One reason that cultural issues like abortion have been successful rallying points for Republicans is because such issues tend to beget an asymmetry of passion. While a majority of the country supports abortion rights under most circumstances, the average pro-lifer is probably more engaged by the issue than the average pro-choicer, thereby enabling the 45 percent to outweigh the 55 percent under certain conditions.
That may still be the case for abortion, where public opinion has been static for many years. But it may no longer be the case on gay rights. Just who is on what side of the 55/45 split depends on what question you're asking -- a majority of the public now supports civil unions, although not yet gay marriage. That's beside the point, though; what I think the Warren dust-up reveals is that the left is now willing to raise at least as much ruckus about the issue as the right. The left, of course, has always had its own moral compass, but it's now beginning to convert that into more focused, overtly political action. If John Kerry had won four years ago, and invited Warren or some analogous pastor to give his invocation, would there have been this much debate about it? It's hard to say for sure, but I don't think we would have heard very much about it at all. This all feels very recent, stemming from a renewed self-confidence on the part of the left, coupled in this particular instance with the aftermath of Proposition 8.
I say this as someone, by the way, who buys into the "Can't we all just get along?" side of the argument. There's a difference between feeling as though you have superior morals and feeling morally superior, and some of the discussion has veered toward the wrong side of that equation. Nevertheless, I think the passion aroused among the left on the issue has been fairly impressive, and is potentially fairly consequential.
12.23.2008
A Passing Thought On Rick Warren
@ 10:08 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
228 comments
Nate--
Bravo sir.
I agree with you 100%. And on that front, I think that Rick Warren is representative of many Americans. I believe this is a pragmatic choice. Not because of wanting to please the evangelical community to gain votes, but to open the avenues for congress to pursue legalization of civil unions, and eventually, marriage.
Before Statler Waldorf blows a fuse let me just observe
Only Nixon Could Go to China.
STepper: Right about Nixon but he sent Kissinger out first as a scout.
WV: tricatho (that's really over the top; I prefer cathodue)
I hate to break it to you, but if you do not support gay rights you do definitely have inferior morals. No questions about it.
@Juris
Interesting observation, but not related to my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_in_China_(phrase)
Being morally superior to homophobic bigots is setting a low bar.
Um, Milo, you may want to re-read Nate's post.
For my part, I guess I'm glad to see the left have some passion, but I think it probably bodes poorly for the overall success of the Obama administration.
With the Warren selection, Obama was basically saying "I disagree with this man's politics, but as a sign of respect and as an acknowledgment that he has a right to speak those views, I'll share the stage with him."
The left's outrage, however, is no different than the typical right wing blowups. Possibly a little more hypocritical, because the left preaches tolerance and open conversation and then turns around and says "...but we can't tolerate *those* opinions, or have *those* conversations."
I'm a vehement supporter of gay rights. But I am more interested in converting the likes of Warren than in silencing them, and in my experience the best way to bring people around to tolerance and acceptance is to tolerate and accept them, even when they say unreasonable things. The left should be challenging the basis for Warren's misguided beliefs, not challenging Obama's acceptance of someone who disagrees with him.
I am a supporter of gay rights and marriage, but the marriage won't be down the aisle anytime soon. I wish it would, but as long as Americans do not want it, this issue will continue to be governed by the poll numbers.
Warren was a bad choice on many levels, but it was a political choice. Now we have both, Obama and Warren, getting hammered by their base.
Lastly, you may have something about the getting along thing. I know many who are Warren followers, thinkers, maybe not on everything but they like him. The man did not sell 10s of millions of books for nothing, he is a force himself. But what I am getting at is that I heard many, some in my own family, who like Warren and feel that by him giving the invocation it states much about Obama and how he will listen and try to bring us together.
The far left may not like this, but this is the reality. Will Obama score major points doing this? I don't know, the jury is still out on that one, but he is getting nods from that segment that hate the far left and the democratic party.
Folks, Obama is a politician first. I do not believe anything he does is without forward thinking and thought. Did he make a mistake? Possibly, but what if he did not and purposely wanted this conversation in the open. Now we know that Warren has scrubbed his site of all anti-gay rhetoric. Does that mean anything? No, but it may mean something to him if he is trying to elevate the conversation, and it always starts with you.
just some thoughts...
@Milo: although I agree with your point, I tend to look at the pragmatic aspect of how we are going convert those who do not support gay rights.
There's plenty of evidence of underlying momentum on the issue, perhaps strongest of all the inexorable process of generational replacement. The younger generation is far more tolerant of diversity on many dimensions. (I'm a near-geezer already, but I like to think I share the tolerance levels of my own children).
It may well be that Obama's invitation to Warren is insulting and insensitive -- and even rewards the s.o.b. for his own intolerance. But I think we're on the cusp of some important political and social changes, and that if Obama's move can make a marginal difference it's worth it. If not, well it's a pretty damn good object lesson.
wv: diesse (criminy, ya gotta speak German now?)
The left, of course, has always had its own moral compass
This can't be echoed enough. Whether it be right-wing, religious zealouts or left-wing, secularist zealots, each has tried to force their own 'morals' onto society. Each is a claim to moral superiority and each one is repulsive and denigrating to our democracy.
No one should be forced to believe in the preceps of the Old Testament of the Bible as the basis of our national laws any more than they should be forced to believe that homosexuality is acceptable.
Before anyone jumps on me like a wolf on a wounded rabbit, notice I said in the last part that no one should be forced to believe that homesexuality is acceptable. I said nothing about equal rights. For the record, I am for equality/equal rights but not a forced belief that it is an acceptable choice.
I believe the reaction is overblown and it is a meaningful gesture for the inauguration (Obama did run on a platform of reconciliation, not partisanship), but I feel people are treating this as if Rick Warren has been appointed a Cabinet position on Gay Affairs. It's an invocation, he'll say, "Praise Jesus, dominus," and then he'll be off the stage. Afterward someone will come on and speak at length.
What I see brewing among some is the same attitude people complained about when Bush committed the same acts. During the Bush administration, you had to be ideologically identical or you didn't get the time of day. All this did was create division because you had conservatives approaching things as if their ideas were superior and liberals were just evil. Now I see people unable to put the shoe on the other foot because they fail to see that they are doing the converse where liberals have superior ideas and conservatives are evil. They're falling into a game of partisanship and that more than anything ruined this country, it wasn't just a matter of conservative ideas.
I say take a chill pill, we need to be more accepting of other's ideas, even if you disagree with them. He may oppose gay marriage, but if common ground can be found on civil unions and if this gesture can gain some points for getting civil unions, then I say take that route. It may be the path to gay marriage, and you should take what you can get because remember gays were seens as unacceptable in the military in the 1990's, now it has gained acceptance; if we can get equal rights on paper, hopefully we can eventually reach a Supreme Court decision that would strike down civil unions as separate but equal, which would demand that gay marriage be put into law.
Nonetheless, Rick Warren has not defined his career by opposition to gay marriage. If we always take something we disagree with as reason to shun somebody, then you'll never reconcile with people and then conservatives will never have a place at the table. Now ask yourself, do you not want conservatives to have a place at the table? And if so, how is this different from the Bush administration? And if you merely think it's because your ideas are better, don't you think conservatives thought the same way?
I don't admire the dust up over "appearances" and "symbolic" hot button issues being fodder for chatter that sucks all the oxygen from more pertinent conversations America needs to be having.
"Symbolic issues" are the reason the GOP was able to get such a grip on this country for so long. The symbolism of inviting someone people disagree with doesn't 1) get people health care 2) stop global warming 3) save people from forclosure.
If you aren't talking about health care, or environment, or the half dozen important issues that we need to be talking about, you are part of the problem -- fiddling while Rome burns.
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR RICHARD NIXON
Actually, it is great news for Leonard Nimoy.
Which, of course, means the discussion is GREAT NEWS!!!!! For John McCain!!!!!!
I didn't know Leonard Nimoy was appearing at the Inauguration.
this is about context, and recent history.
were it not for the lingering, significant anger about Prop 8, Warren at the Inaugural wouldn't be such an issue.
I'm waiting for the press to ask Warren about the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 11 in the early 1960s. That voter-approved initiative (briefly) vacated a law passed by the legislature to prohibit discrimination in housing; it was a blatantly bigoted move on the part of the majority.
Sound familiar?
[and please remember that the California legislature *did* vote to approve full marriage rights to same-sex couples, but suffered a veto from the governor.]
@gk22, sometimes you have to make the symbolic moves in order to get the real work done. And if these symbolic moves can make getting the real work done, then perhaps the move isn't so bad. Obama may have majorities in the House and Senate, but he definitely does not want to have only Democrats voting for his policies and we shouldn't want that either.
Does most of the country support abortion rights under most circumstances? Your assertion is logically faulty, if it's based on the polls I've seen (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm).
There are polls regarding "most cases" and some about "certain circumstances", but not "most circumstances".
Given a vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, a vast majority of the cases are also first trimester. However, potential abortion circumstances are more evenly split between the three trimesters. The terms are not swappable, hence the use of the distinct terms in different polls.
While there is polling showing a majority believes abortion should be legal in most cases, there are also polls that show a minority believing it should be legal in post-1st trimester circumstances.
So a majority of the country believe abortion should be legal in most cases and a majority does not believe it should carte blanche be legal until viability or post-viability in certain circumstances.
In either case, based on the polling data I just re-checked, I can't see how "a majority of the country supports abortion rights under most circumstances" is accurate.
From Star Trek....since we are referencing the "Only Nixon could go to China" meme
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Captain Spock: There is an old Vulcan proverb: only Nixon could go to China
Nathan-
This is GREAT NEWS for the movie "Juno"!!!!
As a gay person of color I have to say that I'm really getting sick of this all or nothing mentality that has permeated the left and gay communities on the issue of gay marriage.
I know this will probably come as a shock to many gays but gay marriage isn't that big of a deal for a great number of gays and lesbians who remain silent on the issue because they know they'll be branded every damn negative label in the book.
In fact, if asked, I would say there are other issues that are more important to me. For instance, ending the war in Iraq. I have two younger brothers there and I want them home now! I'm also concerned about the economy, the environment, and women's reproductive rights.
The issue of gay marriage isn't going to be solved overnight with the election of one person. It will take time and effort to try and convince people who view the issue negatively that this is a civil right.
Frankly, I wish the government would get out of the marriage business and issue civil unions to all and let the churches have their marriage.
Joe The Fake Virginian--
Oh, that's right. I forgot, Nixon was a Vulcan.
@ hill.tops
from Wiki
Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general.
Hope this helps.
:)
I consider myself an Evangelical. But I also consider myself a liberal Democrat. I voted for Gore, Kerry, Obama. My personal views on personal morality are definately conservative, but those views (on personal morality) don't usually translate to my political views and how I think the government should be involved. I'm not politically pro-life (I don't support the overturning of Roe v wade or making abortions the legal equiv of murder). I'm not passionate about gay marriage (I abstained from the Prop 8 vote). I'd prefer civil unions for all (hetero and homosexual).
With that said. I have a great deal of respect for Rick Warren... though I usually don't agree with him politically. He's dedicated a lot of life and resources to helping the poor and the sick. He's donated 90% of his book royalties. He paid back his church for the last 25 years of his minister's salary. He's definately conservative and on the right, but he's hardly extreme.
But the thing I find most funny is that the left is so pissed about Warren's position on gay marriage. Didn't Biden say in the VP debate that him and Obama are also against gay marriage?
It seems they agree on that issue.
My thought on Prop 8 is that it usually takes a spectacular failure to energize a political movement. The republican revolution of 1994 was led by people who had a burning desire to not get steamrollered as they felt they had in "stolen" elections in their past.
That said, I really wish we could, as a nation, agree that no one be allowed to have a national position of prominence if they don't believe in evolution. Being the spokesperson for the stupid does not earn you a seat at the grown-up table.
Actually, Spock said, "only Nixon could eat Chinese."
Which of course is GREAT NEWS for General Tso's chicken.
Here are my 2 cents.
I think that the reason the republicans had a grip on power for so long is because of the "unholy" alliance between the social conservatives (religious) and the economic conservatives yielding power to the latter. That power is what brought the fortunes of the middle class and the poor down. I'm not american but when I look at american politics, it strikes me on how this alliance came to existence. To me, I would think that religious people would care about the poor, the disadvataged and so on. I think that the government's job is to put in place policies to advance our standards of living (not necessarily directly).
I'm going on and on but my point is this. Warren is a leader of the evangelical movement where the focus is on the poor, AIDS, global warming. Taking the focus away from abortions, gay marriage within the evangelical community. On these issues, the evangelical community is more in tune with the Democrats and Obama and I applaude him for that. This leadership is what I think Obama is trying to gain from Warren within his community and I think that he is advancing the poor and middle class agenda by doing so.
I think Obama is acknowledging that many of Warren's views are consistent with a large chunk of the American people. He does not want them to feel like their voices are not being heard. Warren is only getting a brief platform here, not a position in the cabinet. It's a way for Obama to send the message to evangelicals that he's listening even if he disagrees on many issues.
As for the gay marriage flap, I agree that it should be legal. Unfortunately much of the population does not. Many still want to impose their religious based views on everyone, which is wrong. However, I think the temporary compromise is to offer civil unions that give gay couples the legal rights that they are sorely lacking right now. The younger generation is much more accepting of homosexuals, so gay marriage becoming legal is probably inevitable, but for now let's get people the legal rights they need by allowing civil unions.
Michael Croft,
Evolution is a loaded word. I don't believe that natural selection and random mutation are capable on their own, of providing all the diversity we seen in biology.
I think something like 80% of Americans who have been polled agree with me. (The question is usually asked if they believe God had a hand in creating biological life forms).
There are people who are much smarter than you who don't believe that NS & RM are the sole answer to biological diversity.
@Trouble:
I wasn't arguing against Obama's pick. In fact, I could care less. If Obama wanted to invite Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad, I wouldn't care either.
I'm arguing against the "controversy", which is a distraction and waste of time.
The GOP and the MSM love this sort of bullshit controversy. It sucks up all the oxygen in the room so we don't about actual legislation to solve our huge problems.
America is in a world of hurt. We have HUGE problems. The usual CNN/FoxNews bullshit, playing up the spats of some lefty bloggers -- self-appointed spokesman for the left, supposedly -- is more of the same MSM game. I like to term it "weapons of mass distraction". Keep your eye on the ball folks.
"This all feels very recent, stemming from a renewed self-confidence on the part of the left, coupled in this particular instance with the aftermath of Proposition 8."
Um, am I the only one who sees the self-contradiction in this sentence?
It is simple math. Give to the maximum number of people what matters to them maximally; that is a pretty good way to run a country. Give evangelical invocations to evangelicals and give gay rights to gay people (and I trust that Obama will move strongly in that direction). It is both fair and politically smart.
@ I'd rather not say
It could be the "lost a battle, won the war" thought.
There is newfound political strength here in Northern "Fake" Virginia. However, just because the state gave its electoral votes to a democratic presidential candidate does not mean the schools and roads in Northern Virginia are taken any more seriously in the state capital of Richmond.
Then again, I could be wrong.
Kenny Johnson,
I don't think it's necessary to go into how smart I may or may not be. Ad hominem attacks don't affect the actual argument.
In a similar vein, I'm going to assume that you don't believe in evolution by natural selection because you think it's an inadequate explanation and not because you dislike the implications of the conclusion.
Having said that, believing that Natural Selection and random mutation could produce the diversity we see now and in the fossil record should be well within the scope of imagination of anyone who can extrapolate what we can observe and test over tiny timeframes and apply it to vast ones. Given the focus of FiveThirtyEight.com on statistical analysis of large-scale outcomes by looking at small samples, this is an odd place to start arguing against the scalability of statistically measurable processes.
Two points:
- The last thing we want to go back to is the Rove strategy of "50% plus 1". Whatever view of Obama, Warren etc this is a good thing to engage rather than demonize the other side.
- I have a view that if you've ticked off the radical left and the radical right (both equally unhappy for different reasons), you've probably made the right call.
Michael Croft,
You're the one who said that people who 'don't believe in evolution' are stupid. And I'm the one making ad hominem attacks?
My statement was in response to yours. That you believe those you disagree with are stupid.
You can get off your high horse now.
@ Nate: the left is now willing to raise at least as much ruckus about the issue as the right.
To me, that is the whole point here. As my father used to say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." For example, Rachel Maddow had a piece on her show Friday night regarding a statement on Saddleback's website that gay people would not be welcome as members of the church. Last night, she had another piece about how that obnoxious language had been removed by Saturday afternoon. Now, does that mean that gays are suddenly welcome there? Probably not, but it does show how raising a ruckus can effect at least small changes in a short time.
Frankly, I don't really care who Obama selects to give his inaugural invocation. The bigger problem is that there's an invocation to begin with. I'm a realistic person, though, and I don't expect progress overnight, but it'd be nice if there were some token gesture. Like if Obama were sworn in on a copy of the US Constitution instead of the King James Bible. At least it would indicate that the President is accountable to the American people and not to some figure of Christian mythology.
I don't know if Obama did the right thing by selecting Warren but I am shocked by the level of outrage against him. Warren is actually moderate for a religious leader. Feminists have not freaked out over his comments on abortion because they know that policy is what matters. The Supreme Court appointments and the Justice Department matter. Who gives a prayer at an inauguration is usually instantly forgotten.
The gay rights movement seems to have no strategy or even agreement within its ranks. Why are they not pushing civil unions when the majority of Americans support them?
Why aren't they recruiting people for Congress who support their rights? Do they even understand the legislative process? I am not sure.
Obama will allow gays to serve in the military because it is simply bad policy to keep them out, especially when we have a shortage of troops.
The gay community should avoid attacking popular religious leaders, even if they deserve it, because that is not a way to win people over. If negativity was popular, Tom Delay and Sarah Palin would be our new leaders.
I support gay marriage but I saw Hilary Rosen on t.v. arguing against Warren and she was not very coherent. She sounded like she thought anyone who disagreed with her should be banned from the inauguration. That is not a good message to be sending.
Most Americans do not see gay rights as a civil rights issue, they see it as a social or religious issue. That seems to be what the gay movement has to change. This brouhaha may make Obama more responsive to them in the future or it may make them seem irrational and undeserving of a seat at the table. Only time will tell.
But, no matter what, the gay movement needs to start making their case a lot better than they have.
I'm also gay, and I'm with fogfan: I'm not too invested in marriage equality as a pressing political issue.
What's raised my ire about Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration is this: as long as I've been alive (I'm 38) and for generations before me, queers have been getting beaten up physically and verbally in this country. Clinton came into office promising to do away with sexual orientation screens in the military; Carter before him said the same thing in his campaign. Neither of them saw that through.
We've gotten promises here and there, panders here and there, over the backdrop of constant condemnation from right-wing ministers and politicians. We get used as a wedge issue, reliably, every four years, if not every two. For me, living in California, Prop 8 felt like just another experience of having my human rights put to a vote. And this has happened as long as I've been alive.
So now this man, Obama, who I voted for, who's labeled by some the most liberal (former) member of the U.S. Senate, is about to be inaugurated as president. And he's making a compromise to create a bridge to the left. And who does he invite in? A homophobic preacher. So I'm feeling thrown under the bus here in the name of "can't we all just get along?"
I'm still prepared to give Obama a chance. But in this invitation, I'm hearing the strains of "just like last time" instead of "change."
Also, I do think that we lefties are emboldened by the election of Obama, mostly because we feel that our voices might actually be heard this time.
Protesting anything during the Bush regime was truly an exercise in futility. So what you're seeing is the steam escaping from eight years of frustration.
I don't think that the issue is that gays are more vocal this year. I think it is that the media are willing to report what they say.
Starting almost immediately after the 2006 elections, there was a steady increase in the amount of reporting that went counter to the Administration's Christian Right positions on science, social issues, and everything else. The increase is still continuing as President Bush's "lame duckitude" increases. (Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for the term and the pursuit of the issue. And for being out, and a prime example of what I am talking about.)
As a gay man, I was originally ok with this choice, mostly because as an atheist, I'm resigned to the fact that these silly religious displays have a place in 21st century american government. What swayed me to become a little angry about this, is that there are a number of highly regarded evanglical pastors who may not believe in gay marriage (Obama doesn't personally, either), but who are not on the record recently comparing it to pedophelia, incest, or polygomy.
So the problem here isn't that Obama's choice was a political one (a smart politician does nearly everything from smart political calculation), but it was a boneheaded political move that is reverberating throughout the country.
My only solace here, is that I finally have a face to people who never recognized my sexuality as a valid one from a citizens standpoint. We are losing battles, but winning the war.
Everyone should stand up for marriage equality. If my relationship isn't illegal by government standards, then I should be entitled to EXACTLY equal protection under the law. Not separate but equal via civil unions, but completely equal via marraige.
Logan, when you are committed to a cause, you don't settle for separate but equal. You fight until you've gotten what you believe, or you die trying.
It doesn't matter whether the majority of the country supports civil unions, if it's the wrong position from a civil rights standard, it doesn't matter how many in the majority support it.
The fuss over warren is being compared to polygomy (illegal), incest (also illegal) and pedophilila (not just illegal, but sick). Had warren not come out with thos kind of blatant public statements, you would not see the uproar you are seeing today.
Yup, cut Obama a break. He, as a private citizen, also has the right to pray with whomever he pleases. He and Warren don't have to be in step about everything in order to have a friendly relationship. And the left should not follow the right's TERRIBLE example and get it's panties up every time something happens that doesn't taste just right.
Life is not perfect and stuff happens. I would say that keeping the economy from sinking through the earth's crust on the way to hell is more important that which person says an invocation at an inauguration.
Delighted to see the more reasoned article and responses here, having been earlier subjected to "hate speech" because I suggested we all calm down. As a lifetime supporter of gay rights and gay issues, I thought it truly unwise (not to mention sickening) of people to flame me. People whose liberal principles are less firm than mine would be influenced by this behavior, and not in the way you need. You may not want any moderates on your side, and you may feel that creating a splinter party and enabling a Bush or McCain victory would serve you better if you can't have 100% of your way, but we live in the real world.
That said, the more I see of Rick Warren the more phony he looks to me. It's unfortunate Obama could find noone from that camp who looks like a thoughtful and compassionate person. (Perhaps Cizik too left for his purposes?) If my radar feels he doesn't altogether practice what he preaches when it comes to Christianity, doubtless many others will too.
And I also think Warren's statements on gays are outrageous, even if I am willing to tolerate him.
I agree with Brendan that this would not have blown up nearly as much (or with as much focus on this particular issue) if it had not come immediately after the Prop 8 vote. And I agree with Nate that this all has generated some much-needed passion, and that's not a bad thing.
But honestly, the "we can disagree without being disagreeable" on this really bugs me, because it seems to mean that those on the right can compare gay marriage to incest and pedophilia without being "disagreeable," but those on the left can't say "that's horrible." Having lived through twenty years of conservatives being able to get away with calling us traitors, America-haters, terrorist-sympathizers, fantasizing on-air about us being tortured or killed, and more, but if liberals get worked up about anything, they can tell people in politics and the media "ooh, look how angry and uncivil they are!" and they don't just laugh.
I'm all for reaching out, reconciling and converting. I'd much rather be back to how the country was when we could honestly disagree, before the Reagan revolution and its heirs turned us into just short of armed camps. But I'm long past being sick of the calls for calm and civility only going one way. I want to have some assurance that there will be some behavior on the right that is considered out of bounds, that requires actual contrition before we're expected to forgive them.
Like if Obama were sworn in on a copy of the US Constitution instead of the King James Bible. At least it would indicate that the President is accountable to the American people and not to some figure of Christian mythology.
Uh, every president since Washington has been sworn in on a Bible; that's how one takes an oath, if one is a religious person.
It's funny, my main objection to Warren is that he showed with his Saddleback forum he will lie and cheat to aid his political allies. If I were Obama, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
This is GREAT NEWS for Christmas!!!!
I must agree, Nate. I've always been supportive of gay rights, and once I put some thought into it, I supported gay marriage over civil unions and have for several years. But the song calling for gay rights has been getting louder in recent years, and I think it will only get more powerful and urgent: when voters don't just deny gays equal rights, but take away rights that they already enjoyed (Prop 8), that causes a major backlash that can only continue to increase. This won't just be a major issue -- I believe it will be as defining for this generation as the Civil Rights movement was 40 years ago.
First off, it's how one takes an oath if one is a Christian person. Someone can be religious without being Christian.
An elected official can be sworn in on whatever document they choose. To me, the Constitution seems most appropriate. Tradition for tradition's sake is dangerous and ignorant. Plus, much of the Bible is a violent and hate-filled, and has no place in today's society, let alone government.
Mark: If Obama were praying with Warren as a private citizen, I don't think this would have caused a ripple. But the inauguration of the president is a huge public event for the country orchestrated by and for its new leader, not a private citizen praying with some guy.
And the left should not follow the right's TERRIBLE example and get it's panties up every time something happens that doesn't taste just right.
Uh, why the hell not? If there's one lesson to be learned from the past several decades, it's that when conservatives get worked up and voice their outrage (and they have an entire media machine designed to keep them in a perpetual state of outrage) and liberals are calm and send polite messages through appropriate channels, the result is that conservatives mostly get what they want. Politicians and news outlets seem to most effectively motivated to avoid having people pissed off at them.
I'd much rather have a country where we can disagree and settle political matters through rational discussion, but I'm much more concerned about not having a country where the conventional-wisdom definition of the political "center" continuously moves further to the right even though people's views on actual issues don't.
But honestly, the "we can disagree without being disagreeable" on this really bugs me, because it seems to mean that those on the right can compare gay marriage to incest and pedophilia without being "disagreeable," but those on the left can't say "that's horrible."
This is really what turns the gay marriage thing into a huge issue for me. I'm gay, and I really have never cared all that much about whether I can get married or not (although I like working for a company that lets me get health insurance for my other half).
But I don't want to deny other gay people the option of marrying if that's what they want. And it really gets under my skin when supposedly God-fearing people like Rick Warren blatantly lie about preachers being forced to conduct same-sex marriages and children being indoctrinated into the "gay lifestyle" (not to mention trotting out that old canard about marriage being one man and one woman everywhere in the Bible, which is so blatantly untrue that he ought to have his theological degrees revoked).
You want to oppose gay marriage? Fine. I can "get along" with someone who does it honestly and without insulting me. Call me a pedophile? Compare my relationship to bestiality? Sorry...you lose your right to participate in the conversation since you obviously cannot be civil.
IslandLiberal-
Theodore Roosevelt was not sworn in to his first term on a bible. Not sure about the second term.
IslandLiberal:
Uh, every president since Washington has been sworn in on a Bible; that's how one takes an oath, if one is a religious person.
Actually, this is apparently not true. Contemporary accounts of Washington's inauguration make no mention "so help me God," only the oath that is in the Constitution, and apparently the first claim that Washington said it comes from Washington Irving writing 65 years later. Lincoln apparently did, according to newspaper accounts, but there is no evidence one way or the other for presidents between Washington and Lincoln.
Also, Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a bible, and John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law. Personally, I think it would be great if Obama swore on the Constitution, especially after the outrages against the Constitution for the past eight years, but unfortunately it would cause needless uproar, and I'd rather he just got things done.
not to mention trotting out that old canard about marriage being one man and one woman everywhere in the Bible, which is so blatantly untrue...
Uh, you are horribly misguided on that front. You want to talk respect? Okay, I can respect you if you don't believe in Christianity or the Bible and don't think it's teachings should have any bearing on your life and that gay marriage is just fine.
Or even if you adhere to some things in the Bible and choose that (the teachings about homosexuality/gay marriage) not to be one of them.
But don't give off the impression that the Bible, Jesus, God, etc. have ever done anything but define marriage in the context of man and woman. To suggest otherwise is completely and utterly false and is a gross perversion (and igorance) of Scripture.
Mule Rider, have you ever read your Old Testament?
I never said there was same sex marriage in the Bible. But there sure as heck is polygamy, which is not one man and one woman.
Entering the Creation/Evolution debate:
Who, exactly, are the supposedly smart people who don't believe in evolution? Certainly an overwhelming majority of those that study it claim that mutation plus natural selection is solely responsible for it.
Nonetheless, I claim that those who don't believe in evolution are not necessarily stupid. Some of them are certainly smart, and if we could objectively quantify intelligence, they might be smarter than me. But people are very poor at using their intelligence when highly emotional issues come up. For many, because of religious reasons, evolution is one such issue.
Geoff,
And that polygamy was simply recorded as historical fact. It was never condoned or ordained by God as a viable alternative.
It's the same thing when people protest and (try to) discredit the Bible because it supposedly promotes slavery. NO, it simply RECORDS it and talks about applications of the law given the fact it was a reality in those days, but it NEVER condoned it.
People who suggest these things (and others) when they attack the Bible have apparently done the most twisted and oversimplified hermeneutical research and are absolutely clueless as to what the Bible was intended for.
I'm with Milo Busbecq, Brooks, and Redshift. I want to convert Warren in a _civil_ debate, not silence him or destroy him.
The good news is we're winning that debate. The long-term trends are all positive, despite noise, because our case is pretty overwhelming when you think about it.
When people, even the Trolls, are invited gently to think about it over time, a surprisingly high fraction will eventually come around to accept equality for all. Maybe I'm optimistic, but equality for ALL, ultimately, is pretty hard for Americans to reject.
And when supposed "Christians" use those texts to justify polygamy and slavery, I'll say that they are in violation of God's laws as well.
The difference, though, is a rights issue. I'd say that polygamy more closely aligns with homosexuality - i.e. as long as it's a group of consenting adults, I may not agree with it, but they have the right to do what they want, such as get married, etc.
Slavery would be unjust on the grounds that it is in direct violation of someone having basic civil liberties.
Look, I'm not saying I want to impose my morals on you. I'm just saying don't impose yours on me OR try and twist the basis for my morals by lying and distorting what the Bible says to justify your actions.
If you want to say God is full of it and you either don't believe Him or live by His laws, that's well within your right. But don't tell me that God says what you do is okay based on how YOU interpret the Bible when it very clearly says something different.
Mule rider. You defeated your argument against gay marriage with this little gem: Okay, I can respect you if you don't believe in Christianity or the Bible and don't think it's teachings should have any bearing on your life and that gay marriage is just fine..
You have acknowledged what should be the central issue: The government has a responsiblity to govern ALL the people in a way that's best for ALL its citizens. To have a government that forms its laws around a book that is not even the basis for our own constitution is silly.
So if you take your personal stance on gay marriage out of the debate (and everyone else's too) you're left with a simple truth. Being gay, and being in a gay relationship is not illegal in the eyes of the law, since this is the case there should be no distinction in the legal statute of marriage between heterosexual or homosexual couples.
However, I'm all for striking the word marriage from ALL of our laws, replacing it with civil unions and allowing all citizens the same protection under that term -- putting marriage (or peoples convoluted version of it) back into the hands of the religious institutions who so insist they have a monopoly on the term.
This is GREAT NEWS for Jack Black!!!
One more thing Mule Rider -- try to come up with an argument against gay marriage FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT without using god or the bible as a foundation for your argument....you know, separation of church and state and all.
And by the way, polygomy is illegal so it doesn't belong in the same argument.
This is GREAT NEWS for OBama' abs!
Also, I doesn't matter what god says is ok or not. It should have no bearing on how our laws are created or enforced, period
Also, legally, the step to defeating gay marriage for good is making gay relationships illegal. If my relationship is illegal, then I obviously can't enter into a legal CONTRACT. Since my relationship IS legal, then entering into a civil contract of marraige is my right, a right which the people, no matter how numerous cannot negate.
Mule Rider, fair enough, although I personally fail to see the difference between recording the "historical fact" of slavery or polygamy and God "condoning or ordaining" it. From my reading, it would appear that God was prepared to accept both as a historical fact and did not speak out against it. Certainly, when it comes to slavery, the early Church had zero problems with it. But I'll concede the point, since it doesn't really have any bearing on my argument.
The point is that to argue that marriage has always looked like the modern, nuclear family that is so common in the US today is blatantly untrue and directly contradicted by the Bible itself, not to mention any number of other historical sources. Marriage has changed considerably from place to place and time to time.
It also ignores the point that I have absolutely zero interest in attempting to justify same sex marriage on the basis of religion (I brought up the point simply to show the dishonesty from some people on the other side). You are free to hold whatever religious beliefs you like, and if you prefer not to recognize my relationship, you're fully within your rights, just as Catholics don't believe that civil divorce annuls a marriage in the eyes of God.
This is an argument about a civil right, not an attempt to interfere in your religion. If you believe that God forbids same sex marriage then you're free to say that and practice it in your own life. What you're not free to do is to shove your faith down my throat and force me to conform to your religion.
I agree with other posters that one thing which should be done is to separate the spiritual side of marriage (call it the "wedding") and the legal side (call it "civil union", so that "marriage = wedding + civil union.") This formula is natural to me because as a Quaker, in many states, this is already how it works since our weddings are not recognized as legally binding (since there is nobody to say "by the power vested in me..." - the power is shared by all of us - that's Quakerism in a nutshell). Indeed, some Quaker Meetings have been having wedding ceremonies for gay couples for decades now. And I've known some straight Quaker couples who have forgone the "civil union" part of things because they view it as unfair to gays and/or single people who cannot participate.
Anecdotally, I think that a significant amount of opposition to gay marriage comes from people worried - either explicitly or implicitly - that their church will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples. Separating weddings from civil unions in peoples' minds if not officially (which would be seen as "an attach on marriage"), would address this concern. Indeed, since in a civil-union state a gay couple could already have a wedding under the care of their community of friends and possibly a church and then get a civil union, these marriage bans are denying 1) "one-stop" shopping 2) state recognition of a religious ceremony and 3) use of the term "marriage." I think that if we especially focus on 2) and ask "why do you want the state to have any part of what happens in your church, anyways?", and then frame the denial of 1) and 3) as fairly petty, we could make a sufficiently convincing case.
The Warren insult is not just about gay marriage by any stretch - that is just the tip of the evangelical iceberg...
it is the sybolism of choosing this unchristiam preacher to represent THE ENTIRE COUNTRY at this most auspicious day's event
so, the face of OUR country is fiercely anti-woman's right to choose, pro-WAR, and anti-gay & intolerant of other religions & more...
Warren not only opposes gay marriage & campaigned FOR Prop 8 - Warren did not sit on the sidelines quietly - he preaches that gay is an abomination, thereby fostering bigotry & prejudices in his huge audience.
Obama is free to pray & meet with anyone including Warren - BUT I resent Barack appointing/annointing Warren as presumptive Minister-in-chief to the USA through this privelege at the invocation on January 20th.
Meet Warren any other day for a prayer meet5ing or whatever - but the inauguration is for the country, and that makes Warren THE symbol of 'religion' for OUR country
sorry, I will not stand by quietly & get bitch-slapped for anyone's political 'gain'
this is a lose/lose in the longer run
did you see Biden on Larry King trying to repair the damage last night ?
of course, as I have stated all along, it was a col, calculated choice to go with Warren to intentionally change the MSM meme from Blago & IL corruption
on that level alone, it is smart game strategy - but those getting played will not forget or forgive completely UNTIL ammends are made by proving through concrete accomplishments that Barack is truly the "fierce supporter of gay rights" as he claims...
plus, Warren & the right are realizing that they got played on this [like McCain & Hagee] so there will be consequences from the side...
losing at both margins expends significant long-term capital even before he is officially in office, but losing in the center through the IL/Chicago pol 'corruption' meme sticking has apparently been determined to be even more important in the short-term [through internal polling I am sure] to justify this particular tactical ploy IMHO
during the campaign this would have made more sense... on 1/20/09 it is just plain wrong no matter how you slice it, and I predict it will backfire in the longrun since it undermines his 'authenticity' with his base & reinforces his 'phoniness' with the opposition base, while leaving the squishy center unsatisfied that the move was really sincere & not just done for 'politics as usual'...
Warren will become the de facto minister to the nation ala Billy Graham - and Obama will have to live with that
I refuse to go quietly
You defeated your argument against gay marriage with this little gem
Uh, no I didn't. Because I wasn't making an argument against gay marriage - from a legal standpoint. I said above that - but you conveniently overlooked that just so you could take a stab at me - I'm all for equality and equal rights for the gay and homosexual community regarding a union/marriage (i.e. the same rights that hetero couples enjoy).
All I said was that I personally do not have to believe that it is okay and for someone to take my own basis of beliefs - the Bible, God's word, etc. - and to twist it and tell me I should believe it's okay because the Bible doesn't define marriage as between a man and woman (which is a lie) is disrespectful to me and my beliefs.
So my argument wasn't that I'm against gay marriage from the standpoint of how we're governed by the laws of the land and equal protection...I said I'm against it based because of God's law being against it and to not be told by others gross fallacies of God's law trying to justify their actions.
So I repeate, if you want to do it because you don't believe (in God or His law) or don't want to adhere to that particular point. THEN FINE. But don't lie about what God says trying to justify it.
Ha. You're still on the same thing. It doesn't matter if god's law is against it. I don't care, because I don't recognize your god. I can't lie about something a god says when I don't beleive in that god in the first place. My point is to keep your points about god's laws out of the discussion. They have no place.
One word: A R A V O S I S
Nate touches on a key point. After 8 years of Bush, and 4 years working their asses off to elect Dems into all three branches of government, what have they got to show for it, apart from a bunch of out of touch self-satified politicians? The base wants progressive policies put in place as soon as Obama is sworn into office. All complacency was wiped out with the decision to allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. With taking impeachment of the table, FISA, and now Prick Warren, they're seeing a trend. Obama, Pelosi, and hopefully someone other than Harry Reid should take notice - The liberal blogs and activists aren't falling for this shit anymore. They want red meat for the next 4 years, otherwise they'll vote for a 3rd party.
And by the way, polygomy is illegal so it doesn't belong in the same argument.
Again, you missed the discussion...probably because you are too lazy to read and just wanted to take a bellicose tone with me as I'm a lightning rod for controversy on here.
What I was doing was comparing the "twisting" of people's understanding with regards to homosexuality, polygamy, and slavery and how we address those issues from a non-Biblical standpoint. The Bible tells us that all three are wrong, despite what some people try and sell to you as truth.
However, my point was that polygamy, like homosexuality/gay marriage, can be framed in a context of consenting adults who don't violate the rights of others...you know, live and let live, right? Anyway, so despite "God's teaching", our laws may not reflect that if we're to respect basic human rights and equality without indoctrinating Biblical beliefs into the citizenry that they may or may not agree with....
ANd that's why I separated out slavery...no matter if you believe in the Bible or not, we can see it's a violation of basic human rights and should not be allowed under the law. That's where those points came from.
But to your point about polygamy being illegal...I'd say, "So what!"
Look how far we've come on gay and lesbian rights. Why not the same for polygamy? If it's all consenting adults who don't infringe on the rights of others with what they do, then why not?
By the way, Dev, BRAVO! That is the most simple, concise and reasonable argument for our cause that I think I may have ever heard. Thank you for that.
Civil union + wedding = marraige.
Brilliant!
If you want to have some fun ask a conservative if they would deny a female soldier who is raped by the enemy the ability to have an abortion.
Gay marriage will go national. The more people say gay marriage the more natural it becomes. When you say marriage you get a particular picture in your head. When you say gay you get another. Saying them both at the same time provides an interesting picture itself. People who say it have that picture. The more they have that picture the harder it will be to deny gays their rights.
I think Obama's move is simply a bone to remind the evangelicals that they have more in common with progressives than they normally realize. Feed the poor, turn the other cheek, and forgiveness are all both Christian and progresive values. You win them over by making those connections.
@Redshift
">And the left should not follow the right's TERRIBLE example and get it's panties up every time something happens that doesn't taste just right
Uh, why the hell not? "
Because their intolerance for differing views is what makes them the rightwing in the first place.
Obama's choice of Warren is genius, and a step forward for gay rights, because it splits the opposition. The "Moral Majority" model of politics is built on confrontation and loud refusals to compromise as a way of showing unswerving devotion to God's truth. Warren has all the anti-gay beliefs of, say, Pat Robertson, but he wants to engage with his opponents. This makes him a major threat to the old-school culture warriors. Furthermore, by opening up the possibility that you can be a good Christian and also consider alternative points of view, Warren is laying the groundwork for a debate among evangelicals that would break up the Republican monopoly.
Furthermore, there's a great irony: protests from gay rights supporters will only serve to increase Warren's credibility among the religious right and thus increase his ability to peel away from the leaders who have completely prostituted themselves to the Republican Party.
This is way overplayed in my opinion, although I have dissenting opinion even at my own site. I think it's a prayer, and shouldn't be overblown. Obama always claimed to be for reaching out to the other side, but yet people are shocked.
Anyway, I wrote more about this here:
Hot Rod, Sweet Caroline, and Preacher Rick
CIVIL RIGHTS & liberites in this country are not supposed to be determined by popularity contests or by 'states rights' or historical religious mores...
If that were true, women would still be chattel with no vote, slavery would be legal in at least some states, and racial inter-marriage would still be illegal as it was just 50 years ago [even in CA] until the COURTS fianlly got a backbone & put a stop to the rule by mob
the right including Warren keeps insisting that Prop 8 is legitimate because it got over 50% of the votes in a beauty contest on the issue !!!
put slavery on the ballot when Chambliis ran in the special election, and wanna bet that it would have prevailed in GA even this year ?
same analogy - civil rights [which do not take rights away from others btw] are not supposed to be decided by vote, it usually requires activist courts to do the right thing to break a vicious cycle
just like segregated [but equal] schooling] - would that have ever passed at the ballot box ? not in the deep south for sure...
Warren claims 'tolerance' - but in practise he preaches & supports 'curing' gays which is further proof that he & his ministry are a fraud & a pox upon this nation
Jeff - I think that Mule Rider's point is that he disagrees with gay marriage on a personal/philosophical/religious level, but not on a legal level. Or, put another way, he personally believes gay marriage is wrong, but would vote no on Prop 8. At least that's my interpretation of your back-and-forth. And if that's the case, I think most gay rights advocates would accept that.
Mule rider: From an atheist standpoint, I have no problem with polygomists. When there is a strong polygomist movement in this country to legalize it and make their unions valid under law, I will support it. However, they may have to have a separate kind of civil contract in marraige because the current one is structured for two people (the sex is immaterial).
P.S. I'm not trying to make you a lightning rod; I'm just trying to point out that you and people like you erroneously insert god or the bible into something that is an entirely legal/civil right's issue.
Ha. You're still on the same thing. It doesn't matter if god's law is against it. I don't care, because I don't recognize your god. I can't lie about something a god says when I don't beleive in that god in the first place. My point is to keep your points about god's laws out of the discussion. They have no place.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR FREAKING PROBLEM IS.
I've said repeatedly I'm not arguing against gay marriage. Did you read that last line? DID YOU? Obviously you've missed it thus far because you keep making me out to be someone denigrating or denying the right to gay marriage, when I am emphatically NOT doing that.
I even said that's fine if you don't recognize or agree with my God, His laws, or whatever.
I just said, personally, in my own little corner over here, that I'm not going to believe it's okay...and I said it's disrespectful to take the Scriptures I adhere to and try and use that as ammo to convince me my own beliefs are wrong when it is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says.
Look, you can have your civil unions, gay marriage, equal rights - I'M FINE WITH THAT!!!
But I'm going to keep believing, in earnest, that it's wrong and I'm well within my right to believe that so long as my personal (religious) beliefs don't infringe on anybody else.
GOT THAT?!!
Are we finished?! Have I made myself clear?!
Let's all get out of each other's bedrooms - period.
As for Warren, he is scrubbing his site of anti-gay language and the left really seems to have gotten to him - this is VERY god for the next prop 8 try, maybe tghe evangelicals will not ALL go against it, and that is enough to win.
Gays are pissed over prop 8, and good fro them, but also good for OBama for picking Warren, he is already moving Warren and some evangelicals to the left - GREAT WORK BARRACK!
Christopher, I've had this argument with MR a couple times before. If I recall, he said he would have voted yes to Prop 8 BECAUSE of his personal belief that homesexuality is wrong. I respect that. I just don't respect having my rights determined by people who should have no legal authority to leverage their beliefs and have them turned into laws that may trample my civil liberties.
They want red meat for the next 4 years, otherwise they'll vote for a 3rd party.
Good. And you can rot in your little corner with the voice of just 5-10% of the electorate ad infinitum.
JEFF
good point about polygamy. The Mormons were the gays & blacks of their day at that time when they were forced to renounce it [ie - 'cured' mof that moral vice as it were] - an easy target to beat on for political advantage
I think that is why the Mormons now want to beat on gays so bad, since they caved so easily on ploygamy [at least most did]
who does polygamy hurt ? a victimless crime except for religious mores
funny, but are not or oil 'allies' in the mideast flagrantly polygamous & proud of it & flaunt it ??? plus they hate gays & chop off hands & stone women & believe in a false prophet [according to Warren et al]...
some allies IF our country is supposed to follow 'gods rules' according to their biblical interpretations...
so I guess polygamy is OK or tolerated for some - but at least the arabs share the cultural hatred of 'gays'...
anyway, just more proof of their hypocrapsy or Warren would be all bent out of shape & preaching that we need to wage a crusade against those infidels...
easier to beat up on gays in this country for profit...
From Leviticus 20:
"7: Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
8: And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12: And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14: And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16: And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
17: And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
18: And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people."
Christopher: I think that Mule Rider's point is that he disagrees with gay marriage on a personal/philosophical/religious level, but not on a legal level. Or, put another way, he personally believes gay marriage is wrong, but would vote no on Prop 8.
I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm definitely cool with anyone holding this opinion (I don't believe Mule Rider is, but there are people who do).
If I were writing the ballot initiative revoking Prop. 8, I'd probably include specific language permitting religious leaders to choose not to perform same-sex marriages or to speak out against homosexuality. Perhaps something like "Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny any person his or her right to free speech on the subject of human sexuality or marriage rights, nor shall it be construed as to oblige any private person to officiate at or participate in any marriage ceremony".
I don't think it would be legally necessary, but it would undercut some of the more scurrilous arguments we've seen.
WV - Lametheo, pretty appropriate, huh?
Christopher said:
Jeff - I think that Mule Rider's point is that he disagrees with gay marriage on a personal/philosophical/religious level, but not on a legal level. Or, put another way, he personally believes gay marriage is wrong, but would vote no on Prop 8. At least that's my interpretation of your back-and-forth. And if that's the case, I think most gay rights advocates would accept that.
Exactly. Thank you! I was running out of ways to explain myself.
Mule Rider: Look, you can have your civil unions, gay marriage, equal rights - I'M FINE WITH THAT!!!
Oops, my mistake. My apologies.
you and people like you erroneously insert god or the bible into something that is an entirely legal/civil right's issue
One final point. I wasn't inserting God into the legal/civil right's part of the argument. I was inserting Him into my personal beliefs argument and that I have the right to believe that so long as my belief doesn't infringe on yours (or anyone else's) rights.
So, why don't we treat adultery just like being gay anymore? Hmmm, may be some folks are just picking the sections they want from the good book.
Read all of LEviticus, it is great fun and humor, when you look at how few things the right actually still follows from this text.
Are you wearing mixed threads (e.g. cotton plus something) - be damned!
Are you eating pigs - death to you!
Are you treating your wife the same if she if she has a son or daughter- GOD WILL SMOTE YOU!
"1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3: And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4: And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
6: And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
7: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
8: And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean."
Be careful Mulie, you are already damned if you need Leviticus to prove your anti-gay BS!
SMOTE HIM!
Let's bring back the equal rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution and include in it a clause for (legal) sexuality so that civil rights can no longer be scuttled away from the national stage as a "state's rights" issue. This would force every state to uphold their duty to their citizens to deny no one of their basic civil rights under the constitution. In so doing, DOMA, DADT, etc would be immediately unconstitutional, and we'd be a better country for it.
Also, Obama sure as shit better appoint a couple of supreme court judges in their late 40s/early 50s, who are as far to the left as Alito and Roberts are to the right. Afterall it's only fair, not to mention totally justified. I mean, McCain went on live television, and without hesitation, said he would wipe out all liberal/moderate judges from the supreme court if he could. Imagine if Obama came and said something similar.
Do you eat catfish Mulie?
BE DAMNED!
"9: These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. "
You know, I kind of understand religious fundamentalist's stand on abortion. I don't agree with them but I get the moral grounds on which they take a stand. So this may be self evident to some of you and I've asked the question before regarding gay marriage: WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?
I mean I'm a hetero who grew up in Alabama. At the risk of stereotyping people from my home state (well, except for AssRider), why do we care who people pick to love regardless of what gear they have in their pants? And I don't have any particular attraction to the institution of marriage or making a political or religious statement in that regard (in fact, after my divorce and the subsequent legal screwing I have a bit of an aversion to it) but hey, anybody else who wants to is fine with me. No skin off my nose.
Aside from a couple of archaic passages in Leviticus, what's the fuss about? Old testament is full of archaic stuff we don't necessarily abide by anymore. I liked Statler's quote, "If you could reason with religious fundamentalists, there would be no religious fundamentalists".
Again I ask the religious right, how does this affect your lives to the point that you demand the oppression of others?
BTW - the fact that Nate has finally posted this thread on Warren is further proof that the issue has legs on many levels - and that even though the MSM will soon drop it to jump on fresher red meat, the undercurrent will continue indefinitely
picking Warren boxes in Obama in many ways - he must now prove his bonafides over & over to BOTH sides & the center on what he really believes or stands for as he takes future positions or makes appointments that will be subjected to even greater scrutiny & trying to read between the lines to try to determine what message he is sending...
Dev:
Anecdotally, I think that a significant amount of opposition to gay marriage comes from people worried - either explicitly or implicitly - that their church will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples.
That's certainly how it's sold, much like the old campaigns against the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s that claimed it would force us to have unisex bathrooms. (And it's so patently false, since churches routinely refuse to perform weddings for people who aren't in their denomination, and government doesn't have any basis for getting involved.) I wouldn't want to guess whether eliminating that by separating the word for civil and religious marriage would actually defuse any of the opposition; it depends on whether that line is a scare tactic used to gain support, or if it's a fig leaf to pretend there's a reasonable basis for their support of a more basic denial of rights.
The anti-gay-marriage amendment the GOP got passed here in Virginia a few years back explicitly prohibits civil unions and any contract that looks like marriage, basically. So I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of people whose opposition goes well beyond worrying about what will happen in their church.
I once knew a group of folks studying religion who tried to follow Leviticus. Ithink one person made it 24 hours.
The pint is, Leviticus is a section pretty clearly aimed at management of a community in ancient times, it does not apply any longer, so lets quit applying the sections on male gays. BTW, where does it say in the bible that lesbians are an issue? I don't think it does, anywhere.
Being gay has nothing more to do with the bible than eating pigs.
Mule Rider said...
Good. And you can rot in your little corner with the voice of just 5-10% of the electorate ad infinitum.
That's my understanding of how people are feeling from reading the blogs. And it's not just Democrats, it's also independents. This doesn't affect me. I don't have a vote as I'm not American.
Btw, STFU troll.
same here in FL
the Ammendment 2 that was passed this election makes ANY benefits to non-traditional 'marriage' basically illegal
many common-law 'marriages', especially of seniors, will find they will lose benefits that they should be entitled to previously
again, a retroactive application of mob rule [over 60%] to outlaw rights to certain minorities
hopefully the FL SC will rule it unconstitutional, bur Charlie Crist is stacking it with GOPers so not looking likely...
better luck with Prop 8 in CA with their SC
Logan wrote: "Most Americans do not see gay rights as a civil rights issue, they see it as a social or religious issue. That seems to be what the gay movement has to change."
Logan, I wonder whether you've got evidence for this. I think (too) many Americans may see gay marriage as a religious issue -- when in fact marriage is truly only a legal issue in terms of state law -- but gay rights are, I believe, more often viewed ("by most Americans") as a civil/individual rights issue.
I believe most people think that both in principle and practice people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Among the younger generations (I would say most people under age 40 as a rough cut), there is growing tolerance and support for nondiscrimination policies and practices. IOW, civil or individual rights should be guaranteed to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, or gender.
It's increasingly just the marriage thing that seems to be the hangup, but even that barrier is getting broken down gradually (despite the Prop 8 setback in CA).
I think part of this change -- the growing endorsement of equal civil rights for gays -- is simply due to the fact that people are willing to recognize that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and hence not something by which people should be judged morally. As more and more people have come out, more and more non-gays have come to acknowledge that they have gay family members, friends, and coworkers and that they are people and citizens -- just like them.
So preserving barriers to those who are gay is likely to be perceived as putting up barriers to their own friends and family.
For sure, there are true homophobes and bigots out there (and many hypocrits who either themselves are gay or have family members who are gay but who persecute people for their sexual orientation). But over time they are going to have less influence over our legal institutions and political processes. And when all the barriers fall, we can all celebrate living in the land of the free.
Only Nixon Could Go to China.
Only Obama Could Invite Rick Warren to Give the Inaugural Invocation.
Remember, everyone, politics is the art of the possible. It's not the ability to change everything and everyone overnight. The best political leaders -- we call them statesmen -- are those who actually get important things done.
Q.E.D.
I think what Nate is missing is that some on the left feel they got Obama in and he needs to kowtow to their beliefs. This is the same "lashed to the post" problem more moderate Republican candidates have. Obama picked Warren as much to say that he is not beholden to one group's view as to show inclusiveness. This is the same as his cabinet picks - he is affirming that the voters picked him and not a puppet of any one interest group.
As to Mule Rider's point: this is where Warren needs to get. It is OK to not like something because of your beliefs, but you need to consider that society is inclusive, and rights transcend our more narrow beliefs. I may not like many things evangelicals do, but I would never vote for something to take away their rights.
Where society draws the line is always a tricky issue. The idea that there was a time when we would legally stop inter-racial marriage or the right to vote for woman and black people seems absurd now. We set group standards that do change over time. Even those who are trapped by a Bible/Koran/etc that comes from a very different time have to adjust to a changing society. Whether that is changing "interpretation" of those books or by recognizing that our society is secular in its laws, all but the most fervent will adapt.
Being gay has nothing more to do with the bible than eating pigs.
And where did you do your theological study at to make such dogmatic assertions of the Bible? And about Leviticus and what it means?
Ever taken a course in hermeneutics? Do any other research about God's teachings, the Bible, etc.?
I'm curious, because you speak as if you have all the answers.
Again, I say, it's fine if you don't believe in God/the Bible or simply say you're not going along with it, but don't try and push your twisted and uninformed interpretations as fact. Because they are not "facts."
@STepper
"Only Nixon can go to China"
Ancient Vulcan Proverb?
@Davy -- It may be in the future.
Redshift, a couple years ago here in Colorado, there were two propositions on the ballot, one banning gay marriage and one seeking to establish civil unions (which even ran with "It's not marriage" as a major theme in its advertising). The marriage ban passed and the civil union amendment failed, so I'd say that your assessment is largely correct.
That being said, I think that it is possible to undermine arguments against gay marriage (or civil unions or whatever) by explicitly addressing the talking points in the legislation.
Anti-marriage folks know that it's hard to get on television and say "Vote for us if you hate gays" so they have to come up with some reasonable-sounding (if dishonest and fear-mongering) arguments.
Since we don't have any interest in restricting people's right to free speech anyway, I have no problem with writing that into whatever law or amendment we're trying to get passed.
Those are all facts in the MO Synod Lutheran dogma, my friend. I know their interpretations well, and decided they make no sense. Chrisians are gigantic hypocrites. Find me a good true clear anti-Lesbian statement in the Bible. It might be there, but noone I have challenged has ever found one. Why are you against lesbian marriage again?
Christians pick and choose from the Bible to support what ever society they wish to live in, it is kinda sickening actually.
That's my understanding of how people are feeling from reading the blogs.
Oh, good. You've got anecdotal evidence of angry bloggers, who have nothing better to do than bitch and whine about who's going to say a 2-minute prayer at Obama's inauguration. That really provides a good segue to a discussion about a splintering and creation of a 3rd party.
And it's not just Democrats, it's also independents.
There are radical, hateful misanthropes of all colors and stripes, so I have no doubt what you say is true.
This doesn't affect me. I don't have a vote as I'm not American.
Then shut your mouth. Your voice means nothing here.
Btw, STFU troll.
Wait a minute. You're not a citizen yet I'm the troll. Again, go back to your corner of the world and shut your mouth. You mean nothing here.
Davy:
Again I ask the religious right, how does this affect your lives to the point that you demand the oppression of others?
The most charitable interpretation I can see based on my impressions of people in this region (discounting a whole lot of people who clearly did not have any charitable motivation at all) is that they believe a gay "lifestyle" is a choice and is immoral, so it would be very wrong for government to promote it by enacting acceptance of it. In VA, I sensed a lot of similarity in tone to the anti-immigrant stuff, particularly the idea that if we just make it unpleasant enough, it won't happen any more.
That said, considering the generational divide in opinion on this, I suspect the real motivation is more that a lot of people grew up never having to think about gays and lesbians, and would be happier if that were the case again. The rest is just window-dressing.
i am sorry, but "agree to disagree" doesn't apply to human rights. there comes a point where i am not willing to live and let live, but i will do my best to fight FOR human rights, and AGAINST those who would deny them to certain people.
i am fine with warren believing gay marriage is an abomination, and with being unwilling to perform gay weddings or to even have gay members in his church. i think that's not very christian, but it's for him and his god to discuss; its none of my business.
i am not fine with proposition 8, and with any efforts of religious people to inject their beliefs into state affairs. it's none of warren's business whether the state confers equal rights on gay people. marriage as a concept and as a word do not belong to warren's church, do not belong to any religion.
and i am not fine with obama elevating a bigot during his inauguration. talk with bigots, engage in civilized discussions? sure thing. raise them up? no. he wouldn't think to do that with a KKK leader, he ought to realize that he also shouldn't do that with an evangelist who compares gays to pedophiles. he should have picked a preacher who stands for something more, somebody comparable to lowery. such a preacher could still be an evangelical, somebody who believes gay marriage in the church is wrong. but somebody who does not compare gays to pedophiles and denies them basic human rights.
yeah, it's "just" a symbol, warren isn't gonna get a cabinet post. but symbols matter. there ought to be a line in the sand beyond which we don't agree to disagree.
Those are all facts in the MO Synod Lutheran dogma, my friend.
Really, because I know plenty of Lutherans in the MO Synod, and they don't stretch those "interpretations" near the same way you do.
I know their interpretations well, and decided they make no sense.
What you decide has no bearing on what God is trying to say. God told Abraham to slay Isaac before recanting, which doesn't make sense to me, but the underlying point was to obey God no matter what, so I glean that much instead of dismissing it entirely because it doesn't "make sense." Do what you want, but you can just leave the topic alone if you don't understand instead of giving us your twisted dogma.
Chrisians are gigantic hypocrites.
I won't argue, and I've been one too. You've got to recognize it, repent, and get better. We're not perfect....that was sorta the whole idea of Jesus coming to live sinless, die, and be resurrected, you realize.
Christians pick and choose from the Bible to support what ever society they wish to live in, it is kinda sickening actually.
I agree...it's why we had the Crusades and other atrocities. But just because someone (or a group of people) does something heinous because they have a twisted view of Christianity and go by that label doesn't mean the underlying premise is wrong or bad. Don't judge the many on the actions of a few.
The last Warren-free site bites the dust. No point in posting about anything else now Nate:)
Obama is doing the very Clintonian thing of picking his fights, healthcare and energy.
He knows that gay marriage is a case of separate that equal. He consciously chooses to avoid the issue so that he gathers some consensus concerning change of in these two issues.
Anything more than healthcare and energy is going to be an added bonus.
That's how policy is made in this right wing, fearful country.
There is a difference between negotiation and compromise with someone, and inviting them to speak for you. Rick Warren has made it clear he views gay sex as a criminal act like incest or pedophilia, he demonizes gays as unrepentant sinners that are not to be associated with; until he received media attention his website refused entry to his church by gays unless they repented of their sin of gayness.
Yes, if necessary, I want Obama to sit down and bargain with Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader that calls Israel a "stinking corpse", but if Obama invited Ahmadinejad to speak to speak at his inauguration I would regard that as a betrayal.
Warren is a hate monger that spreads misunderstanding and intolerance; there are sound biological reasons to outlaw both incest and pedophilia, and there is no reason to think either are natural variations in sexual orientation. Comparing homosexuality to these is not just demeaning to gays, incest and pedophilia are crimes and the comparison provides justification for the homophobic to punish gays for the "crime" of being who they are. Rick Warren is inciting violence and hatred.
That's how policy is made in this right wing, fearful country.
Wait. I thought we were now center-left. I'm so confused.
STepper:
Only Nixon Could Go to China.
Only Obama Could Invite Rick Warren to Give the Inaugural Invocation.
I don't see how this analogy works at all; it seems exactly backwards. Bush could have invited Warren to give the inaugural invocation and it would have barely raised an eyebrow.
The entire basis for the "Nixon in China" meme was that the Democrats at the time would be accused of being communist symps if they dared to open relations with China, but Nixon was such a well-known anticommunist that he could be "trusted" to do it. Republicans from Reagan to Bush openly consorted with people much worse than Warren, so there's no reason to think it would have raised any comment at all, and there's nothing about Obama in this area that's analogous to Nixon's anticommunism.
And maybe this will end up being brilliant if Warren and others like him actually moderate their views and not just their tone as a result of this, but considering what a self-promoter Warren is, it's more than likely he'll use this boost to his stature as a bigger megaphone to promote the same "differing" views. Either way, it's a hell of a leap of faith.
Mulie-
The synod has decided everyone from every other religion and sect in the world is going to hell. They have decided that praying after 9/11 with people from other religions is worthy of ex-communicating a pastor (yup). They interpret Leviticus to mean no gay marriage, but they also interpret Leviticus as everything else in the book is out of date.
How the hell can one not just laugh at Christians once you really look at the arguments.
You probably think Jesus was born on Dec. 25. LOL! A Methodist minister in college taught me all the stuff shoing Dec. 25th was picked by early Christians becuae there was a really good pagan ritual that day - and this gift thing really drew a crowd. Thus, Jesus was born on an equinox, a really good pagan equinox.
@Tony C.
Any comparison likening Rick Warren to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad totally discredits anything else you have to say and easily (and accurately) paints you as a far, far, far left exteme liberal loon who has absolutely no grip on reality.
wv: trashe - left-wing trash, such as Tony C.
I'm going on and on but my point is this. Warren is a leader of the evangelical movement where the focus is on the poor, AIDS, global warming. Taking the focus away from abortions, gay marriage within the evangelical community. On these issues, the evangelical community is more in tune with the Democrats and Obama and I applaude him for that. This leadership is what I think Obama is trying to gain from Warren within his community and I think that he is advancing the poor and middle class agenda by doing so.
This really captures my thoughts on the issue. So many people opine that Warren was invited for political purposes. While those may have been considered, the main reason Warren was invited is because there is common ground between Warren and Obama (and progressives) on big ticket items such as alleviating poverty and prevention of global warming. Warren was a much more prominent leader on these issues than he ever was on gay rights issues before this recent controversy. It wasn't about scoring political points; it's about getting important things done and Warren can be exremely useful in doing so. And, if it's politically advantageous and helps to bridge the partisan gap that Obama promised to try to do, then all the better. IMHO, certain segments of the gay community is overreacting in wanting to stigmatize anyone who does not support same-sex marriage. I think this will only result in a backlash if taken too far.
Seems like King Solomon had a bunch of wives. He wasn't denounced because of the number of wives, but because so many were of other faiths and they led him astray. Considering that he's one of the heroes and that there wasn't an outcry against the numbers, that sounds a lot like a quiet endorsement of polygamy.
Reduolf - one of the other other reindeer
And concerning the morality of Christianity as a religion:
In theory it is very hard to discern what Christianity is.
Is Christianity turning the other cheek? or to punish those who don't follow the commandments?
Make-believe morality that obstructs people from realizing the absurdity of the human condition if you ask me.
IT seems to me Christianity, and to a large extent monotheistic religions, were constructed to answer people's questions so they avoid precisely that paralyzing absurdity.
Brad,
Oh, I agree with you that a lot of mainstream Christianity has their interpretations a little bit off. But that doesn't mean we can say, "Oh, f**k it, it's outdated and we can do what we want anyway."
I was very familiar with the whole Dec 25th thing and how that is almost assuredly NOT the birthday of Jesus and its association with pagan rituals. Early Christian dogma was heavily twisted and contorted by pagan Roman rituals and beliefs.
Anyway, I won't stir the pot further as we've made our points and there's no since in arguing.
"sense in arguing"
Brad, if you're looking for evidence, check out this letter from Pope Gregory the Great that the Venerable Bede included in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People.
Another Mike, I think the objections we are hearing are twofold:
1) Warren spoke out in favor of Prop. 8 and perpetuated some of the lies used to scare people into voting for it. Lots of gay people are still very angry about this, so selecting Warren, even though he has been good on other issues, really rubs salt in the wound.
2) We're very used to have lip-service paid to the issues that are important to us, only to have them dropped the moment we become slightly inconvenient politically. Perhaps Obama truly will be different in this regard. But the association with Warren does not bode well.
It's all very well to argue for understanding and to speak out against "overreacting" and warning of "backlashes" when it's not your rights at stake. For years, we've tried things that way. What did that get us? DADT and DOMA and anti-marriage amendments around the country. So forgive us if your counsel for patience falls on deaf ears.
Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with the issue about Warren getting taking the stage with Obama. Anyone who says this, has no clue as to what is going on and should probably keep out of the discussion.
This is GREAT NEWS for sectarianism.
It is supremely insulting to have Warren, who says being homosexual is the same as being a child raper, speaking at the inauguration.
Would Obama have asked a racist to speak at his inauguration? No. But it is apparently alright to have an anti-gay bigot speak. Disgusting.
This is GREAT NEWS for hyperbole!!!
Good point, Redshift. I guess I'm thinking about solidly blue states which are voting down gay marriage. No way of framing the issue will help in Utah anytime soon.
While thinking about gay marriage, abortion, "get out of our bedrooms..." I'd be curious for peoples' opinions about this: A right-to-privacy amendment to the US Constitution.
As most people on this blog know, judges on the Supreme Court have had to cite the "penumbra" of the Constitution in order to justify a right to privacy, in particular for Roe v. Wade. "Convenient Constructionists" (they have shown that they are not "Strict", so I think a change in terminology is warranted) have pointed at this as a glaring example of not basing judgements on what is in the Constitution.
So why not put it in there? Something like "No laws shall be made restricting actions which are not likely to harm others or to harm oneself in a way so as to be a burden on society... Consultations between a person and his or her doctor, preacher, etc are not the domain of the State's concern, except when subpoenas have been obtained..."
I'm improvising here, but the point is that if written clearly, correctly, and probably in a much shorter way so that everyone could look at it and say "yeah, I should have my right to privacy (which I'm already assuming) written into the Constituion" then I think there's a good chance that it would pass. And it would be HUGE in resolving many of these debates.
The big downside is that if such a movement failed, that failure could be used as ammunition for those looking to curtail those rights. "See, a right to privacy isn't in the Constitution - we `voted against' putting it there - therefore..."
What do people think?
PS - my "word" is an actual word - `trudge' - kind of appropriate given all the unusual snow in the Pacific NW.
I once made gay love to Barack Obama in the early 1980's. He's a homosexual for sure. Well, at least a bisexual. I do not know why he would allow that fucking sociopath anti-gay assclown Rick Warren anywhere near DC. That is unacceptable. Warren should be murdered. Plain and simple. He is intolerant of gays. Thus, he should die.
For the record, Barack has an exceptionally long penis. It might be 8 or 9 inches. BUt it is razor thin. It was not completely satisfying in my anal cavity but he did give me a good blow job to make up for it. He can give a good hand job too. Anyway, just so you all know that I slept with and had gay sex with Barack.
Back in the early part of the 20th century, white supremacists whipped up fear of black men sexually taking the white man's 'property'. Maybe that's the fear that the religious right has regarding gays and lesbians. Homosexuals are here to turn our children gay. It's funny that 'purity' is such a big issue. Where have we heard that before?
i want to have a chance to do barack. is it too late?
if he has 9 inches, then that's just what i need.
okay, seriously, here's an article about the issue with rick warren.
Barack Makes Shrewd Invitation to Inauguration
Geoff, Appreciate your comment. I can completely understand your point 1. I don't really agree with your point 2 that association with Warren bodes ill because there's lots of good reasons for Obama to be associating and working with Warren that have nothing to do with repudiation of gay rights issues (e.g. poverty, global warming, AIDS, educational opportunities), not to mention the political benefits. So, I wouldn't interpret the Warren pick as an intended insult to gays, but rather a reaching out to evangelicals on the issues I mentioned. I understand you may feel differently and I don't begrudge you for that or for expressing it. You and I are likely on the same side on most issues, even if we do have different priorities. I just hope that things don't go too far in reaction to the Warren selection (what's too far I don't know) so that the chance to get things done is derailed by infighting. The Dems will never get anything done without a lot of different groups together in one coalition, and Christian evangelicals are part of that coalition (Obama got 2-3x the number of Christian evangelical votes than he did gay/lesbian votes). Working with Christian evangelicals on issues that Obama supports does not imply, IMHO, rejecting gay rights issues that Obama supports. I see all the anger and protests against Warren as potentially hurting Christian evangelical and moderate support on other issues and/or losing support of gays and lesbians generally--both bad things in my eyes. If you look at who's happy about the Warren thing and try to pour gas on the fire, it's all the conservatives.
This TOPIC is pure BULLSHIT!
Another Mike, I totally understand where you're coming from and I also get the political need to form coalitions to accomplish your policies wherever you can.
It's just that it really gets frustrating to be continually treated as a bogeyman by one party and a doormat by the other.
@gk22
"">And the left should not follow the right's TERRIBLE example and get it's panties up every time something happens that doesn't taste just right
Uh, why the hell not? "
Because their intolerance for differing views is what makes them the rightwing in the first place."
NO, I'm sorry, but that is a load of CRAP! There are certain viewpoints that ALL of us simply refuse to tolerate because they are far to reprehensible to us. The sort of bigotry that Rick Warren vomits out is part of that for many of us. What makes him different than the KKK or other hate groups, besides the fact that it's "socially acceptable" to a large percentage of the population to discriminate against gays right now as opposed to people of color?
I am willing to accept that there are many people in this nation with different views than I have when it comes to issues like the economy, social welfare issues, etc. However, this is a very basic and fundamental civil liberties issue, one with which there is very little gray area, and it is one that only does harm to us as a nation in not condemning outright.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of Dems feeling like they can just elbow aside the people that got them elected as soon as the election is over. As another person stated, this sort of thing is what has driven people to 3rd parties in the past, and it will do so again, by the droves, if the Dems are DAMNED careful.
"It's just that it really gets frustrating to be continually treated as a bogeyman by one party and a doormat by the other."
THEN FORM YOUR OWN PARTY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!
Harry Reid announces that he doesn't want a vote on card check given the implosion of the Auto industry.
Bye bye suckers......
Dr.D, what is it about Warren that you find so reprehensible? Where do you draw the line on disagreement with you on gay rights issues that is not reprehensible and thus worthy of ostracism appropriate to the KKK?
Does anyone who supported Prop 8 fall into the KKK-like category or does it take some special, additional actions or language to get there? Where do people like Obama, who does not support same-sex marriage, fit?
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of Dems feeling like they can just elbow aside the people that got them elected as soon as the election is over.
There were a lot of people who got Obama elected and it was hardly limited to the GLBT community. If you look at the exit polls, in fact, 2-3x as many Christian evangelicals voted for Obama as did gays and lesbians. If this issue were just about numbers of votes and amount of support, then it seems like Obama's actions are entirely justified. I would reject the notion, however, that it is entirely about who voted and supported Obama in the most numbers.
Redshift observes (his gestalt moment)
And maybe this will end up being brilliant if Warren and others like him actually moderate their views and not just their tone as a result of this . . . but it's a hell of a leap of faith.
Aha! Obama is not like politician you've seen before. His method is maddening -- you can see that here -- but it works. It's a style he perfected on the Harvard Law Review. Talk about a bunch of prima donnas and egos. Managing a Cabinet is going to be a lot easier than managing all those future aspiring Supreme Court Justices and law school professors.
For all of those who are so hurt and perplexed, and who feel betrayed, well you voted for this guy who you knew DIDN'T pal around with terrorists. He told you who he was during the debates. When asked about Ayres he said he actually palled around with Warren Buffet.
So, to all of you who are crying in your beer, get over it. Change is coming. But it's not going to be easy. And it's against an entrenched conservative and "God"-fearing American public which has demonstrated all too often how stoopid and easily bamboozled it is.
Stop looking for what will, in hindsight, be meanlingless gestures. Look for real change -- change of attitude and policy. This is, after all, the guy you voted for. I sure hope you didn't fall for all that crap being spewed by Sarah Palin about what a left-wing fanatic he was (and would be as President).
Obama will lead the country gently but persistently to the left from the middle. And he will do it as he has always lead -- in a conciliatory fasihon.
Maybe Reagan was the Great Communicator. Obama is the Great Conciliator.
I am looking forward to a sea change in attitudes over GLBT issues (I am hetero). I think we will see it coming. It's just not going to be forced down people's throats the way some would like because they see their cause as righteous (which it may be). It's going to come by incrementally, but meaningfully, changing the way people think and believe. You don't do that at the end of a firehose.
I always think of Frederick Douglass and his Lincoln Oration during such controversies large and small:
Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion—merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.
It's not all about faith of course.
Frederick Douglass continued to fight as hard for civil rights as he had against slavery; he held several Federal posts after the war and became the most powerful black politician in America. A young visitor once asked him what he should do with his life. "Agitate!" the old man answered. "Agitate! Agitate!"
—Geoffrey C. Ward with Ric Burns and Ken Burns, The Civil War: An Illustrated History
Let me add a perspective from someone deeply involved in gay and lesbian and racial justice advocacy. During the primaries, gays and lesbians gave the Democrats a pass. The candidates all paraded around in front of us saying how they fully supported equality, cough, except for same-sex, cough, marriage. For the most part, GLBT activists remained silent, thinking that the marriage controversy helped Kerry lose in 2004, and that honestly -- we have nowhere else to go.
But then Prop 8 happens. I actually blame activists for falling for the "hype" that Obama's likely victory represented a monumental shift in the nation's political ideology -- when it did not. Because an Obama victory was supposedly an indication of how "liberal" voters are, his huge lead in California seduced local activists into thinking they were safe. Losing Prop 8 hurt. It hurt because they did not expect to lose, they wanted to believe the Obama myth, and because voters basically said "screw you" by reversing a newly obtained legal right.
So then, out of nowhere, Obama invites a figure closely associated with the pro-Prop 8 lobby to his inauguration. Not only does Warren oppose same-sex marriage, but he has done so based on some of the nastiest stereotypes of gay people -- linking it with pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. This broke the already thin ice.
And Obama's rebuttal has been less than sufficient. If he strictly follows the "something for everyone" approach, then what will happen with policy? He cannot make HRC and Warren happen on same-sex marriage, DOMA, DADT or maybe even ENDA. So who will lose? A lot of GLBT people think that they will lose. Basically, this has eroded a lot of trust for Obama among GLBT people.
Fortunately for Obama, however, the public is still opposed to same sex marriage. You didn't reveal the numbers but I will. Only 30 percent of the public supports same-sex marriage. So, Obama can safely cater to the anti-marriage equality crowd without risking anything politically.
Compare his response to Warren's critics with his position Imus in 2007. Obama became the first candidate to say that Imus should lose his job for his "degrading" comments. Blacks and women, unlike gays and lesbians, dominate the Democratic base. Obama catered to them for votes and attention. Now that he is not worried about his party's nomination, he can slice off smaller demographics within the party as he moves more and more to the center-right. Well, at least he's now on notice that some of us still believe that silence = death.
LINKS YOU MIGHT LIKE:
Rick Warren versus Don Imus: Obama's Inconsistent Opinions:
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/rick-warren-versus-don-imus-obamas.html
Fallacy of Obama's Diversity Defense: Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table:
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/fallacy-of-obamas-diversity-defense.html
Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why reaching Across the Aisle to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone:
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/embracing-uncle-good-but-homophobic-why.html
loner, thanks for that great quote.
Loner - thanks for the Frederick Douglass quotation. I was on Daily Kos today, receiving the standard "never criticize Obama" line, and I mentioned this very speech. A lot of people lack a historical basis for their arguments. Progressive change has taken place over decades of activism, so no one president has a monopoly over the changes. Also, the presidents who actually presided over some of the greatest liberal reforms were basically moderates. As Douglass' comments reveal, Lincoln was not a member of the radical wing of the Republican Party. He was a moderate.
LGBT Americans (and all Americans who support equality) have every reason to be infuriated by Obama's pick of Rick Warren -- it's exactly as if he chose an avowed racist to give the invocation.
However, at the same time as being infuriated by the pick, we should also understand that Obama's gesture of reaching out to millions of evangelicals may, in the long run, help to advance progressive causes far more than picking a liberal speaker would have done. Forming alliances with the Warren crowd on certain issues could very well help to break the GOP's "unholy alliance" between big business and the religious right, and that would be a huge breakthrough.
So I find myself in the unusual position of being outraged by a decision, while simultaneously supporting it with great enthusiasm.
this Warren ploy is just like the new Obama pix from Hawaii...
those photos were allowed/planted for release at this moment in time for a strategic purpose...
change the subject & toss some distractions out there to tamp down the really big MSM meme of Chicago pol/IL pay for play scandals during the holidays
worked like a charm, but I find both offensive for how easily they are manipulating the messages with people's lives [re: Warren]
expending capital to try to 'appease' the center by antagonizing both margins [LGBT & pro-choice + right-wing/evangelicals]
does anyone but this ploy as sincere [reaching out to evangelicals]??? clearly, NO
it seems to be universally viewed as pandering as usual - so that undermines the
'Change We Can Believe In' for
short-term gain vs. long-term alienation unless...
Pssst - if it's a "gesture" why not reach out to any number of individuals who are problematic to liberals. He could have "reached out" to someone who would anger a larger demographic than gays and lesbians - like women, blacks, or whites, but he did not. I want him to reach out to Farrakhan, Sharpton, and Jackson and see how the apologia evaporates.
@Darren --
I don't think there's any doubt that the Warren pick is a "gesture"... The reason why reaching out to Warren works better than reaching out to Farrakhan or Sharpton is that Warren's followers represent a critical part of the Republican party that can be wedged away from the big business part of the GOP in order to form progressive alliances on a broad range of issues, from protecting the environment to fighting poverty. Picking Warren for the invocation is only a small, symbolic step... but it could be the first step down the road to breaking the GOP.
I'd like to second the BRAVO to Dev's "Civil union + wedding = marriage" idea. That is a truely brilliant solution to this problem. It sounds like the kind of 'common ground' that Obama talks about.
Obama's choice of Warren has nothing to do with gay marriage. Similarly, when I walked out onto the sidewalk without looking today, I sure didn't do it because I wanted to run into someone. I was trying to catch a train. But that person was right to let me know I have a responsibility to look first. Supporters of gay rights should absolutely be telling Obama that they want him to look for them, too. If I just cut the guy off he probably wouldn't have said anything. Similarly, if Obama had chosen a Prop 8 supporter that hadn't used the nasty rhetoric Warren did I don't think anyone would care.
Going along with the "Nixon in China" thing, I wonder what kind of politician it would take today to perform an inauguration without a religious ceremony. I would take off work and ride my damn bike to D.C. from Chicago through the ice and snow to see that. Even if it took a conservative Republican with strong religious beliefs, who nobody could accuse of being "godless", to do it.
New Post
I dunno, what about that guy in the Bible who hung out with a dozen other guys all the time?
And a few loose women, too.
Let me first be clear: I ABSOLUTELY support equality for gays and lesbians, and I voted unhesitatingly against Prop 8.
That said, I feel that both the response to the Prop 8 outcome and the response to the selection of Rick Warren are a DISservice to the cause of gay rights in this country.
I am a firm believer that social progress MUST come organically, and it requires patience. Sometimes it may take years, decades, or even centuries... But if it is forced on the populace before it is ready, all that results is a backlash.
I think that the activists of the gay and lesbian community have done their cause a disservice in forcing the issue of gay marriage FAR too soon. Rather than building on the very real progress made in widespread acceptance of the "gay lifestyle" over the course of the late 1980's and the 1990's, the sudden push to litigate for the right of gay marriage in the early years of this decades led directly to a massive right-wing political surge in 2004 that may well be responsible for Bush's re-election, risked doing the same thing in 2008, and resulted in dozens of state laws and constitutional amendments BANNING gay marriage.
Quite literally, gay marriage went from something that had a chance to become accepted over, say, the next 20-30 years without much resistence, to something constitutionally and permanently banned in MOST states.
To have gay marriage now will require climbing a MOUNTAIN of obstacles, rather than slowly but surely--and probably rather anti-climactically--finding its way into acceptance.
The squawking about the selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration is yet another horribly tone-deaf move by the radical left. As much as gay-rights activists and the "progressive" left want progress and change, they ARE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE IT by pissing all over the views, customs and mores of those folks in the center-right mainstream culture.
I'm reminded of back in the early 80's when I was in college, and the mystifying way in which the moral debate about South Africa was mis-directed into a fight with the "establishment" about the tactics of "divestment", rather than keeping the focus on how the energies of the fair-minded folks in the West could be directed to fight the REAL immorality--apartheid itself.
@DrD - "NO, I'm sorry, but that is a load of CRAP!" KKK etc.
I don't think that people who are against gay marriage are like the Klu Klux Klan.
It's that sort of petulant, childish, bomb-thrower menatlity that prevents meaningful discussion.
As I said, the rightwing demonizes its opponents and punishes dissenting views because that is who they are. I don't care what you say, Progressives will never ever be the ruthless disciplinarians like the right. We disagree with each other too much and we are tolerant of dissent.
America is a big place, and there's room for gays, and Christians, and Muslims, and Jews, and atheists, and conservatives, and progressives. What we need to do is find a way to live together and not be at each other's throats all the time.
It just strikes me as childish that people can't focus on meaningful issues, and get bogged down in spats over symbolism. If this was a fight for civil union legislation, I'd be all for it. Instead people are spending all their energy trying to get a guy uninvited from an event, even tho his invitation was simply meant as an olive branch to people who didn't vote for Obama and disagree with him on most issues.
Oh well, maybe I am a hopeless Obamaniac and just like his vision of an America that is more mature and decent than the Bush years.
Christopher said...
"much of the Bible is a violent and hate-filled [book? fable?]"
I'm reminded of a (possibly apocryphal?) report. A local library committee was discussing what books to ban from the library, except it was put in the manner of what books were not appropriate for the town's children. Since the decision had to be made in public per the town's rules, citizens were in attendance. One person got up, and asked if a book that spoke of murder, stealing, war, sending a rival into battle to be killed so the rival's wife would then be available for marriage, polygamous marriage, and more would be appropriate for inclusion in the library, available for the children to read. Many people got up and stated that it would not be appropriate for even adults to have available.
The citizen then asked, based on the town's peoples reaction, that the Bible be banned from the library.
The best way to beat a bigot is to let the bigot hang themself.
I suspect that President-elect Obama may be doing the same with 'Reverend Rick' - something totally in the reverend's control will be said, exposed, or revealed that will cause the 'good reverend' to have to cancel his appearance, or if he appears, he will go down in flames soon after the inauguration, and totally of his own cause, not (by-then) President Obama's causing.
Maybe we should follow the European model of 'marriage'. The state issues a license and the civil 'marriage' is performed in front of the civil authority (judge, mayor, etc.).
Then, and ONLY then, can the couple go to the church for the religious ceremony. Anyone who goes to the church first and skips the civil aspect is not married. No need to punish the religious 'authority' who performed it out of order, as they will not get many people going to them if their 'marriage' is deemed not valid in the eyes of the law.
GK22 sais:
"It just strikes me as childish that people can't focus on meaningful issues, and get bogged down in spats over symbolism."
Childish ??? IF it was someone actively PREACHING to supress your cicil rights & liberties & legalizing discrimination & fostering prejudice against YOU [but not me] then should I acciuse YOU of acting childish just because I may want all left-handed people [a minority including Obama] segragated into ghettoes, prevented from being employed, refused the right to inter-marry with us Right-handed people [god's chosen afterall...] AND actively try to cure you lefties because laft-handedness is an abomination [the bible told me so] and you are only giving into your selfish impulses to use your dirty left hand when jesus said to use your right or you shall be smote & sent to the fires of hell for all damnation... yada, yade...
sound crazy ??? no more crazy than putting any other groups rights to a popularity vote based on 2,000+ year old fiction to justify bigotry & suppression
real child, you would probaly cry & whine when we right-handed people pass laws against your perverted types...
now just substitute gay or black or female or jew or muslim or mormon/polyganist or whatever - and they are all such children cuz women cried for ages to get equal rights [never did get that ERA thougk because THAT was a popularity contest that the evangelicals fought tooth & nail against the cry-baby females...
nothing is given freely or easily without a fight; wars are won only through constant struggle because 'cicilization' does not just become just & equal if left to it's own static devices
the fact of the matter is, what you call might call counter-productive is actually the seed that must be planted to grow so that in the future such 'slights' & indignities will not be allowed to happen so easily without reparcutions
as the old saying goes: we are here, we are queer - get used to it
after YEARS of chanting that publicly, the message is sinking in thanks to the frontline LOUD 'crying' of those brave few who put themselves on the front lines at great personal cost to start the changes that are paying dividends now
you think gay marriage would have just been bestowed upon the masses because it was the right thing to do ??? HA ! where & in what lifetime unless people fought for it...
in CA the state legislature approved it & all it took was one GOPer politician [Ahnuld] who for his own gratification quashed progress that would have avoided the whole Prop 8 fiasco...
history proves time & again that real change happens by fighting then relies upon activist judges to implement the change & force it upon the mod who rule at the ballot box based upon protecting only their own interests by denying rights to others
we would still have Jim Crow legal laws in this country if everything was settled at the local & state level by popularity votes
every injustice & indignity must be fought against and resisted or things never change
boy, spellcheck would sure be nice... lol
WV - ronfl
the choice of Warren was ronfl so many reasons EXCEPT to distract from the Blago scandal...
FWIW - I got a nice Happy Holidays email from the Hillary Clinton site today - and no solicitation for a donation !!!
on the other hand, I have received numerous emails from Team Obama this past week soliciting donations...
why when they ended up with a surplus including my donations ?
do they need more $$$ to pay for the luxury Hawaiian vacation [distastefully ostentatious imho]
I just replied NO to the Obama emails because of the Warren invocation bitch-slap
@beamman --
"But if it is forced on the populace before it is ready, all that results is a backlash."
I disagree with the statement that "all that results is a backlash"... because it's pretty clear that the LGBT rights movement has made huge strides over the past four years.
Take a look at the surge in public support for:
Civil unions -- 40% in 2004 to 55% in 2008 (+15%)
Marriage -- 33% in 2004 to 39% in 2008 (+6%)
Inheritance rights -- 60% in 2004 to 74% in 2008 (+14%)
Healthcare and other employee benefits -- 60% in 2004 to 73% in 2008 (+13%)
Social Security benefits -- 55% in 2004 to 67% in 2008 (+12%)
Adoption rights -- 45% in 2004 to 53% in 2008 (+8%)
Open military service -- 60% in 2004 to 66% in 2008 (+6%)
This is breathtaking progress. I can't think of a single other progressive movement that has changed so much public opinion in so little time. If that rate of change were to continue, a majority would favor same-sex marriage by 2016 and civil unions would have near-universal support.
I also think the push for marriage is a big part of that success, because focusing on marriage shows people that LGBT folks aren't merely exotic pride parade characters like drag queens and scary guys in leather, but also monogamous couples and everyday families -- ordinary, non-threatening folks everyone can identify with.
As for the mountain of anti-marriage state laws and amendments, they will most likely be struck down by the feds in a single swoop, Loving v. Virginia style. So forget 20-30 years -- I'd wager that marriage-equivalent unions (along the lines of the UK's civil partnerships) will be available nationwide before Obama leaves office.
Yes. We. Can.
Nate said: "If John Kerry had won four years ago, and invited Warren or some analogous pastor to give his invocation, would there have been this much debate about it?"
John Kerry would have NEVER invited Warren!
CRAIG
I agree about Kerry vs Obama
was never gonna happen
Hillary would also have not fallen into this particular pit either btw
------------------------------------
I credit the relatively rapid 'acceptance' of some things gay over the past decade to Hollywood [TV & movies] & Broadway & music.
nothing has broken down barriers as effectively as 'Will & Grace' & 'Ellen' & 'Rosie' in peoples living rooms & bedrooms for years.
what show does not have the gay friends & next door neighbors now ? with helping hands from Oprah & many others a wide coalition has been forming, and public marriages by Ellen & Elton & many other celebs have also helped crack open more doors everywhere [well, almost everywhere...]
otherwise we would still be in the dark ages of the 20th century
BUT getting those folks to be allowed on TV & in the movies [I mean, who doesn't want Rupert Everett & Julie Roberts at their wedding ?] took decades of CRYING out LOUDLY, blood literally, sweat & oceans of tears...
Brokeback Mtn [a miserable story but a groundbreaking 'movie' in other ways] & many more are penetrating the resistence & pushing against the religious intolerance
but then, that is only because in liberal Hollywood gays & their allies fought hard to make sure they could get their stories told & produced & distributed
it did not 'just happen' because gays sat back 'patiently' as many advocate and 'waited' for society to change
we are actively agitating & marketing REAL CHANGE that will benefit everyone [gay weddings BTW give a real economic shot-in-the-arm where they are promoted & encouraged - think about THAT]
and lawyers will be kept busy with gay divorces, etc...
why shouldn't gays get the same right to not only get married, but to get divorced & pay alimony like all the straights have to ???
Gay rights is NEVER "far too soon". It's fundamental human rights we're talking about. No person deserves to have his rights taken away, and be told to wait with patience because it takes time for bigots to die off. That being said, some of the whining in this thread really pisses me off. Look, Obama is the president-elect. He doesn't give a shit about the whining of some disappointed supporter in a poll analysis site. If you want to help the gay cause, or any progressive cause, then go out and fight for it.
they should just have chosen the episcopal bishop of DC [Chane] - a real decent christian who just happen to be the minister where every POTUS attends some sort of church services held at that cathedral anyway
WV - wautlist
Obama expects gays & pro-choice to be patient & trust him implicitly since he has put them on the 'wautlist'
Another Mike said...
Dr.D, what is it about Warren that you find so reprehensible? Where do you draw the line on disagreement with you on gay rights issues that is not reprehensible and thus worthy of ostracism appropriate to the KKK?
Does anyone who supported Prop 8 fall into the KKK-like category or does it take some special, additional actions or language to get there? Where do people like Obama, who does not support same-sex marriage, fit?
Rick Warren calls me a pedophile (he's recently quoted as telling Melissa Etheridge he didn't mean it that way-- and then, as using the comparison again in another interview), and wants me neutered (he presses gay teens into "aversion therapy" that aims to make them sexually dysfunctional for life, and is explicit that this is precisely the outcome he wants) and/or imprisoned (he urges African nations to retain their criminal sanctions against us).
No, not all opponents of marriage rights are vicious to nearly this extent. This is the rhetoric that incites to assaults and murders. For Obama to consider this an example of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" indicates that the "politics of vilification" he once was opposed to is going to continue to remain respectable in his administration, as long as the vilification is directed against us.
If he'd invited an evangelical to give the invocation, who would no doubt have opposed marriage rights, but who did not have the record of viciousness that Warren does, there would not be the same fuss. Or, if he had invited Warren over some day to give a "prayer breakfast" or what not, instead of singling him out for honor, guaranteeing that Warren will have more media attention to spew his venom.
I am afraid that this is a signal of what Obama will give up on, to get other parts of his agenda. He is telling the Republicans, I'd like your help or at least non-interference on things like the environment and aid to Africa, etc., and in return you can quash any gay-rights bills we send over, so you can have some victories to show your constituents.
BOB X
well done !!! I endorse your post whole-heartedly.
I sure hope that the sting that we feel from this symbolic slap in the face will fade in time due to concrete progressive action on the part of Obama - and that the paranoia we fear of being betrayed and/or played once again is not confirmed over the next 4-8 years
WV - ressis
fight the power & resiss[t] further oppression
I find no sign that the two posts I thought I had made ended up on the blog so I shall try to encapsulate them (and maybe even make them more succinct.)
I am amused, in light of my vehement disagreements with his postings during the campaign (mostly the vituperative ones, which at times completely drowned out the thoughtful ones),to find I am significantly in agreement with Mule Rider here. Not in that I accept his theology (I find the idea of God made flesh to be absurd along with a lot of Christian theology), but in his formulation of the distinction of freedom of belief and freedom from other’s imposing their belies on you. Well done.
I do think M.R. is wrong in his contention that in the Bible God only accepts the fact of slavery but does not ordain it OR tolerate it. He is right in that it is not ordained, but Leviticus is infused with rules regulating slavery. It also regulates Polygamy (or, more properly, Polygyny, since only men are permitted multiple spouses). I must admit I find Leviticus the most boring book in the Pentateuch (Five books of Moses). Even though I am a member of the priestly caste (assuming that the tradition is not only correct in general but also correct as it applies to the specific – that is, my family) I am somewhat in agreement with the Deuteronomist , who spoke of “the lying pens of scribes”
A few odds and ends.
Brad: the biblical word is “Smite” not “Smote.” “Smote” is the past tense. God will smite you for your errors in writing, if h(S)he/It has not already smitten you. (Or not Somehow, I can’t conceive of a God worthy of the concept caring about such small things.) Or, when you posted the wrong word, did smote get in your eyes?
Too many people are concentrating on Warren and forgetting there is at least one other clergyman involved. The Rev. Joseph Lowry will deliver the benediction. Lowry is at least as far to the “left” in Christianity as Warren is to the right. And we do owe Warren something. While he espouses what I believe to be retrograde positions on a whole host of “social” issues, he has broken with those on the right who defined Christianity as being concerned first and foremost with being against the things they dislike. Let us not forget that Warren met with Obama several years ago and caught an enormous ration of fecal material for, God forbid, actually talking to someone who obviously was a false Christian since he supported a significant amount of choice when it came to abortions.
There were a number of other things I meant to say, but the temperature got above freezing today for what seems like the first time in a week. We have had more snow in the past week that we had had in each of the past several years several years and I have been snowbound, not having snow tires on my car, so I went outside and dug out my wife’s car (I had some help) and then helped dig out a neighbor’s. It’s now several hours later and I forgot about this post until just now. It’s late and I am not adding the other stuff (as sighs of relief echo throughout 538’s sector of cyberspace.). So if I duplicated some already posted stuff, my apologies.
Good night.
I, too, hope that Obama will prove all our fears of being sold out to be groundless.
But geez, election night was already spoiled, all our friends got to go to a party and we had to attend a funeral; it would have been nice to have been invited to the party on inauguration day, instead of having to watch it with gnawing anxiety.
BOB
I wept on election night while watching the scene in Grant Park on the TV here in FL...
I had worked my ass off to help make sure Obama & Biden carried FL - which we did narrowly [200K margin] in great part because of the tremendous turnout by LGBT & out allies overwhelming efforts in GOTV
Then I had lined up inauguration tix through my congresswoman cuz I HAD to be there on Jan 20th
but I have cancelled those plans now because I could not stand and allow Warren to pray down to me from the steps of MY Capitol on that historic day
I am overwhelmingly sadden that I am insulted by his choice & in effect informed that my rights are negotiable so I am not welcome UNLESS I agree to pray with Warren...
WV - acess [denied]
JUDAS
your screen name makes alot more sense now after reading your last post
good luck with your weather up there. we are 'suffering' through an unseasonably hot spell here in central FL...
@Judas: "Let us not forget that Warren met with Obama several years ago and caught an enormous ration of fecal material for, God forbid, actually talking to someone who obviously was a false Christian "
But, Warren didn't invite Obama to lay the symbolic cornerstone of his church. Obama isn't inviting Warren over for a talk, which I would have accepted and indeed applauded; he is singling him out for a high honor. That is what is so infuriating.
BOB - very succinct
and to reinforce just how symbolic the insult is [as just posted on the current thread], DCM said:
"GAWD
just flipping past FAUX 'News' late night...
saw an ad for a holiday special on FAUX News - 'Christmas with Rick Warren'
now that is the man who Obama wants to give the invocation...
he is gonna preach to the FAUX audience this week !!!
un-fair & off-balance to the right
what a f'd up country...
Proof that Obama is really one of us:
http://bigheaddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/matthews-obama.jpg
terswore: I coul'terswore that was Chris Matthews in that dress
Bob X said:
"Obama isn't inviting Warren over for a talk, which I would have accepted and indeed applauded; he is singling him out for a high honor. That is what is so infuriating."
Sorry, but you're exaggerating. There is nothing "high honor" about giving an invocation at the inauguration. There never was.
Nate Silver said:
"If John Kerry had won four years ago, and invited Warren or some analogous pastor to give his invocation, would there have been this much debate about it?"
The answer is NO, and the reason is as obvious as the color of Obama's skin. At the end of the day, white gays are still white. And how DARE that BLACK man that WE helped get elected BETRAY us like this? Why, he had better learn his place.
Dr. President said...
"Sorry, but you're exaggerating. There is nothing "high honor" about giving an invocation at the inauguration. There never was."
SAY WHAT ??? that is just stoopid talk...
To be given the honor & privelege of delivering the Invocation is more than symbolic - it is an ultimate honor for any minister.
You ever heard of Billy Graham ???
The person giving the invocation is for that few minutes THE minister to the nation, and they ALL want the slot
ANY one who is allowed a speaking role at the inauguration gains elevated status [even those who do not get to speak, but are on camera on the steps]
It is considered THE honor for the SC justice also to administer the oath [did you see the robe that Rheinquist designed ?]
if you believe otherwise, you are in bizarro world
the symbolism is implicit with HONOR & prestige & loaded with 'power'
as for you dumb 'white gay' arguement; it fails on the face since this is not a white/black dichotomy or a male/female scism
white, brown, black, yellow & red & 'green' LGBT as well as pro-choice women & men and many of other religions who find Warren less than 'tolerant' are deeply offended by his 'honor'
SAY WHAT ??? that is just stoopid talk...
"To be given the honor & privelege of delivering the Invocation is more than symbolic - it is an ultimate honor for any minister.
You ever heard of Billy Graham ???"
You ever heard of Rev. Lowrey? I didn't think so. Why? Because he's black, and you haven't REALLY done ANY homework on the history of civil rights in this country. You only THINK you have.
"ANY one who is allowed a speaking role at the inauguration gains elevated status [even those who do not get to speak, but are on camera on the steps]"
BULLSHIT. The only elevated status they're getting is the one you're giving them right now, by TALKING ABOUT IT.
"the symbolism is implicit with HONOR & prestige & loaded with 'power'"
The only power is the power you're giving it.
"As for you dumb 'white gay' arguement; it fails on the face since this is not a white/black dichotomy or a male/female scism"
There ALWAYS a white/black dichotomy.
"white, brown, black, yellow & red & 'green' LGBT as well as pro-choice women & men and many of other religions who find Warren less than 'tolerant' are deeply offended by his 'honor'"
When you're considered 3/5 of a person by the Consitution, come talk to me about tolerance. Until then, miss me with that bullshit you're talking. Do what Barack said, be the change that you seek. Stop waiting for someone else to come along to SAVE you from your "oppression" The man said "WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR" So quit the pity party, stop feeling sorry for yourself, get off your ass and DO SOMETHING instead of bitching about a two minute prayer.
I am really worried. In normal circumstances Statler would have been all over this thread. No sign of him. Hope he is OK. He seemed pretty angry about Warren the last time I saw him post and was threatening to leave 538. Hope it's not so.
BTW this probably my last post before Christmas as it is already nearly lunchtime on Christmas Eve over here, and, guess what, I have a ham and a turkey and mince pies to cook and a house to clean.
Merry Christmas everyone - even MR, PK, and (so help me) EVEN Ziegler.
I personally think the treatment of Warren at the moment is quite sad, as the treatment of Jeremiah Wright in the summer was. And it points to a difficulty in the wider public's attitude to religion.
Basically, and I am speaking as a practising Catholic, those who seek to criticise religion as a whole, and specific religions or religious people, look only at part of the whole. Rick Warren is a great example of someone whose faith has driven him to good works. So he has a moral problem with homosexuality? Boo hoo, if you don't like that then find a church that is more accepting, or put up with it, and be well forgiving (just like Jesus told us to be!) But if you are gonna make a song and dance about some of the guys moral positions, then also talk about the good that his church does as well.
his was and remains an insulting appointment. Warren doesn't just oppose lgbt marriage. He bans gays from his church. He compares their relationship to incest, beastiality and pedophilia.
Can you imagine the reaction if an incoming President asked a minister who bans blacks, or converted Jews or union members from his church? Why should this be any different?
We can always agree to disagree but we should never agree to disagree with bigots.
I may be one of the few persuadables on the Warren issue.
Some questions:
1) How do you view comments when they exceed 200 in number?
2) What are the citations for Warren comparing gays to incest, bestiality, pedophilia; banning gays from his church; calling for gays to be neutered; calling for imprisonment of gays?
3) What are the citations for his political involvement in gay rights issues?
Nate's point about engaged gay activism is amplified by Mike Rogers who has claimed the activism has produced victory.
I would much rather have read a thought on the passing of Rick Warren.
With much respect to Nate, I would strongly recommend that he stick to his numbers, about which he knows much, and avoid personal commentary about gay rights issues, about which he obviously knows little. And I'll entertain his assessment of who is being morally superior to whom when he is repeatedly equated by Rick Warren to a pedophile.
@DCM:
Ah yes. You further the discourse by posting insults and saying nothing of substance. BTW, I have not betrayed anything of my beliefs - the fact that I may disagree with you does not make me a traitor.
It is incredibly narcissistic of you to think that somebody who does not believe in lockstep with you is somehow betraying anything.
Now why don;'t you explain what exactly that I said did you object to. If you can't,then stfu.
FWIW, my real name is Judas - if you translate it into Greek.
WV=oxideddl
Western, if you have a cold.
@ just_looking:
To view comments above 200 click on Post a Comment. This screen still only shows 200 at a time, but at the top you can click on newer and you will get the next 200. If there are more than 400 in total, you will have choice of newer, which gives you the next 200, or newest, which gives the last posts greater than a multiple of 200. That is if there are 654 posts, newest gets you the last 54.
There could be more things to do but that's the one I remember.
WV=untried -
The status of Cheney et al regarding torture.
judas_priest
what exactly do you think I said to try to chastise or offend you personally ?
I simply made a comment that in your one post above it seemed to 'explain' the 'priest' part of your screenname... [it had nothing to do with the 'judas' prefix, sorry if you misconstrued the comment]
just a comment that I had actually read your post - nothing more
so what is your problem ???
try to have a happy holiday season
I think you misread my post or else assumed an insult that is not intended [although I am insulted by your response to leap down my throat without asking for an explanation...]
but your reply is whack, imho
cabin fever perhaps ???
JUDAS
to further clarify, you said in the post above:
"...I am a member of the priestly caste (assuming that the tradition is not only correct in general but also correct as it applies to the specific – that is, my family.)"
I then responded:
"your screen name makes alot more sense now after reading your last post
good luck with your weather up there. we are 'suffering' through an unseasonably hot spell here in central FL..."
--------------------------------
I assume you must think I was poking fun at Judas rather than the Priest...
there was no slight intended btw on either - it was an aknowledgment of where your point of view was coming from, not an ad hominem...
plus then I lightly commented on the lousy weather you said you were suffering from...
I guess you thought I was being sarcastic - but not at that time of the morning, and besides you had not warranted an attack from me until you flamed me for nothing...
200th!
@Dr President: the first article I read about the Warren appointment, before all the controversy started, gushed, "Obama has anointed Rick Warren as the successor to Billy Graham in his role as national preacher." Traditionally the invocation slot goes to the most, or one of the most, prominent preachers in the country (the benediction slot for someone less well-known but whom the Presdient-elect wants to honor).
Oh yes, choosing him for the role was intended as a signal honor. That is why it is so insulting: I wouldn't care if he'd just had Warren over for a prayer breakfast.
Do you think if McCain was elected he would have chosen a preacher who said blacks are just out to rape white women and children of mixed marriages need to be castrated to stop them breeding? Would you have been offended if he had? That's about the level of offensiveness to us of what Warren has said in his career.
@MrsB: Yes, Statler Waldorf has quit. I tried to talk him out of it, but I understand his depression.
Post a Comment