By Larry Jones
President-elect Barack Obama on December 17 announced that he had chosen fundamentalist pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation prayer at his inauguration. This is just one more of his many other moves toward the right of late. Immediate outrage broke out, most notably from the LGBT community.
“His presence on the inauguration stand is a slap in the faces of the millions of GLBT voters who so enthusiastically supported him,” said Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade. “This tone-deafness to our concerns must not be tolerated. We have just endured eight years of endless assaults on our dignity and equality from a president beholden to bigoted conservative Christians. The election was supposed to have ended that era. It appears otherwise.”
Warren, pastor to a conservative congregation of 20,000 in Orange Country, California, preaches that god opposes same-sex relationships. He gave strong public support to the state’s Proposition 8 which overturned California’s Supreme Court ruling which made same-sex marriage legal, saying “there are about 2 percent of Americans who are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population…change the definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.”
He has made the outrageous claim that if marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, it would lead to the legalization of incest, child, abuse, polygamy, and bestiality. He went along with the lies before election day that Proposition 8 would bring sanctions against churches which would not perform same-sex marriages.
An open letter to Obama on his selection of Warren by the president of the LGBT group Human Rights Campaign stated, “Your invitation to Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. … By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.”
Warren has claimed that he is tolerant even while he adopts the backward anti-gay stand of the Bible by saying, “I have many gay friends.” That’s disgustingly like many liberals who oppose Black’s expressing outrage over their oppression yet claim not to be prejudiced by saying, “Some of my best friends are Black.”
This kind of anger directed at Obama by the LGBT community is not entirely new. In the summer such groups were enraged when Obama picked an “ex-gay” (one supposedly “cured” by fundamentalist retraining) singer to lead his rallies in South Carolina.
OTHER GROUPS ON OTHER ISSUES ALSO OPPOSE WARREN
Many AIDS activists have also be unhappy with Obama’s endorsement of Warren, who recently bestowed on George W. Bush the first “International Medal of P.E.A.C.E.” from the Global PEACE Coalition in recognition of his “unprecedented contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS and other diseases.” The sad fact is, however, that Bush’s AIDS policies have included a totally unrealistic abstinence-only regulation. As Michelle Goldberg of The American Prospect wrote last year, “the White House’s AIDS prevention mantra — which prescribes abstinence and marital fidelity, with condoms only for “high risk” groups like prostitutes and truck drivers — is a sick joke.”
Pro-choice folks, both women and men, both activists and supporters, have also opposed Warren for his right wing stand on abortion. In one interview about faith and politics, Warren said if evangelicals like he “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….”
So that means that Warren, Obama’s buddy, believes that being pro-choice and understanding that human life begins at birth, not conception, is like being a holocaust denier. This is clearly a non- sequitur, for the premise that life begins at conception has nothing to do with having the knowledge that millions of people were killed by the Nazis. In any event, however, being pro-choice puts one on the other side of Warren’s dividing line and makes her or him not worthy of a vote for public office. Guess who Warren voted for and who he slyly advised his followers to vote for?
Furthermore, it should be noted that on a number of other interesting points Warren is an ideological brother of none other than Sean Hannity of Fox “News.” In an interview with Hannity, Warren was asked if expressing the need to “take out” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “advocating something dark, evil or something righteous.”
“Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to be stopped,” said Warren. “By force?” Hannity asked.
“Well, if necessary. In fact that’s the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government of earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers, said Warren emphatically, referring to the 13th chapter of the Book of Romans in the New Testament.
If the U.S. imperialists need a justification for CIA undercover assassinations, they can perhaps get Warren to write a John Yoo type biblical memo for them.
Just in time for the winter solstice, the pastor whose fundamentalism is hidden behind a goatee and flowered shirt has come out with his first book since his best-selling “Purpose Driven Life” entitled “The Purpose Driven Christmas.” If it’s as full of pabulum as his first book, which in the interests of research (really!!) I read, I wouldn’t buy it for anyone you truly love.
i am really glad to see swampgas being interested in WCW AND thinking for himself all the same time, though i generally disagree with most of the offgassing.
meanwhile – rick warren huh? odd choice. i would never have done that, but then i didnt just get elected president promising to embrace the opposition.
obama said he WAS GOING TO MAKE FRIENDS WITH THE “ENEMY*” right? so isnt that what he is doing?
from personal experience in govt in a pluralist society, when i lobbied against the enemy, i achieved nothing. when i befriended the enemy, i achieved a compromise that was a very favorable improvement.
suppose letting rick warren be the christian guy at the inauguration results in less hostile communication wiht a bunch of people on the far right so that they can continue in their public denouncement and private practice of homsexuality nosily while at the same time quitely letting the democrats make some progress on these issues.
would that make it ok?
*obama wisely points out that the “ENEMY” across the aisle in congress wants the same thing, just has a different idea about how to go about it. i immaturely tend to hate the other side a lot. on the other hand, in my defense, i think that most republicans vs most world cant wait supporters dont merely disagree about how to achieve a mutual goal of human rights, justice, peace, and prosperity; their goal is prosperity and the human rights, peace, and justice it will buy you for those deemed deserving and hey why not let the chips fall where they may and thus the powerful incentives to shape up and be deserving – injustice, having your human rights grieviously violated, years of war, meted out to those who dont make the cut.
just about nobody is actually going to follow through with sharing with everyone, but i think the republicans are considerably more ok with other people not being able to afford human rights.
i sure do digress, dont i?
DONT LET THEM PUT CHIPS IN ANYONE, EVER
its a slippier slope
ONCE THE FIRST CHILD MOLESTOR IS INVOLUNATARILY LOCATOR CHIPPED, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IS OVER
i think its inevitable. public support for mandatory locator chip implantation for paroled sex offenders is the easiest first step for involuntary chipping.
voluntary id chipping of humans is of course already taking place. protestors will be last criminals to get chipped, but when they do, its over.
even if we never get protestors chipped, we will eventually get everyone who doesnt want to protest chipped.
I give it 60 days before this fraud(Obama) is exposed……
What is an outrage is the attempt for ANYONE to block the incumbent President of the United States his religious freedom. This country was founded on that freedom. If a person in this country is free to be an athiest or a muslim, they are certainly free to be a Christian — no matter what their “job” is. If you’re against religious freedom in any form, you’re in the wrong country.
Swampgas…I’m not going to bother contradicting you. You’re doing a good enough job of that on your own. You “stand by your original point” that “no one cares if you’re gay” by saying that all the people I named “are absolutely opposed to a homosexual lifestyle”. Wow…you’re blowing my tiny little mind again with that stunning fucking logic. Either you’re so genius that no one can keep up with you, or you’re out to fucking lunch. I’ll let someone else decide.
But yes, you are wrong that none of those people want to make being gay illegal. If you believe that the Bible should be taken literally as the law of the land, there’s no ambiguity that being gay will be illegal, but the book of Leviticus (amongst other passages) makes it pretty clear that the “deviants” as you insist on calling them will be put to death.
So don’t act like there’s no correlation between the fascist ravings of powerful lunatics and vicious murders by lowlife losers.
Anonymous.
Obviously, I was referring to the specific generalization that because I believe homosexuality to be a deviant act I automatically desire to “impose male supremacy, patriarchy, and the oppression of women” on the world.
As for any other generalization of me, their probably right.
Wow, swampgas77, WAY TO SHOOT DOWN THOSE IDIOTIC GENERALIZATIONS THESE CRAZIES LIKE TO MAKE!!! Independent of any opinions on gay marriage, you sure gave these guys a pounding on their assumptions.
Let me address the 2 comments. First the comments from “admin”
The dictionary defines “deviant” as; “Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society”. It is estimated that between 1% and 10% of males in America are gay and between 1% and 5% of females (the true numbers are unknown as it cannot be asked during a census). That means that between 90% and 99% of Americans feel that homosexuality meets the stated definition.
Also, you discredit your argument by turning around and stating that just because someone doesn’t agree with homosexuality they are automatically trying to “impose male supremacy, patriarchy, and the oppression of women”. What? I think you are exhibiting exactly what you oppose by assuming I fit into that mindset. I’ll have you know that I left my job in order to be a stay at home dad with my 3 kids while my wife pursues her career. This was her idea and I supported her 100%. Regardless, I don’t see what any of that has to do with someone having a moral disagreement with homosexuality. Using a word like “deviant” is like using the word “minority” when referring to an Asian man. It’s not bigotry, it’s just fact. Conservative white males have just as much right to their opinions as anyone else. If you ever hope to further your cause and develop a dialogue, you need to avoid the generalizations that you claim to fight against.
Secondly, Scott
You are misunderstanding my point. All of the individuals are absolutely opposed to a homosexual lifestyle but, I would venture to say that none of them have ever fought to make it “illegal” to be gay. I may be wrong. As for gay unions, gay marriage, and gay adoption, and many other issues I can’t disagree with you. As long as there has been an America, or any other country for that matter, there have been issues with opposing sides. All of the individuals you listed have just as much right to there opinions as you do. That is what America is all about. They also have as much right as you do to fight for what they believe. That doesn’t make them bigots or haters.
As for the individuals that were murdered. I think any murder is wrong. What I don’t believe is that there is any such thing as a “hate crime” People typically don’t kill people out of love. I believe all murder is a hate inspired. I had a friend who was shot in the chest with a shotgun in front of his dad because he was into wearing black and listening to metal music. I would classify that as a hate motivated.
I stand by my original point. “No one cares if you are gay.” No one is kicking down doors to make sure people aren’t engaging in homosexual acts or arresting men for holding hands in the street. People aren’t opposed to individuals being gay. They just don’t like it being forced on them as a mandate in their own lives regardless of their personal beliefs.
If you would like to discuss my views on gay marriage I would be glad to do so at a later time. I need to go make my kids lunch.
“No one cares…really…no one cares.”
Well, no one except Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Orrin Hatch, the guys who killed Matthew Shepard, the Mormon Church, George W. Bush, the guys who killed Brandon Teena, John Hagee, the Southern Baptist Convention, and a few others, but yeah, you’re right, no one cares. No one spends millions of dollars to deny gay people their rights. No one gets fired from their jobs. No one gets bashed or beaten to death, because no one cares. You’re right.
But if they did, that would be so completely different from institutional racism and lynching as to be worthy of ridicule.
I’m so glad you helped me see that I was wrong, and that everything is OK.
swampgas77,
Calling people gay people “sexual deviants” is not going to be tolerated here. The attacks on gay people are a part of a vicious reactionary attacks to impose male supremacy, patriarchy, and the oppression of women.
You’re welcome to raise disagreements here, but calling gay people “sexual deviant” is just a refined version of the term “faggot” and it won’t be allowed.
Scott. Once again you are trying to compare gay rights to racism. Race or nationality is not a choice. Deciding that you are going to sleep with a member of your own sex is a choice. Gays are not a nationality, not a race, not political party, just sexual deviants. It is equivalent to me wanting special rights because I prefer to be on top in bed.
Black voters overwhelmingly voted for Prop-8 in California and Gays seemed to be perplexed by it. Well, it’s not a mystery. It’s because you keep comparing one of the most difficult struggles by a group of people in our nation’s history to gay rights. It’s shameful. The bottom line is this; “Go ahead and be gay, no one cares…..really….no one cares.”
By the same logic, people said, “Racism is the south’s problem, and they have a right to think whatever they want.”
And “democracy worked” for all the victims of lynching and racist massacres too, right?
But here’s the part that gets me: When WE oppose the fact that people’s basic rights were put up for a fucking vote, well-funded by reactionaries using religion like they always have, WE’RE the ones who are being anti-democratic? Wow. That quite frankly boggles my mind. I think I would have to be wasted to understand that logic.
You need to decide what side of oppression you’re going to be on, and stop making apologies for the modern equivalents of George Wallace and Father Coughlin.
It never ceases to amaze me that people are surprised about these Obama revelations. Obama straying from all of his empty campaign promises, weird, I never saw that coming. Of course he lied and never intended to fulfill his promises. The only change he wanted was himself in the White House instead of Bush. As a “true” conservative I can say that I am glad Obama won. You wanted your white knight to come in save everyone? Well, here he is. I am glad he won because, I hope, after 4 more years of failed policy and lying politicians we will realize that the system needs to change, not individuals or parties. Conservative shave had their chance for the last 8 years. We blew it. We got 2 choices in this election; McBush or black guy who isn’t McBush. Obama didn’t win because of merit or ability. He won because he seemed to be the polar opposite of the Bush regime. Again, I just hope that in 4 years, we conservatives can have a meaningful conversation with liberals about real change. America needs exactly what the Auto industry needs right now. It needs to be completely dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.
This brings me to my next point. Why is everyone so up in arms about this Rick Warren thing? Rick Warren opposes gay marriage. So what? He is a Christian minister. That is what he should believe. Why is it that the only opinions that liberals allow are the ones that they agree with. I am of the belief that our differences are what make this country great. Without any opposition we would just be a country under totalitarian rule. I applaud Obama for calling on Rick Warren. No, not because I’m conservative (I actually don’t care for Rick Warren). I applaud him because he IS actually doing what he promised. I guess you guys supported change as long as it was liberal change. Obama is simply agreeing that there are opposing viewpoints and involving them in the discussion. I have friends, family and co-workers with different opinions than I do. It doesn’t mean that I stop speaking to them. I appreciate the other points of view. Rick Warren is saying a prayer people! He is not shaping Obama policy for the next 4 years. Let the man pray.
Finally, democracy is non-conditional. With the issue of Prop-8, democracy worked. There was a ballot proposal. The proposal was put on the ballot. People voted on the ballot. You lost. I don’t say that to be arrogant or mean spirited. Let’s face it; conservatives lost pretty much everything else. I implore you to keep fighting for what you believe in. That is what makes America great. But, you don’t win by eliminating any opposition. You win by putting up a better argument than the opposition. Let Rick Warren be Rick Warren. Stop trying to silence everyone and start screaming louder. That’s democracy.
I assume that I will receive plenty of hate mail for this but I am sooooo tired of this argument.