican-American, who cannot pass for white, I know that my struggle, when I have one, is to have people see beyond my skin color and features, to see the man and character inside. I cannot hide my identity and be someone else. But as a Mexican-American, I was born into a family, community and culture that accepted and nutrured me as I am. Although self-hatred remained a steady threat, it was clrear to all within my circle who the "enemy"was. It was the bigots out there who hate us all for being what we are. And to counter them, my family and culture fortified me with messages of pride and self-worth. On the other hand, as a gay man, I was born into a situation of steadily emerging isolation within my family, community and culture. There was no support to be expected. None was offered by my family, half Catholic, half Pentacostal. I could hide my sexuality and try to either pass or remain asexual for as long as possible, and frankly, I was encouraged to do so by my parents and by my Grandmother, who from an early age, pegged me as "priestly" material.. I didn't linger long on thoughts of who the "enemy"was because everyone around me was a times, my "enemy." Only later, when I matured beyond my teenage years, did things fall into sensible places, and iI could see that John Briggs and Anita Bryant were my real "enemies" and my grandmother was something else. This belated and very isolated, on-one's own, coming to grips with gay identity and how to surviive, and even thrive, in the face of potential hostilitly, is what is so fundamentally different between my two experiences.
Therefore, as a Mexican-American and a gay man, I have a keen appreciation for the vital difference between the two types of prejudices and adaptations. Don't get me wrong. Both types of prejudice are equally wrong, and equally harmful, especially to us when we are young and most vulnerable. And it is morally indefensibe to argue, as some do, that one type of prejudice is worse than another. Not when the result is equally devestating to individuals. But it is equally foolish to shrug off the importance of the difference with a reductionistic "discrimination is discrimination, what's the difference!"
The difference matters because it works in many cases to negate what we gays have lazily counted on in our political strategy, which is that our experience with homophobia ipso-facto creates a common experience. We think it is reasonable to believe that people of color who have experienced the harsh effects of race or color prejudice for generations quickly and instinctively "get it" when we gays argue that we have suffered likewise. We are wrong. It tis not that people of color who are not gay cannot empathize with us, or support us in our struggle. But we have to educate them. They will not just 'get it."
We can see this at work with Obama. He just doesn't get it that Waren's bigotry against gays is perceived by us differently than he would perceive it if it was directed at him because of his color. It all comes down to the impact men like Rev. Warren have on gay youth v. black or latino youth. Men like Rev. Warren don't send messages that prompt youth of color to think of themselves as intrinsically evil, disordered, doomed or cursed. The Warrens of our world don't strive to convince latino families that the latno-ness within their children is something to be feared and rejected. Christian high-schoolers wouldn't dream of bullying Asian kids in the hallways on the basis of what they think Jesus would do, and Christian-minded teachers wouldn't condone such bullying behavior based on religious prejudice. And men exactly like Rev. Warren don't directly contribute to a youth and family culture that drives young people of color to harm themselves, kill themselves or implode into the self-denial and conceit of the closet. But when it comes to gay youth, Rev.Warren and countless others have the blood and pain of countless gay youth sqarely on their heads and hands.
Barack Obama sees in Warren a man with different values, and at best, different approaches to common goals. We see a purveyor of blood libels that kill and pain our youth, just as his predecessors inflicted pain on us, injected pain into our families and killed numerous young souls we will never know as adults. Barack Obama ought to withdraw his invitation not because of Warren's support of Prop 8. That was aimed primarily at gays and lesbians as adults. And we can fight back, and will. No, he should take it back because Warrren continues to perpetuate a call in gay youth towards despair and self-destruction, a call in families towards ignorance and rejection, and all the while, puts on a smle while doing so. The man preys on helpless, isolated children, and deserves more than just having shoes tossed at his grinning face.
In the black experience, the heavyweights in terms of danger to the community were the enslavers, the lynchers, and the demogogues. Although not innocent at all, men in collars or men of authority have seldom been perceived in the same light. While gay people also faced murder that went unpunished , the heavyweight foes we have historically faced have been men in collars, lab coats and judge's wigs, who pronounce us with great authority to be less than human, less than normal, less than sane, less than equal chidren of God. And our foes kill us most often when we are young. As Obama sees it, Rev. Warren is a lightweight in terms of social damage. He doesn't connect Warren to the damage he does to gay youth. He doesn't get it that Warren preaches the same hateful message that spewed from the mouths of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson or Helms.
Patrick M
· 11 months ago
A good model for focusing anger here is the successful protest of the appointment of Lee Atwater as a Trustee at Howard University. Student outrage was channeled effectively and got fast results (via Ta-Nehisi Coates on theatlantic.com):
From Wikipedia: Howard gained national attention when students rose up in protest against the appointment of then-Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater as a new member of the university's Board of Trustees. Student activists disrupted Howard's 122nd anniversary celebrations, and eventually occupied the university's Administration building. Within days, both Atwater and Howard's President, James E. Cheek, resigned.
Apphouse50
· 11 months ago
Sorry, but I question describing Warren as a "spiritual leader."
What I see is a spirit crusher. Huge difference.
And no marching band, and no assurances regarding how supportive Obama is, are comforting me over the selection of this guy to deliver the invocation at an inauguration that was supposed to be about hope and change.
Rainlion
· 11 months ago
As with the campaign, I'm beginning to think that we (his supporters) need to chill out... "he's got this".
Did anyone look past the immediate and obvious issues w/ Warren - to the fact that the benediction and closing last word will be given by Rev. Lowery... and that Warren might just be the balance that allowed Obama to pick such a "controversial" figure??? Hell, if he'd have announced Lowery and not had Warren - the right, the conservatives, etc. would be up in arms.
How about we give the man a little faith?
red_dwarf
· 11 months ago
John put it succinctly, clearly and to the point, q.v.,
"There's a difference between reaching out to bad guys and legitimizing them."
What part of legitimize is it that you do not understand? Obama made a concious decision to throw the LGBT under the bus for political (2012) gain. I will never again respect Obama - unless he admits his ignorance and ill-minded calculation. By inviting Warren Obama has sent a clear message that Obama is about Obama - look at his cabinet picks - they have 2012 written all over them.
Rainlion
· 11 months ago
Following that "logic" then, explain what it means w/ pending cabinet appointments of openly gay people - guess that doesn't "legitimize" his statements regarding his views?
Seriously, while I can understand the anger and disappointment - which is where I was a few days ago - I think the answer is not that simple, despite how much people want it to be that way. Yes, there was calculation... how to balance a controversial figure (Lowery) participating? You get another controversial figure from the opposing camp - thereby nuetralizing the issue.
Like I said - I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt, and continue to wait, watch, listen and learn from his behavior before passing judgement.
Thought that's what this was about... freedom from judgement?
red_dwarf
· 11 months ago
From what I can tell of his cabinet picks so far they have 2012 written all over them. Look at Salazar from CO for Interior Secretary. Plenty out there who would have done a better job at protecting the enviornment, etc. Oppointing openly gay people is one thing, allowing them to marry is another.
I agree Rainlion that all of this is disappointing however it is hard for me to embrace the "exception makes the rule" or "we have to slaughter 10 to save 100" argument here. Legitimizing homophobia is bigtime stuff, shortcuts are hard to justify here - hence, it takes "courage" to stand up for what is right (Ghandi comes to mind).
With respect to gays and their rights under the Constitution there is NO judgement. They deserve every right, with NO exceptions. But I understand Rainlion that you want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt - but lets be clear on this. There was no "doubt" in Obama's mind when he threw the LGBT community under the bus for political gain.
A person's character can be defined in a single moment of one's life. Obama just defined his.
Ferdiad
· 11 months ago
Exactly the point. The isn't just "to the victor go the spoils" type of argument that Obama should absolutely shun Warren or anyone else. It is simply that he should not give him the world stage and legitimize his message by having him to the invocation. This is an outrage.
Prophetess
· 11 months ago
David Corn,
Adhering to religious convictions/faith/beliefs is not bigotry. RIck Warren is a Chrisitan...that makes his sacred text the Bible. So from a Biblical perspective, homosexuality is WRONG! That does not make him a bigot. It makes him a believer in his sacred text.
I don't care for many of Mr. Warren's doctrinal staements although I am a follower of Christ, however; I do believe that President -elect Obama is very smart to invite a fellow believe in Chirstianity to do the invocation...which by the way is a Christian tradition, not a social or politcal cause. So why not invite a Chirstian brother to perform the Christian ritual? They do not gel on every issue but they do gel on the issue that matters most, Jesus is Lord. I would only be skeptical if he invited someone who does not adhere to his faith convictions!
RainbowPhoenix
· 11 months ago
The line was crossed when he tried to have his "religious beliefs" enshrined into secular law, breaking one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS to do so. He is a bigot. He knowingly and willingly lies about us. He knowingly and willingly tells lies about us to convince people how evil we are, because the truth makes him look like the bigot and the hypocrite that he is.
fl79tr
· 11 months ago
"Adhering to religious convictions/faith/beliefs is not bigotry. RIck Warren is a Chrisitan...that makes his sacred text the Bible. So from a Biblical perspective, homosexuality is WRONG! That does not make him a bigot. It makes him a believer in his sacred text."
Really?
I say that's Bull Shit. The Bible, the New Testament no less also says that real Christians can drink poison and play with deadly snakes, I don't see you or R.W. lining up to do either of those things. Jesus said that those that believe in him would do "greater things" than he did like walking on water, for example. The truth is he is picking and choosing what he wants out of the bible as are all self described Christians, which is a big time no no according to God. And that makes him a self serving hypocrite, a bigot, and just a general bull shit artist, like a sleazy used car sales man or something. If your or Rick Warrens "sacred text" is the bible then give all your money to the poor and don't worry about tomorrow. End of story. I don't want to hear anything you or Rick have to say about your religion till you and he do it. Love your neighbor, yes your gay neighbor as your self. If you don't do these things you're just an annoying gas bag full of hot air to most people, and to God you're an abomination, and he will according to the "sacred text" "spit you out."
ChrisSF
· 11 months ago
The Bible also says slavery is just fine. Does that mean Obama should invite a person who supports slavery because the Bible says it is OK?
All Comments
I'm betting that Obama is going to respond to the outrage over Rick Warren by including a prominent gay person or two in his inauguration ceremonies. But I don't think that would be adequate-- the fundamental problem here is that he is giving a bigot a prime-time slot on the big stage.
thanks David, for not telling us to just get over it...
it isn't just gays who see Warren's bigotry.
Amicus rocks!
Here is my response from Biden's latest:
"I am unable to support someone who shows such little respect for his supporters. I will be encouraging my family, friends, and students to withhold support as well.
By asking Pastor Warren, a hateful homophobe, to speak at his inauguration, President elect Obama has shown contempt for the civil rights of a significant number of his base.
Although I understand President elect Obama's desire to bring America together, I must humbly ask if he would have been willing to invite David Duke to address this Nation on such a monumental time in our history.
Sincerely,"
Not as eloquent as I would have liked, but I am pissed.
Fifty eight million people voted for McCain -- even with Palin. Had Hillary been the nominee, there would have been a different VP candidate, many of the Obama supporters would have stayed home, and McCain/X would have sailed into office.
Obama was the lesser of two evils.
Warren and his fellow haters will be defnged by the afternoon of January 20.
Bonfire of the condoms
Religion Dispatches:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/878
Obama’s Divisive Choice of Rick Warren
By Michelle Goldberg
December 18, 2008
Warren is something of a magician. He has convinced much of the media and many influential Democrats that he represents a new, more centrist breed of evangelical with a broader agenda than the old religious right. This is, in many ways, deceptive. Yes, Warren has done a lot of work on AIDS in Africa, but he supports the same types of destructive, abstinence-only policies as the Bush administration. One of his protegés, Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa, has been a major force in moving that country away from its lifesaving safer-sex programs. He’s been known to burn condoms at Makerere University, the prestigious school in Uganda’s capital, and in his Pentecostal services, marked by much sobbing and speaking in tongues, he offers the promise of faith healing to his desperate congregants, a particularly cruel ruse in a country ravaged by HIV.
The truth is that the primary difference between Warren and, say, James Dobson is the former’s penchant for Hawaiian shirts. [...] Speaking to the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, Warren himself described his differences with Dobson as “mainly a matter of tone,” and was unable to come up with a theological issue on which they disagree.
If Democrats collaborate in positioning Warren as the centrist alternative to the religious right, they consign vast numbers of people, including many of the party’s most dedicated supporters, to the fringe. “It does strengthen Warren as kind of a new Billy Graham figure,” says the Reverend Dan Schultz, a United Church of Christ pastor and the founder of the progressive religious blog Street Prophets. That has especial relevance for Warren’s role in Africa, where a very conservative kind of evangelical Christianity is exploding, bringing with it virulently anti-gay politics. “What I have heard is that it will help Warren overseas,” Schultz says of Warren’s role in the inauguration. “He’s big into work in Africa. This will give him a lot of clout over there. Part of the reason this is kind of insulting for me is that Warren has supported some pretty awful people in Africa, including people who think homosexuals should be jailed.”
[...]
“This is not a gay issue, this is not about abortion, it’s about every aspect of sexual equality and dignity,” says the feminist writer and philosopher Linda Hirshman. “This is about every woman who supported the president-elect, not just the gay ones and not just the ones needing abortions.” After all, Warren is not just anti-abortion—he is anti-egalitarian. A page on his Web site Pastors.com, a resource for his fellow Christian leaders, features a woman named Beth Moore explaining and even celebrating the necessity of wifely submission. “God granted women a measure of freedom in submission that we can learn to enjoy,” she explains. “It is a relief to know that as a wife and mother I am not totally responsible for my family. I have a husband to look to for counsel and direction. I can rely on his toughness when I am too soft and his logic when I am too emotional.”
The point is not that Obama believes this stuff, or even that he should only surround himself with liberal spiritual advisers. But his inauguration is supposed to be a celebration of concord, of transcendence of the divisive culture war politics of the last eight years. By choosing Warren, he is suggesting that Warren’s positions on gay people, women and Jews aren’t really that bad, and that he can be a unifying force in American life. Whether Obama intends to or not, he’s pulling a Sister Souljah on some of his most ardent backers, writing them out of the American mainstream at precisely the time when, thanks to his election, they were so dearly hoping to reenter it.
Now, many are trying to get Obama to drop Warren. The comments on Change.gov, the Obama transition Web site, are full of heartbreak and disenchantment. At midday on Thursday, the very first of them read:
Saddened, betrayed, disappointed—I have to echo the comments of so many here. I feel a real loss this morning as I take in this news about Warren. Mr. Obama, I had such hope. On the night of your election, I waited anxiously and ultimately celebrated with a group of family and friends of all backgrounds and orientations. We felt that finally, people like us, people of intellect, creativity, and thoughtfulness, had a real voice again. If this is an example of what we can expect from your administration, then you made a fool of me.
Insulting your supporters to win the support of your opponents is no way to build unity.
- - Michelle Goldberg
Dang it.
" I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and -- well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."
In saying that, in being forced to say that by us, he has established a measure of distance between him and Warren, though it is a small measure.
Warren has said that his beliefs are the same as James Dobson’s of Focus on the Family, the only difference being in matters of tone. Think about that for a moment. Rick Warren is espousing the same bigotry and divisiveness as Dobson but his tone is kinder and gentler. It allows him to argue in the same breath he is not a homophobe but gay marriage is equivalent to incest and statutory rape. It allowed him in 2006 to be a signatory, along with 86 other Christian leaders to an initiative to fight global warming using "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms", a pro-business position. I can find no indication he’s done anything of any consequence on global warming since 2006.
The point I’m trying to make here is in a sense he is the most dangerous kind of right wing ideologue, he appeals to the middle. G W Bush was that man in the 1990’s under Rove’s tutelage. We know how that turned out. Rick Warren is the 2009 version and he just got a leg up from Obama.
I encourage you to go to this web site
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/878
and read the post. It is partially printed below.
One thing is clear. He will keep blundering on this subject until he pays such a heavy price that he refrains from doing so again. THis is Bubba redux. We didn't go at Clinton when he betrayed us and he kept doing it. let's not repeat our past mistakes with the Clintons. Obama won at the caucuses. Exactly who the hell does Obama think all those people at the caucuses were? Santa's right wing heterosexual elves?....Pour it on.
If gays and lesbians wanted to be thrown under the bus, we could have voted for McCain.
They need to know that Obama cannot treat gays like his own personal lackeys to use and discard, and get away with it.
Voice your opposition directly to the source.
Transition team pone number:
1-202-540-3000 (dial the number then select option 2 to get a live person and ask to leave a comment)
Millions of at least somewhat suspicious Rick Warren supporters, both here and around the world, will tune in and see a man they greatly respect welcome this new president into office. Do we gain more from these people's respect or their scorn?
But what if Obama keeps slapping us in the face???? Good grief, get a grip and peruse their civil rights policy agenda over at change.gov . Folks, we've got a majority in both houses of Congress. Obama is going to enact into law the entire gay rights agenda, with the symbolic (and not trivial) exception of marriage. Hate crimes, workpace discrimination for gays, lesbians, gender identity and expressions (when did a president ever empower gender identity and expression?!), full federal legal rights for civil unions, and more. That's the policy agenda promoted by Obama on his transition website. You think he's lying? Get real, peeps.
Whatever Obama may or may not do for American gays and lesbians, he is contributing to a further eroding of security for gay people in Africa.
I encourage you to go to this web site
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/878
and read the post. It is partially printed below.
I'm thankful, too, that Rick Warren isn't going to be heading up Obama's health or general assistance policy for Africa in particular and the world in general. America's role in the world is going to get a lot saner and more constructive beginning on the first day of Obama's presidency. Executive orders are wonderful things.
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."
"There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community"
I believe Obama is fundamentally a supremacist, but also a libertarian when it comes to gay rights. To me, that suggests that he will quickly lose interest in the "gay agenda" if we take your advice to get a grip.
Just for fun:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
Good question!
Glad I asked it!: http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/global-warmi...
No Hope In Politics 13 hours ago
Would Obama "play nice" with a preacher who compared interracial sex to zoophilia?
Invite him to pray in front of millions while the product of "sin" stood behind him and bowed his head?
Obama is all of the evidence anyone ever needs... Government is the enemy of liberty.
Always & forever.
Amen.
Yes, that question MUST be answered by the Obama team. I'm waiting to hear the answer to that simple question?
More recently, Warren told beliefnet that he thinks allowing a BLACK couple to marry is similar to allowing "a brother and sister be together and call that marriage." He then helpfully added that he's also "opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage." The reporter, who may have been a little surprised, asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to BLACKS getting married?" "Oh, I do," Warren immediately answered. I wish the reporter had asked the next logical follow-up: if BLACKS are like child sexual abusers, shouldn't we incarcerate them?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859...
The problem isn't Obama. It is our culture that allows religions to perpetuate hatred and that proscribes that we are not allowed to criticize someone for their religious beliefs, no matter how hateful or idiotic they may be.
"Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives."
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/grou...
And this is the man chosen to open the pageant celebrating our new President.
Ding, ding, ding! Yes! This really is the key question because it clearly and unequivocally demonstrates the completely disingenuous nature of Team Obama's response to this debacle. As far as I know, MLK never invited a Klan member to open for one of his speeches. As Gregg Levine at FDL said tonight, "That’s not a dialogue—that’s a signal." Quite right. That this choice was not properly vetted speaks volumes about Mr. Obama's inner circle and his understanding of how he came to be president. And despite Team Obama's less than credible claims to the contrary, it quite clearly signals that the GLBT community does not have a place at Mr. Obama's "all inclusive" table.
Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, on 17 November 1957.
This guy has also been criticized heavily in many more traditional evangelical churches for some of his associations and preaching methods and the way he sells religion.
He sees himself as a successor to Billy Graham but Graham filled stadia; Warren is building his own Ponzi scheme.
And now he gets to "preach" in front of millions, even surpassing the 20 thousand he claims he preaches to at Saddleback. Isn't it all about Rick Warren in the end?
(A young neighbor, with good intentions, gave me a copy of that $21.00 book--to me, it's unreadable, and besides, I'm an atheist which she knows, so she wasted her money, but it was in a gift bag and I had no idea it was in there--hard to give back and I wouldn't want anyone else to have it either.)
This knuckleheaded move of Obama answers the question in the same way. Obama does in fact perceive bigotry and discrimination in the same way nearly every person of color does, and so the question is answered: he is indeed, black. And because he perceives the problem of bigotry throught the prism of racial "skin-color" prrejudice, he apparently can't see or feel why he is so insensitive to what gay people experiene in the unique form of prejudice and hatred they receive. It isn't that he is religously hostile to us, it is that his life experiences and ours lead us to see things differently. We gays face two levels of fundamental resistence in enlisting heterosexual people of color to our cause. First is the hostility created by religious and cultural influences. The second is the great difference in how we both receive and react to the experience of harsh prejudice. It is in fact, two different type of prejudices, creating two different life stories.
I can keenly see this because as a gay man of color, I have lived through both types and have come to understand the difference. As a Mexican-American, who cannot pass for white, I know that my struggle, when I have one, is to have people see beyond my skin color and features, to see the man and character inside. I cannot hide my identity and be someone else. But as a Mexican-American, I was born into a family, community and culture that accepted and nutrured me as I am. Although self-hatred remained a steady threat, it was clrear to all within my circle who the "enemy"was. It was the bigots out there who hate us all for being what we are. And to counter them, my family and culture fortified me with messages of pride and self-worth. On the other hand, as a gay man, I was born into a situation of steadily emerging isolation within my family, community and culture. There was no support to be expected. None was offered by my family, half Catholic, half Pentacostal. I could hide my sexuality and try to either pass or remain asexual for as long as possible, and frankly, I was encouraged to do so by my parents and by my Grandmother, who from an early age, pegged me as "priestly" material.. I didn't linger long on thoughts of who the "enemy"was because everyone around me was a times, my "enemy." Only later, when I matured beyond my teenage years, did things fall into sensible places, and iI could see that John Briggs and Anita Bryant were my real "enemies" and my grandmother was something else. This belated and very isolated, on-one's own, coming to grips with gay identity and how to surviive, and even thrive, in the face of potential hostilitly, is what is so fundamentally different between my two experiences.
Therefore, as a Mexican-American and a gay man, I have a keen appreciation for the vital difference between the two types of prejudices and adaptations. Don't get me wrong. Both types of prejudice are equally wrong, and equally harmful, especially to us when we are young and most vulnerable. And it is morally indefensibe to argue, as some do, that one type of prejudice is worse than another. Not when the result is equally devestating to individuals. But it is equally foolish to shrug off the importance of the difference with a reductionistic "discrimination is discrimination, what's the difference!"
The difference matters because it works in many cases to negate what we gays have lazily counted on in our political strategy, which is that our experience with homophobia ipso-facto creates a common experience. We think it is reasonable to believe that people of color who have experienced the harsh effects of race or color prejudice for generations quickly and instinctively "get it" when we gays argue that we have suffered likewise. We are wrong. It tis not that people of color who are not gay cannot empathize with us, or support us in our struggle. But we have to educate them. They will not just 'get it."
We can see this at work with Obama. He just doesn't get it that Waren's bigotry against gays is perceived by us differently than he would perceive it if it was directed at him because of his color. It all comes down to the impact men like Rev. Warren have on gay youth v. black or latino youth. Men like Rev. Warren don't send messages that prompt youth of color to think of themselves as intrinsically evil, disordered, doomed or cursed. The Warrens of our world don't strive to convince latino families that the latno-ness within their children is something to be feared and rejected. Christian high-schoolers wouldn't dream of bullying Asian kids in the hallways on the basis of what they think Jesus would do, and Christian-minded teachers wouldn't condone such bullying behavior based on religious prejudice. And men exactly like Rev. Warren don't directly contribute to a youth and family culture that drives young people of color to harm themselves, kill themselves or implode into the self-denial and conceit of the closet. But when it comes to gay youth, Rev.Warren and countless others have the blood and pain of countless gay youth sqarely on their heads and hands.
Barack Obama sees in Warren a man with different values, and at best, different approaches to common goals. We see a purveyor of blood libels that kill and pain our youth, just as his predecessors inflicted pain on us, injected pain into our families and killed numerous young souls we will never know as adults. Barack Obama ought to withdraw his invitation not because of Warren's support of Prop 8. That was aimed primarily at gays and lesbians as adults. And we can fight back, and will. No, he should take it back because Warrren continues to perpetuate a call in gay youth towards despair and self-destruction, a call in families towards ignorance and rejection, and all the while, puts on a smle while doing so. The man preys on helpless, isolated children, and deserves more than just having shoes tossed at his grinning face.
In the black experience, the heavyweights in terms of danger to the community were the enslavers, the lynchers, and the demogogues. Although not innocent at all, men in collars or men of authority have seldom been perceived in the same light. While gay people also faced murder that went unpunished , the heavyweight foes we have historically faced have been men in collars, lab coats and judge's wigs, who pronounce us with great authority to be less than human, less than normal, less than sane, less than equal chidren of God. And our foes kill us most often when we are young. As Obama sees it, Rev. Warren is a lightweight in terms of social damage. He doesn't connect Warren to the damage he does to gay youth. He doesn't get it that Warren preaches the same hateful message that spewed from the mouths of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson or Helms.
From Wikipedia: Howard gained national attention when students rose up in protest against the appointment of then-Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater as a new member of the university's Board of Trustees. Student activists disrupted Howard's 122nd anniversary celebrations, and eventually occupied the university's Administration building. Within days, both Atwater and Howard's President, James E. Cheek, resigned.
What I see is a spirit crusher. Huge difference.
And no marching band, and no assurances regarding how supportive Obama is, are comforting me over the selection of this guy to deliver the invocation at an inauguration that was supposed to be about hope and change.
Did anyone look past the immediate and obvious issues w/ Warren - to the fact that the benediction and closing last word will be given by Rev. Lowery... and that Warren might just be the balance that allowed Obama to pick such a "controversial" figure??? Hell, if he'd have announced Lowery and not had Warren - the right, the conservatives, etc. would be up in arms.
How about we give the man a little faith?
"There's a difference between reaching out to bad guys and legitimizing them."
What part of legitimize is it that you do not understand? Obama made a concious decision to throw the LGBT under the bus for political (2012) gain. I will never again respect Obama - unless he admits his ignorance and ill-minded calculation. By inviting Warren Obama has sent a clear message that Obama is about Obama - look at his cabinet picks - they have 2012 written all over them.
Seriously, while I can understand the anger and disappointment - which is where I was a few days ago - I think the answer is not that simple, despite how much people want it to be that way. Yes, there was calculation... how to balance a controversial figure (Lowery) participating? You get another controversial figure from the opposing camp - thereby nuetralizing the issue.
Like I said - I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt, and continue to wait, watch, listen and learn from his behavior before passing judgement.
Thought that's what this was about... freedom from judgement?
I agree Rainlion that all of this is disappointing however it is hard for me to embrace the "exception makes the rule" or "we have to slaughter 10 to save 100" argument here. Legitimizing homophobia is bigtime stuff, shortcuts are hard to justify here - hence, it takes "courage" to stand up for what is right (Ghandi comes to mind).
With respect to gays and their rights under the Constitution there is NO judgement. They deserve every right, with NO exceptions. But I understand Rainlion that you want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt - but lets be clear on this. There was no "doubt" in Obama's mind when he threw the LGBT community under the bus for political gain.
A person's character can be defined in a single moment of one's life. Obama just defined his.
Adhering to religious convictions/faith/beliefs is not bigotry. RIck Warren is a Chrisitan...that makes his sacred text the Bible. So from a Biblical perspective, homosexuality is WRONG! That does not make him a bigot. It makes him a believer in his sacred text.
I don't care for many of Mr. Warren's doctrinal staements although I am a follower of Christ, however; I do believe that President -elect Obama is very smart to invite a fellow believe in Chirstianity to do the invocation...which by the way is a Christian tradition, not a social or politcal cause. So why not invite a Chirstian brother to perform the Christian ritual? They do not gel on every issue but they do gel on the issue that matters most, Jesus is Lord. I would only be skeptical if he invited someone who does not adhere to his faith convictions!
Really?
I say that's Bull Shit. The Bible, the New Testament no less also says that real Christians can drink poison and play with deadly snakes, I don't see you or R.W. lining up to do either of those things. Jesus said that those that believe in him would do "greater things" than he did like walking on water, for example. The truth is he is picking and choosing what he wants out of the bible as are all self described Christians, which is a big time no no according to God. And that makes him a self serving hypocrite, a bigot, and just a general bull shit artist, like a sleazy used car sales man or something. If your or Rick Warrens "sacred text" is the bible then give all your money to the poor and don't worry about tomorrow. End of story. I don't want to hear anything you or Rick have to say about your religion till you and he do it. Love your neighbor, yes your gay neighbor as your self. If you don't do these things you're just an annoying gas bag full of hot air to most people, and to God you're an abomination, and he will according to the "sacred text" "spit you out."