[Content Note: Homophobia.]
"Hate is never of God, never."—Megachurch monster Rick Warren, after conceding that "probably" some of the evangelical Christian churches in the US "are responsible for some of the attitudes towards gays in America, the negative attitudes." But not him, of course. His comparing homosexuality to rape, for instance, is some hate the sin but love the sinner shit, or whatever.
And even though SOME hatred emanates from SOME OTHER churches, the people engaging in it aren't real Christians.
And there are No True Scotsmen.
Ugh, this guy. Ugh.
I really don't think people like Warren understand how truly offensive such arguments are to people who have been marginalized, threatened, hurt, their lives made worse in myriad ways by self-identified Christians.
At a certain point, saying that hate isn't of your god when millions of people practice active and often violent hatred in the name of your god is kind of splitting hairs, from the perspective of those of us targeted by that hatred.
I'll happily concede your god has never personally emailed me a death threat. But lots of people have cc'ed him on them.
Quote of the Day
Rick Warren Doesn't Believe in Evolution
[Content Note: Homophobia; anti-choicery.]
Hey, remember how President Obama chose reprehensible bigot and deceptively sunny-faced megachurch monster Rick Warren to do the invocation at his first inauguration ceremony, even though Warren has compared homosexuality to rape and abortion to the Holocaust? Fun times.
In the interceding four years, President Obama has, of course, affirmed his personal support for marriage equality.
Meanwhile, Rick Warren is still shooting off his gross mouth about how being gay is an urge upon which people shouldn't act, like wanting to punch someone or eating arsenic.
I trust this means we won't see him anywhere near the Capitol on Inauguration Day this time around. Because FORWARD.
Right, Mr. President?
News I Don't Want to Write About
Here are all the news items I don't want to write about today!
Mitt Romney's taxes! #1 on the list of News I Don't Want to Write About! This day and every day! Who cares. He's rich, and he doesn't pay squat, because neither party has the spine to argue that filthy wealth should be taxed to blazes when there are people literally starving in the streets in this nation. "Let them eat bootstraps," says literally everyone in Congress, except Bernie Sanders.
There is the story about some fuckbrained Georgia judge who thinks that President Obama needs to show up in court to testify in a birther case. It's vanishingly unlikely that the decision will actually result in Obama's having to testify, but, if it comes to that, I vote that Obama just sends a life-sized cardboard cut-out of himself with a copy of his long-form birth certificate stapled to it.
There is the swell tale of the Oklahoma state legislator who has introduced "a bill to ban the making and selling of food or products that use aborted human fetuses." You know—just in case!
(Guess what party he's in! Go on—guess! Did you guess the Republican Party? Of course you did! You're so smart. Give yourself 1,000 points!)
There is the news that Warren Buffett's oft-invoked secretary, who has a name and it's Debbie Bosanek, will attend the State of the Union address tonight in Official Gimmick Capacity. That'll be fun!
There is the news that European financial crisis will slow the global economy this year, according to the International Monetary Fund, who (futilely) urges states to jettison austerity measures in favor of investment. That would require sensible people to be in charge. Oh well!
There is the scandalous report that Jim Carrey's daughter, Jane Carrey, got SPECIAL TREATMENT from the producers of American Idol, who allegedly allowed her to avoid camping out for days in order to get a shot on the show. Listen, everyone: We can't have it both ways. We can't treat famous people, or kids of famous people, like they're our public property to be harangued and mauled every time they step in public, but also expect them to behave like average people. The nature of the celebrity machine has made life unsafe for lots of celebrities, so it's time to quit whinging about line-jumping.
There is the news that Rick Warren is "fighting obesity" at Saddleback Church. Great. WWJD? Work out with a personal trainer twice a day, no doy.
Finally, there is allllllllll the coverage of candlelight vigils and undilutedly glowing remembrances of Joe Paterno, to none of which I'm going to link. You know what? If I kicked tomorrow, and none of the people who allegedly admired me mentioned that, among my many blogging exploits, was showing my ass on issues of race, trans*fail, having to publicly jettison misogynist and disablist language from my repertoire, and other embarrassing displays of privilege and ignorance, plus ten gazillion typos, it wouldn't be honoring me: It would be dehumanizing me.
[True Fact: Deeky would definitely share all the ways I am an asshole in private, too. Which just goes to show you what a great friend he really is.]
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Quote of the Day
"As a pastor, my goal is to encourage, to support. I never take sides."—Pastor Rick Warren, on Meet the Press this weekend.
Warren—the minister who, you may recall, gave Obama's inaugural invocation—has indeed refused to "take sides" on the heinous anti-gay legislation proposed in Uganda and championed by Warren's friend and associate Martin Ssempa. When asked to comment on the proposed legislation, Warren responded with a noncommittal: "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations."
Of course. Because he "never takes sides."
Except for when he supported Prop 8 and conflated same-sex marriage with polygamy, incest, and rape.
Or when he took the position that women don't have the "right" to leave abusive husbands, because the Bible does not identify physical abuse as grounds for getting a divorce.
Or when he compared legal abortion to the Holocaust.
Other than that, though, he never takes sides.
Rick Warren: Follow Jesus Like Nazis Followed Hitler
So, let's see. Rick Warren is not only virulently anti-gay, anti-choice, and misogynist, and murderous, he also believes that Christians should follow Jesus like people followed Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, doing "whatever it takes" to "cover the planet" with Christianity to bring the Rapture:
[Transcript is in the video and at the link.]
Rick Warren has called for a second Christian Reformation, and he has stated his intent of inspiring 'one billion' Christians, half of all Christians globally, to become personally and 'radically' committed to changing the world.Awesome choice, Obama.
...Warren described a global Christian movement to bring the message of Jesus Christ to every man, woman and child on Earth. "It's going to cover the planet," he proclaimed, "and then the end is going to come."
Calling for "total mobilization of this church" and "radical devotion" to the cause, Pastor Warren sketched out his vision, which he declared was from God, of a "revolution", launched through Warren's "Purpose Driven" network of hundreds of thousands as pastors globally, to create a Christian world regime.
Though Warren's speech was in the idiom of Christianity, he did not seek to inspire his Saddleback audience with examples of great religious leaders who have changed history through persuasion or other nonviolent approaches. Rick Warren looked to 20th century exemplars of vision and dedication but not to Mohatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or any other religious leaders.
...[P]astor Warren described how in 1939 in a packed Munich Stadium before the leader of the Third Reich, young brown-shirted men and women spelled out in formation, with their bodies, words in German which read "Hitler, we are yours."
"And they nearly took the world, " pastor Rick told the stadium crowd.
hey your gay bishop
The Politico reports that the Presidential Inaugural Committee has announced that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who caused a Big Gay Controversy followed by a Big Gay Schism after becoming the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, will deliver "the invocation for Sunday's kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."
Someone more cynical than I, ahem, might suggest that this is an indication that Team Obama knows they fucked up big time with Warren, but can't admit it, so they're throwing a bone to the gays. But someone more cynical than I, ahem, would be reassured by Team Obama that they are wrongity-wrong-wrong, because "Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism—but it's just not so."
All righty then.
So I guess the question then is: Why would a queer, feminist, progressive minister—who has, by any measure, a more inclusive ministry and whose politics hew more closely to Obama's than Warren's—be offered the second-tier gig in the first place?
Careful with your answer there, Team Obama. This is a trick question...
I find the alleged timeline on this pretty interesting, too. The uproar about Warren started in mid-December, but, in an interview with BeliefNet two weeks later, Robinson says he "wouldn't miss [the inauguration] for the world," yet makes no mention of participating in an event. Huh.
Amazing how this looks so much like an afterthought, if it isn't one.
As if You Needed Another Reason
Rick Warren continues to show that he was a horrible choice for Obama's Inaugural Invocation. This might be old news to some of you, but this was the first time I had heard of this little gem. According to Warren, women do not have the "right" to divorce abusive husbands.
Yeah.
Warren, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to deliver the Inaugural Invocation, instructs his parishioners that the Bible says physical abuse is no excuse for getting a divorce. Warren explains:
I definitely suggest following the first link and reading the entire post. As Nina the author puts it, this "gives abusive husbands another tool to control their victims: the Bible." Having been involved as a pastor in situations of abuse, there's something in me that wishes there were a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.
"God," Warren says, "hates divorce." This teaching is posted in the "Bible Questions and Answers" section of the Saddleback Family website (#32, "What should I do when abuse is happening in my marriage?").
As he puts it:
Apparently, it's not only possible at Saddleback to pray away the gay, it's possible to pray away the abuse. An abusive marriage is a "situation." A separation will heal all wounds and fix all problems. You might want to keep this little tidbit in mind the next time someone tells you "It's just a prayer, what's the big deal?" if you're speaking about Warren's campaign against LGBTQI persons. There's quite a few eye-openers on the Saddleback website, if you can stomach listening to the files.I want to tell you the advice that we give in our counseling ministries. First of all if you are in this kind of a situation, I strongly recommend that you take advantage of our lay counseling ministry. Go in and talk to someone and let them minister to you. And the advice that we give is not divorce but separation.
Warren omits mention of contacting the police, seeking medical attention, or obtaining legal assistance to secure orders of protection for yourself and your children.
Warren was a terrible, terrible choice.
(Energy dome tip to NMMNB, via Alternative Invocation.)
A Bridge Too Far
In comments, Shaker LizardOC recommends Katha Pollitt's op-ed for today's LA Times on why Obama's choosing Rick Warren is insulting.
Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters -- feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community -- by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead.Good stuff. The whole thing is here.
...In a news conference Thursday, Obama defended the choice of Warren: "It is important for the country to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues." That's all very well, but excuse me if I don't feel all warm and fuzzy. Obama won thanks to the strenuous efforts of people who've spent the last eight years appalled by the Bush administration's wars and violations of human rights, its attacks on gays and women, its denigration of science, its general pandering to bigotry and ignorance in the name of God.
I'm all for building bridges, but honoring Warren, who insults Obama's base as perverts and murderers, is definitely a bridge too far.
Huckabee: Don't Be "Ridiculous"
This guy really just can't STFU, can he? Here's former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, still on his world tour of gay-hatin', stopping by Fox News to play concern troll and let all of us whiny bitchez know that we're being "ridiculous" for objecting to Obama's selection of huge homobigot Pastor Rick Warren to do the inaugural invocation.
Greta Van Susteren: All right, let me—let me jump to another topic, which you probably weren't expecting, um, is that, uh, President-Elect Obama has chosen Rick Warren to give the invocation—and there are a lot of, uh, a lot of gay Americans very upset. What do you make of this?I love how it's just "gay Americans" who are pissed off, according to Fox. Erasing allies is such a useful marginalization tactic, helpfully suggesting that there's no principle behind the outrage; just a bunch of hysterics playing identity politics for shits and grins.
Mike Huckabee: Well, it's ridiculous for people to be upset at Rick Warren—he's one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation. I've known Rick for over 30 years. We were actually in seminary together in Fort Worth, Texas, back in the, uh, mid-1970s. He is today what he always has been, and that's a humble, gracious, thoughtful, very intellectually capable person.
Fine, Fox—make me queer, if you like. But next time you do a report on "Teh Gay Menace," I want to see that percentage of the population number bumped up to at least 25%.
(Meanwhile, with friends like these…)
Dear Mr. President Elect . . .
You don't know me, but I voted for you.
I'm 52 years old, and I've been waiting for your inauguration day since I was old enough to understand what institutionalized oppression was -- perhaps longer, without really being conscious of it.
As I grew older, and gained more life experience, I think that I grew increasingly impatient in my waiting, as I began to understand more about what might actually help dismantle the systems of privilege that keep institutionalized oppressions alive.
I believe with my whole being that your election as President of the United States has, and will continue to, help take apart some of those systems -- not just because you are a person of color and your election breaks a tradition of exclusion that has existed throughout our nation's history, but also because I honestly believe that you want to make change and move this country forward.
So last month, I cast my vote for you with a hopeful heart, and wept during your victory speech. I said to my beloved, as we watched the closing of the speech (where you gathered with family, colleagues, and supporters in a glad mingling, awash in the cheers of thousands): "Look at that stage -- old, young, women, men, faces of many hues-- we're seeing something we've never seen before in our lifetimes."
And I took the opening lines of that speech to heart:
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible -- who still wonders if the dream of our Founders is alive in our time -- who still questions the power of our democracy -- tonight is your answer."I took a cautious, hopeful in-breath when you actually said the word"gay" in the section where you detailed the diverse groups that played a part in this victory. I didn't notice it before I heard the word, but I think I had been waiting for that word for a long time, too -- yet I had been hopeful, not expectant (a habit I've developed over the years -- perhaps a defense-mechanism against disappointment).
You see, I'm old enough and savvy enough to understand that there will be times when mention of a person like me will be omitted -- because there are elections to win, and assumptions about what works and what doesn't work in political tactics, and polls that indicate the "safe" course that must, perhaps, be steered in the present, in order to make gains in the future. I understand this. I really do.
That's why, when I watched your infomercial the week before the election, I wasn't surprised to see that there was no one like me featured as one of the "average Americans". Yes, I'm a small business owner who can't currently afford health insurance, a person who has raised kids, and who is coupled in a stable, loving relationship, a person who currently faces big challenges in earning enough to simply cover rent, utilities, and groceries for my family -- but I would never be featured in your examples of working folks in this country -- because I'm a lesbian -- and that wouldn't poll well.
And again -- I understand this. I really do. You were attempting to reach out to a segment of the population that you needed to win over, so that you could win the presidency.
But understanding this intellectually doesn't necessarily make it easier to experience -- all the political savvy and realistic assessment in the world didn't make it easier to sit watching your ad (which takes the time to really go into detail about the problems that Americans face today, and how you will work to fix them) -- knowing that I (and others like me) would not be represented, or even referred to.
Last April, during the Democratic primary, I said that I had started to feel like the orphan at the family picnic.
It's not as if that feeling is completely foreign to me. I've sat around bargaining tables as part of my union and argued strenuously for family leave acts and benefits packages that would never cover my family. I've extended understanding to politicians for whom I've campaigned when they had to do the "politically smart" thing, even if it excluded me and mine. I've had compassion for some of my family members, who have acknowledged my orientation and have not outright disowned me, but who also do not ask about my life in any detail, lest an uncomfortable or challenging moment arise.
In fact, I sometimes worry that I've become so used to my position as an outsider that it has dulled my motivation toward change -- that it has made it too easy for me to say things like: "Well, that's the best I can expect -- and it's better than nothing."
So, when I cast my vote for you in November, I had hoped to put that feeling aside, and "........ choose hope over fear, and unity over division -- the promise of change over the power of the status quo".
Which is why I'm writing to you.
I understand that you may have selected (or allowed the selection of) Rick Warren to speak the invocation at your inaugural as part of a plan to demonstrate that you are not closed to the concerns of those who embrace a conservative Christian lifestyle. I understand that, regardless of what your real personal feelings about gay marriage may be, you were probably advised to say that you didn't support it, in order to get elected. I understand that you may have made choices in the past two years which were politically expedient in the short term, with the intention of serving an eventual greater good. I understand all this. I really do.
And when I read about the honor that Pastor Warren is being done in being allowed to perform the spiritual opening for your inaugural ceremony, I was surprised that I didn't feel angry -- instead, I simply felt . . . . profoundly sad.
I believe that sadness is to the heart and soul as hunger is to the body -- and I believe that my hunger is this: I want to be included in your diverse, but United, States of America.
When I hear you talk about the problems of working families, I want to be able to believe that you are talking about my family, too, and when you swear your oath of allegiance, I want to believe that you will be upholding the Constitution of our nation with the clear understanding that my rights are equal to the rights of every other citizen of this country.
I believe in the maxim that one should begin as one means to go on, and as a minister, I understand well the meaning of an opening invocation. It quite intentionally sets the tone of all that is to follow.
Pastor Warren has publicly expressed statements which compare my desire to marry my beloved to pedophilia, incest, and polygamy -- all of which are illegal in this country -- and so, for me, your presidency will begin with an invocation delivered by someone who considers the most precious human relationship I have -- a core and anchor of my daily existence -- as similar to a list of criminal acts.
He will be recorded as the pastor who was given the great honor of speaking first at this most historic presidential inauguration, and I will, once again, be a less-than -- an "other". I am concerned that, for many, the power of your office, and your perceived blessing on his blessing, will give strength to his voice -- and weaken mine further.
As an out lesbian, there are few laws that protect me from discrimination based on my sexual orientation, and many laws (and more prejudices) that curtail my unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I have dealt with these realities since I was 12 years old (when I first realized that I was a lesbian), and often, it has only been the small, symbolic victories and gestures that have kept my hope of eventual equality kindled -- the confrontation of a homophobic remark by a straight co-worker who knew that I couldn't speak up without risking the loss of my job -- the decision of a straight couple to postpone their marriage until their gay and lesbian friends have the same right to wed -- the willingness of my mother and father to speak out in their church when their synod was determining whether or not to sanctify gay and lesbian unions.
These symbolic gestures, while not carrying the weight of law, have given me hope, and helped me to carry on.
Those gestures are sometimes small -- but since I can be pretty sure that I won't show up as an "average American" in the next nationally-broadcast infomercial, and reasonably certain that any candidate who states that they support full marriage rights for gays and lesbians will be declared, soon thereafter, to be "unelectable", symbolic acts of support from allies have become incredibly important to me.
I realize that my letter may not change your mind about having Pastor Warren provide the inaugural invocation. I realize that, at this point, it may be politically nightmarish to even consider such a change, or it may have become such a political hot potato that you are sick to death of hearing about it, or that you may simply dismiss my letter as yet another from some disgruntled LGBTQ person.
My hope, though, is that you will not simply dismiss this letter.
My hope is that you will consider the symbolism that is implicit in the way that your administration begins. If this administration is to be about inclusivity, then I believe that it is best begun with an invocation by someone who truly personifies that concept, who can be relied upon to invoke both the spirit and the language of inclusivity.
My choice to vote for you was like one drop in an ocean, but your choices as President will profoundly influence the currents and tides of that ocean, in which I will swim for many years to come.
I know that you are just one human, with a complex and enormous task before you, but I ask you to . . . . remember me.
When you hear the invocation that Pastor Warren is allowed to give, please listen with my ears.
I realize that this will be "your day" in many ways, and that you are straight, and Christian. I personally have no problem with you wanting to have a spiritual invocation that reflects your belief system - but if you hear prayers which invoke only "traditional" families, or only Christians, or which lean too heavily on any structure which contributes to institutionalized oppression of any sort -- I implore you to remember that you will be President of every citizen of this country, and to listen with the ears of those whose voices are rarely heard from the bully pulpit.
You have power and a great deal of choice around what this ceremony will symbolize -- I hope on that day, you will remember me, and remember that some days, a symbol is all I have.
Congratulations on your election, and thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Carol Steinel
Quote of the Day
"This is terrible; this man call's himself a Christian????Barack H. Obama is the most PRO-DEATH president America has ever elected!!!!! He has said that as president he is going to pass the 'Freedom of Choice Act' how can our country get any better with this type of MURDER?????? Mr. Warren school be ashamed of himself, protection of the unborn is the MOST IMPERATIVE issue as a Christian!!!!! For without life do we continue to have a society at all??? I think not!!!!! God Bless & MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"—Pat, a correspondent at the Christian Broadcasting Network's "Brody File" blog, expressing his or her displeasure with Pastor Rick Warren for accepting President-Elect Obama's invitation to lead the invocation at his inauguration.
Pat and I probably have little else in common, but that's pretty much what I was talking about when I noted earlier today that Warren doesn't appear to have much integrity if he's willing to participate in the celebration of an elected leader whom he likens to a Nazi appeaser.
It Is To Laugh
Get this. So, Rick Warren is insisting he isn't homophobic. Do you know why he isn't homophobic? Let me tell you why he isn't homophobic: because he once gave some protesters water and donuts.
No, really.
Proving, of course, what a fantastic, wonderful, loving man he is. You can strip someone of their human rights and say the most vicious things about them, as long as you treat them with respect, and give them a Krispy Kreme.Q: Your position has raised the specter that you are homophobic.
WARREN: Hahahah! […]
Q: Are you homophobic?
WARREN: Of course not. I have always treated them with respect. When they come and wanna talk to me, I talk to ‘em. When the protesters came, we served them water and donuts.
There's video at the link, but I very seriously warn you not to watch it. It's bad enough reading his laughter in that above blockquote, but hearing it will make you Hulk out and start smashing things.
And speaking of donuts, Warren is more than welcome to take a flying fuck at a rolling one.
Spirit of Fuck You
Via TPM, at this morning's presser, Obama was asked about extending an invitation to Warren, and here's video of his response (full transcript, including the question and the tail end of his comment, which is missing from TPM's transcript, is below):
There's so much wrong with this statement, I hardly know where to begin, but the most obvious problem is that Obama is playing the same game that anti-choicers and homobigots have been playing for decades, which is pretending that both sides of the abortion issue and the same-sex marriage issue are equivalent, and they are not.
The pro-choice position does not force anyone to get an abortion who does not want one; the anti-choice position, however, prevents women who want abortions from getting them. The pro-marriage equality position does not force anyone to marry a person of the same sex, nor require that any churches perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; the anti-marriage equality position, however, prevents same-sex couples who want to get married from doing so and prevents churches who want to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies from doing so.
The progressive position allows for individual choice; the conservative position does not.
The progressive position expands freedom; the conservative position limits it.
The progressive position treats women and LGBTQIs as autonomous, rights-bearing human beings deserving of full equality; the conservative position treats women's bodies as state property and LGBTQIs as second-class citizens.
President-Elect Obama's insistence on treating the two sides of these "political issues" as though they are equal is dangerously wrong. He's talking about both sides' opinions (and their respective right to hold and express them) being equal, which is technically accurate, but worth a hill of fucking beans when the political ramifications of those opinions when translated into policy are categorically not equal.
Sure, every American citizen has the right to say that every fat blogger named Melissa should be imprisoned indefinitely if they don't stop blogging, and I'd defend their right to say it, but the moment some crackpot spouting that shit gets access to the presidential inauguration, it's a whole different kettle of fish, because that confers legitimacy on the position that makes it fundamentally different from some random opinion being issued by an average citizen.
Obama's being willfully obtuse about these differences in order to justify the presence of a bigot at his inauguration, for reasons I don't entirely understand.
And as for his tomato-tomahto offering of Dr. Joseph Lowery as a counterbalance to Warren, Pam wonders: "What about principle?" If the two "cancel each other out," then Obama has effectively undermined his own alleged "fierce" and "consistent" advocacy for gay and lesbian Americans, leaving him with no statement on LGBTQI rights at all.
That, my friend, is not fierce advocacy. That's fence-sitting horseshit.
Q: Good morning, sir. I have a question about Pastor Rick Warren. He holds a number of social views that are at odds with your own views and with those of some of your very strong supporters.
Obama: Right.
Q: I'm wondering what went into your decision to choose him for this prominent role as you embark on your own presidency; at a time when you're dotting every "i" and crossing every "t," it does send some important signals.
Obama: Well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think that it is no secret that I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.
And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.
Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue. But what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we—where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So, Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery, who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues, is also speaking.
During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about—that's part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated and, so, you know, that's the spirit in which, you know, we have put together what I think we be a terrific inauguration, and that's hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration.
More Warren Blowback
• The Blade Blog calls this Obama's first big mistake.
• HRC sends a letter to Obama.
• Steve knocks down some of the attempts to defend this selection politically, correctly concluding: "It's all risk, no reward."
• And there is almost no concern about Warren being virulently anti-choice, despite the fact that he compares abortion to the Holocaust.
"Of course I want to reduce the number of abortions," Warren told Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steven Waldman when asked if he was going to work with the Obama administration to achieve an abortion reduction agenda or if he thinks that the effort is a charade.I don't guess I need to point out that means Obama has effectively invited someone who equates him with a Nazi appeaser to participate in his inauguration—and, to give you some idea of the level of integrity Warren has, he accepted.
"But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say 'We believe abortions should be safe and rare,'" he added.
"Don't tell me it should be rare. That's like saying on the Holocaust, 'Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,'" Warren said. "I'm not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended."
I also don't suppose I need to point out that, like most of the caterwauling nincompoops who blather on about how abortion needs to cease to exist, Warren does not make the prevention of sexual assault a centerpiece of his ministry.
Of course, a fuckneck who compares same-sex marriage to rape doesn't really seem to have given a whole lot of thought to either, now, does he?
Action Item
Regarding Obama's asinine decision to invite anti-choice homobigot Rev. Rick Warren to do the invocation at the inaugural, some of you were asking for contact information to register your disapproval. You can send a message to the transition team here, and you can contact the executive director/CEO of the Inaugural Committee, Emmett Beliveau, by calling 202-203-1715 or emailing him at emmett@pic2009.org.
Also, care of Pam, below are the official talking points from Team Obama on the selection of Rick Warren, which, as Arkades said in comments, "sound pretty self-satisfied, which leads me to believe Obama's team has already anticipated criticism on this. (Yet went ahead with this anyway. Grrrr.)"
• This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.Totally infuriating. I'm so tired of "addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis" being offered up as some get-out-of-jail-free card for homobigotry. Aside from reinforcing the idea that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease" (at the expense of other communities it also disproportionately affects, while simultaneously reinforcing a long-held bias against gay men), it conveniently ignores that the political needs of the LGBTQI community exist beyond HIV/AIDS.
• In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.
• Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren's leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.
• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.
• As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.
• The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
• And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.
And I just adore that Warren's virulently anti-choice views are boiled down to sufficiently encapsulated in "They disagree on other issues as well." Got that, girls? If you're concerned about a misogynist who doesn't acknowledge your bodily autonomy being invited to play a prominent role in the inaugural, don't worry: They disagree on other issues as well.
And you know why they think they don't need to address progressive women? Because they assume that leading progressive men will do the job of telling us to STFU for them. So I damn well hope that the Shaker men will make their voices heard as feminist/womanist allies and explicitly say in your letters that you object to an anti-choice reverend being given this opportunity and feel like it's a stick in the eye to feminists/womanists and their allies.
WTF?
Oh, Obama. We were getting along so well, and then he had to go and do something like choose Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, who, not two weeks ago, was seen hanging out with Sean Hannity and mistaking the Bible for the Department of Defense handbook. And if that weren't bad enough, as my friend Steve points out:
Warren is opposed, on religious grounds, to abortion rights, gay rights, stem-cell research, and euthanasia. In 2004, he described these issues as "nonnegotiable" and "not even debatable."Those "absurd reasons," by the way, entailed Warren conflating same-sex marriage with polygamy, incest, and rape.
What's more, just this month, Warren supported Prop. 8 in California for absurd reasons.
Apparently, Obama and Warren are personal friends, which doesn't actually mitigate the selection so much as make me wonder if Obama's been dropped on his head.
I understand that Warren isn't going to be driving policy, that he's only leading a prayer at the inauguration (and why there is a prayer at the presidential inauguration is a whole other post), but I also know that there are, literally, thousands of other religious leaders from multiple religions and Christian denominations, who aren't anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-science, whose presence at the inauguration wouldn't be a sharp stick in the eye to progressive women and GBTQ men, and all their allies, so it would have been really fucking nice if any one of them could have been selected for this prominent opportunity instead of Rick bloody Warren.
Harrumph.
Quote of the Day
"For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at conception, that's a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier."—Rev. Rick Warren, moderator of this weekend's "faith forum" with Barack Obama and John McCain.
In his infinite wisdom, Obama has calculated it's wiser to pander to evangelicals, who will never vote for him, and alienate people like me, and Zuzu, and Kate, and Astraea, and DerelictDaughter11, and lots of other women and men who long to give not only our votes but our money and time and energy to a candidate unyielding in her/his support of women's autonomy.
Honestly, it's such an obviously shitty exchange, it makes me question his economic prowess, too.
