Open Left - Rick Warren

Joe Solmonese on the Democratic Party's commitment to LGBT issues (or lack thereof)

Adam Bink — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:45:00 GMT

Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, was in Maine for the election and he and I sat down for some chatting. I'll have more clips up this week of what we talked about, but let's start with Joe talking about the Democratic Party's commitment, or lack thereof, to LGBT issues in response to the OFA/DNC fiasco.

As I've written before, OFA and Obama's refusal to get involved in a major way was not just disappointing but a slap in the face on top of what the Administration (and by extension, the campaign through actions like inviting "ex-gay" homophobe Donnie McClurkin to speak at their rallies) has already done. The Maine fiasco was, for me and others, the straw that broke the camel's back, and in response, John and Joe at AMERICABlog have launched a donor boycott of the DNC until the Administration accomplishes legislative priorities.

Now, I've called for more patience on LGBT legislation, and I don't entirely agree that DOMA can be repealed "today" as they do, but I think these kinds of actions are on the right track, and the Administration is going to see a lot more of this coming down the pipe. HRC gave a tacit endorsement of the action as well.

But what really gets me is the smaller, stupid things they do to smack gays around. As Solmonese said, taking action in WA and ME "is by no means a risky strategy, and at the core of what they ought to be doing." It would not cost them anything to ask for a No vote in the Maine e-mail blast. Obama called for a No vote on Prop 8 but the tepid statement they issued regarding Maine didn't even mention the words "Maine" "No" "Question 1" or anything that would actually influence voters. Rick Warren at the inaugural, Donnie McClurkin, abolishing White House and DNC LGBT liaison positions, refusing to interview with LGBT press, or even apologize for any of these actions... the list goes on and on. In fact, John and Joe have a full list here.

Just like the "internet left fringe" comment, either don't advance Obama's position among voters or, if they do pick up votes, do so at the cost of endorsing McClurkin and Warren-style bigotry. The White House needs to both push harder for action on LGBT priorities as well as shut this kind of crap down.

Geithner = Warren?

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:30:15 GMT

Is Tim Geithner another bad choice, like Rick Warren, that Barack Obama is simply incapable of recognizing, admitting and acting on? And is his unwillingness to recognize this a symptom of some much deeper problem with how he will govern? I fear it very well could be.

There was a headline at Huffington Post, it's gone now--I blinked and it went away--but it made a sharp impression before it was replaced with something far more benign. I forget the exact wording, but basically it was the Obama told 60-Minutes there was no way he was letting Geithner go. It came across like it was a point of honor with him. And I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw that.

I don't know what story Huffpo was linking to, but BBC puts it like this:

Obama fends off Geithner doubters
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will not be allowed to resign amid criticism of his short term in office, President Barack Obama has said.
Mr Obama told CBS News he would turn down any offer by Mr Geithner to quit, and would tell him: "Sorry, buddy, you've still got the job."

I'm having a flashback right about now, to Barack Obama posting a diary at Daily Kos, telling all us dirty fucking hippies to lay off his buds in the Senate. That was the first instance when Obama used his popularity with the Democratic base to shield his personal friends from justly earned criticism--criticism that had nothing, necessarily, to do with them as private people, and everything to do with their public duties.

Then, there was his still-unexplained infatuation with Rick Warren....
who clearly tried to sabotage him with the ludicrous "cone of silence" debate--not so much that he colluded with McCain, but simple that it was a stacked debate from start to finish, and everyone with a lick of sense knew that long in advance. If anything, that public betrayal only made Obama more determined to further elevate him at the inauguration, and simply dismissed the anguished objections of the GLBT community and its allies.

Now, here we go again. And the common denominator in all three of these cases is that Barack Obama doesn't seem the least bit amenable to reason. Oh, he has his very pleasant, very "reasonable" demeanor, fully intact. Any lingering doubts about why he admires Ronald Reagan should be long, long gone by now. But when it comes to actual reasons, as opposed to the appearance of being reasonable, there is, quite simply, no one home.

Put simply, Obama defends his friends. Ideas are utterly beside the point. If his friends have ideas that are abhorrent, or deeply injurious to his political supporters, or the American people at large, then tough toenails for his supporters and for the American people.

There are many aspects to this, IMHO, but one in particular seems to come to the fore right now--in all these cases, Obama seems to fixate on one reason for the path he chooses, which leads him to forge personal bonds, which then become the unquestionable foundation for everything else he does. The reasons he gives are not necessarily wrong from my perspective. But they are rather questionably calibrated, to say the least.

The Senate Democrats needed to hear some anger from the grassroots at the time that Obama defended them, however well-advised his words might have been in another situation. And all the reasons for reaching out to someone like Rick Warren only turn to ashes once one actually learns about him--his hypocrisy, his sanctimoniousness, the vast gap between the PR and the reality. Likewise, the rationale for someone like Geithner, someone who knows the territory like the back of his hand, is perfectly obvious. But the rationale for putting him in charge is not. He is an ideal advisor on the implementation side, after the main outlines of policy have been decided on.

What we can see in all three situations is that Obama has run away from those who form his natural constituency, he has found some new friends who, like most humans, have some endearing qualities, but also some rather disreputable political views, and he has turned it into a matter of principle that we must simply ignore the policy consequences of his new friendships.

This would be annoying, at best, if we were talking about high school politics here. But we're not. We're talking real world here. And in the real world, it really doesn't matter what these folks are like in their private lives. If they tell off-color jokes, or if they'd sooner die, it really just doesn't matter. What matters is if they are going to do the right thing in the way of public policy--and more basically, if they even have the slightly clue what that might be.

And somehow, the fact that we're no longer suffering under the worst President ever has drastically lowered our standards, so that we're willing to accept the leadership of a man who is genuinely inspiring, but who seems to have very low regard for whether policies actually work or make sense, and much more regard for whether everyone he wants to get along actually does get along. It's not that I expect his views to coincide with mine. I never expected that. But I did expect significantly better reasons from him when it came to explaining why he sees things as he does.

But, frankly, I see very little sign that he cares even a little bit about that. He cares about sticking with those he's chosen. Which, when you get down to it, sounds far too similar to GW Bush for my personal comfort.

Rick Warren Question

Chris Bowers — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:30:10 GMT

Natasha and I are just about finished packing, and we will be heading to D.C. in a few hours. It is harder to pack for an inaugural ball Monday night, standing outside in the cold for several hours Tuesday morning, and a Wednesday trip to the Senate than it looks. This is especially the case if you have to fit everything into a single over-the-should bag because you have a broken arm.

While it may come as a shock to a few of you, I am actually very excited about this trip. What's more, the inauguration itself is, by far, the top event to which I am looking forward.

There is one question in the back of my mind though: what am I going to do when Rick Warren starts talking? Given my lack of spiritual inclinations, I am not very happy that we have to sit through a prayer at all, but being captive to him feels particularly uncomfortable. So, I'd like to do something about it.

In trying to think of an action, I am not worried about any anti-Warren action making us lefties look too partisan or ideological on TV, no matter how dirty those words have become these days. However, I am worried about any action that could turn the crowd against itself, even in small, localized areas. For this event, I think it is important that the crowd be happy and familial.

I'm open to ideas. Turning around? Booing? Singing Rick Astley? Any thoughts?

Weekly Pulse: America's Next Top Doctor

The Media Consortium — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:21:11 GMT

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire blogger.

2009 already is shaping up to be a year of surprises. Yesterday, we learned that America's favorite TV doctor, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, will likely be the next Surgeon General of the United States.
President-elect Barack Obama is assembling a healthcare dream team. In November 2009, Obama named former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as Health Czar and Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Daschle pick was widely taken as a sign that Obama was determined to pass a healthcare plan. Daschle's political skills will be critical to getting a plan through Congress.

While Daschle will be in charge of selling the politicians on Obama's healthcare agenda, Gupta will be tasked with winning over the general public.

Ezra Klein of the American Prospect is delighted with prospect of Gupta for Surgeon General:

Gupta is a great pick. To illustrate why, here's another question: Who's the current surgeon general? Odd that you just blurted out Steven K. Galson are low. That's not necessarily a problem. The surgeon general isn't just the guy who writes warnings for cigarette labels. He commands the 6,000 health professionals in the Public Health Commissioned Corps. He gives out awards. There's no evidence Galson is failing in those duties.
But Gupta is not leaving CNN and Time to give out medals. The surgeon general has an informal role as the country's leading medical and lifestyle educator, and it's that role the Gupta is uniquely positioned to fill. There's not a doctor in this country with half his media training and experience, nor one with a Rolodex of editors and reporters a tenth as large.

Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly is cautiously optimistic, even if Gupta isn't what you'd call red meat for the progressive base. Benen recalls a famous 2007 exchange between liberal documentarian Michael Moore and Gupta in which Moore took Gupta to task for a number of errors in Gupta's "fact-check" of Moore's healthcare film, Sicko. (See video, above.)

Clearly, Gupta will be the biggest star to occupy the office of Surgeon General since C. Everett Koop. Certainly, the 39-year-old will be the first Surgeon General in history to have been deemed one of the Sexiest Men Alive by People Magazine.

Gupta hasn't officially accepted yet, but he's expected to say yes, if all goes well with the final vetting process. However, Gupta is reportedly concerned that he'll have to take a pay cut to become America's next top doc.

The Gupta pick won't get rave reviews from everyone. He's a great communicator, but his political experience is limited--though he did serve as a White House fellow in the late 1990's and advised Hillary Clinton on healthcare.

Howie Kurtz of the Washington Post claims that Gupta has a longstanding interest in health policy and that he has even negotiated an expanded policy role for himself as Surgeon General. However, surprisingly little is known about which policies Gupta, a Michigan-born brain surgeon, actually supports.

The choice of a celebrity commentator with a background in high-tech, interventionist medicine will make some public health professionals uneasy. The Surgeon General is America's top public health official. Ezra Klein anticipates that Gupta will be an effective public advocate for obesity prevention and other public health goals. However, it's not clear from Gupta's record if he will be a good administrator or an effective leader of America's public health professionals.

In other healthcare news this week, Mother Jones kicks off the New Year with a miscellany of facts and figures on obesity in America. Last month, the Washington Post reported that Barack Obama is setting an example when it comes to physical fitness, noting that the president elect had been to the gym every day for at least 48 days. It's only a matter of time before conservatives start blaming eating disorders on an imaginary "Obamarexia" epidemic.

But maybe prevention is overrated. At the American Prospect, M. Gregg Bloche says that preventative medicine won't save the healthcare system money in the long run. Yes, it costs less to prevent a case of diabetes than it does to treat the condition once it sets in. But people who avoid diabetes tend to live longer. And the longer we live, the more healthcare resources we consume:

If we're to get better at averting illness, we're going to have to spend more. The Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis project tracks published data on the costs and benefits of thousands of tests and treatments, including 279 preventive measures. Fewer than 20 percent of these measures actually save money, the Tufts group recently reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. The rest raise medical spending, and that's not even counting the extra costs patients incur down the line, for illnesses they could have avoided by dying.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend money on preventative medicine, Bloche says. We just have to think of prevention in terms of value, not savings. In other words, prevention may be expensive, but it's worth it because it works better than treatment. Preventing diabetes may turn out to be expensive in the long run, but someone who never gets the disease will live a longer, healthier life compared to a patient who depends on insulin and drugs.

In December, Obama sparked controversy when he picked conservative mega-church Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration ceremony. As we've discussed before in the Weekly Pulse, Warren's worldly political agenda makes him a troubling pick. The pastor opposes abortion, gay rights, and science-based sex education. He favors the discredited abstinence-only until hetero-marriage approach to preventing STDs and unplanned pregnancies home and abroad. Warren is clearly positioning himself for a prominent role in shaping the Obama administration policy on healthcare and international development, especially AIDS in Africa.

Elsewhere on the reproductive health front, Mike Ervin, writing for the Progressive, urges President Elect Obama and the new Democratic Congress to swiftly repeal the eleventh hour regulations that raise out-of-pocket costs for Medicaid services. Erwin notes that higher Medicaid costs disproportionately burden poor and disabled Americans and may discourage them from seeking treatment.

In RH Reality Check, Sam Sedai outlines the key reproductive health policy decisions facing the incoming administration. One of the most important questions is the fate of Bush administration's radical "conscience clause" rules, which allow federal healthcare workers with religious qualms to opt out of virtually any task connected to birth control or abortion.

Clearly, 2009 holds many challenges and a great deal of opportunity in store for advocates of progressive health policy.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about healthcare. Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economic and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net
and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

ACTION: Protest Rick Warren - Turn Your Back on Hate and Sign My Petition

astrodem — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:59:37 GMT

TurnBackHate.com invites you to sign our petition protesting President-elect Barack Obama's decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural ceremony on January 20th, 2009. There can be no doubt about it: Pastor Warren is a minister of hate and has insulted gays, lesbians, Jews, atheists, practitioners of the social gospel, Holocaust victims, and ordinary Americans who want to put the politics of hate behind us. I hope you'll join us in silently and non-disruptively turning your back on Pastor Warren when he delivers the invocation.

Since launching my website and petition at TurnBackHate.com, I've heard dozens of ideas for how we should protest Pastor Warren at the inauguration: flying rainbow flags, singing a protest song, wearing special clothing or accessories, booing Rick Warren, and so on and so forth. These are all legitimate ideas but they all have a problem: they either needlessly limit the number of people who can participate or could potentially backfire. Turning our backs is the ONLY form of protest that both maximizes the number of participants and minimizes the risk of press backlash.
I've listed a number of reasons why turning our backs on Pastor Warren is the easiest and most effective form of protest.

1. It's easy.

2. Anyone can do it.

3. It's a universal gesture with easily understood meaning.

4. It doesn't imply membership in any particular group or community.

5. It doesn't require the extra step of acquiring or purchasing a prop.

6. It doesn't require knowledge or skills that have to be learned or taught.

7. The act itself doesn't require any coordination from a leader to make it effective or meaningful. People can and will do it spontaneously without being directed to.

8. There are no preconditions to participation other than agreeing with the purpose of the protest and knowing that it is happening. People can even participate from home if they want.

9. The gesture is respectful and dignified and cannot be portrayed by the press as angry, hostile, or intolerant.

10. It's still a meaningful form of protest even if only a few people participate.

11. It's easy to persuade people in the crowd on the day of the inauguration to participate.

12. If a critical mass of people participate, others on the Mall who aren't even aware of the protest are likely to join merely because other people around them are doing it too.

13. If we can get a large enough number of signatories to the petition pledging to participate, we might even be able to persuade elected officials to join our protest.

I cannot think of any other form of protest which has all these wonderful benefits. That's why I'm asking you to sign my petition, and show your support for our campaign to turn our backs on Pastor Warren on Inauguration Day. Turning our backs would be a powerful symbol of our contempt for the politics of hate and would powerfully demonstrate to President-elect Obama that ordinary Americans believed in his vision of national unity and moral progress. To find out more about our protest and to sign the petition, go to www.TurnBackHate.com.

Cross posted at DailyKos.

Christophobia??? Wait A Second, Fellah! YOU'RE The Christophobe!

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:30:00 GMT

Raw Story has a pretty succinct take on the deteriorating state of Rick Warren's mental health:

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow believes that the uproar over Barack Obama's selection of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation might have been subsiding by now, except that Warren himself -- very much like Reverend Jeremiah Wright last spring -- has stirred things up again with a video address in which he accuses his critics of being "Christophobes."
"Not only it is getting worse," commented Maddow, "it's getting weirder."
In the 22 minute message to his congregation placed on his website last Sunday, Warren first denied ever "equating gay partnership with incest and pedophilia" -- which Maddow quickly disproved with a clip of him doing just that -- and then went on to attack his critics for their "false accusations, attacks, outright lies, and hateful slander, and really a lot of hate speech."
"It's what I would call 'Christophobia.'" Warren concluded. "People who are afraid of any Christian."
"Might those people possibly just be Pastor Rick-o-phobes?" Maddow asked.

But there's a deeper story than Rick's mental ticks.

You see, here's what Christ said about homosexuals:

That's right. Let me repeat that:

And that's just got to scare Pastor Rick, don'tcha think?

You betcha! In fact, it already has....
As I discussed in my diary "Whatever Happened To 'Respect Is Earned?'", last weekend, Dan Radosh wrote:

Being disagreeable

Barack Obama is defending his invitation to Rick Warren with a plea for postpartisanship.
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... That dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

Greg Seargant asks "why campaigning against division and polarization by picking an equally radical choice on the left to give the invocation would be politically unthinkable?"
Meanwhile, consider how agreeable Warren himself chose to be -- how open to dialogue -- after the gay group Soulforce prematurely announced that leaders of Warren's Saddleback church, perhaps including Warren and his wife Kay, had agreed to break bread with gay Christian families on Father's Day:
We did not invite this group and I will not be meeting with them. They invited themselves to draw attention to their cross country publicity stunt. My staff has already told them that neither my wife nor I will meet with them for any discussion or debate.

Bear in mind that the Soulforce families were not asking to speak from the pulpit, or for Warren to publicly embrace them. They wanted a private conversation, to let Warren get to know some real people who were being hurt by his teachings and actions. And yet, not a chance.

But that's not just being disagreeable. That's being Chistophobic! Soulforce is a Christian organization. Those are other Christians that Warren is apparent afraid to meet with.

Perhaps even more to the point, he's afraid to confront what they know--and he knows it too! The fact that Jesus Christ never said anything against homorsexuals.

In fact, Soulforce has a pamplet, "What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality". Early on, it says:

As you may know, biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States. A recent study quoted by Dr. Peter Gomes in The Good Book found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain the Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus' death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Many even thought the epistles were the wives of the apostles.
This same kind of biblical ignorance is all too present around the topic of homosexuality. Often people who love and trust God's Word have never given careful and prayerful attention to what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality.
For example, many Christians don't know that:

Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.

The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.

Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.

Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality don't know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven't read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don't know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven't tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written.

The whole pamphlet is well worth reading. But that one sentence: "Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior."

That sentence is priceless.

Because that's the sentence that Rick Warren is terrrified of.

Rick Warren: Christophobe!

ACTION: Sign my Petition at TurnBackHate.com and Turn Your Back on Pastor Warren's Hateful Rhetoric

astrodem — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:48:11 GMT

TurnBackHate.com invites you to sign our petition protesting President-elect Barack Obama's decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural ceremony on January 20th, 2009. There can be no doubt about it: Pastor Warren is a minister of hate who has repeatedly and unapologetically used rhetoric that is offensive, insulting, hurtful, and spiteful towards ordinary Americans of all walks of life. Whether you're watching the Inauguration on TV or online, listening on the radio, or attending the ceremony on the Mall in Washington, we hope you'll join us in silently and non-disruptively turning your back on Pastor Warren when he delivers the invocation.
Pastor Warren has a long and illustrious track record of hate speech, not just against gay and lesbian Americans but against women, Jews, Holocaust victims, and other groups with which he disagrees. Though we strongly disagree with his views, we respect Pastor Warren's right to his opinions as well as his right to preach his views to his congregation. What we find most offensive and repellent are not Pastor Warren's beliefs, but the ways in which he chooses to express those beliefs. We don't think someone with these views deserves a national platform that is supposed to symbolize our spiritual growth as a nation on a day that is supposed to be about national unity. This isn't about one community or one group. Pastor Warren's rhetoric insults all kinds of ordinary Americans: women, Jews, Holocaust victims, atheists, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, as well as those who disagree with Pastor Warren's views.

TurnBackHate.com supports President-elect Barack Obama's vision of a new kind of politics: a politics that respects the dignity and humanity of every American regardless of who they are and what they believe. We believe that the invocation at the Inaugural ceremony is an historic tradition which honors our nation's spiritual, moral, and political progress. Consequently, we expect that individual chosen to deliver the invocation ought to represent our nation's highest ideals -- among them our tradition of inclusion, tolerance, and our ever expanding concept of what it means to be an American. Inauguration Day is a time of renewal, reflection, and unity for the nation. This year especially, it is also a time of celebration and rejoicing for those whose freedoms have been won at great cost to earlier generations. Now is not the time for division and disunity. We ask only that the individual selected to deliver the invocation come from a spiritual tradition that recognizes that the long arc of history bends towards justice -- and inclusion.

Come to TurnBackHate.com now and sign the petition. You can help us by spreading the word about what we're trying to do and telling your friends, family, and co-workers about the petition. We're sending a message to President-elect Barack Obama, Members of Congress, and to all our fellow Americans that we're turning our backs on leaders that try to divide us with hateful rhetoric.

Cross posted at DailyKos.

The masicist inside me--Why Rick warren shouldn't be at Obama's Inaguration

Ortmann for America — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:15:20 GMT

I didn't vote for that guy. That's true of both title characters. The thing is I sort of liked one of them. If I got the opportunity to vote in Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, or Nevada instead of Minnesota, I would have voted for Obama. If Obama wouldn't have tossed me under the bus with his one-eighty turn around on retroactive immunity for telecoms, I would have voted for him no matter where my precinct stood.

Now I guess because I didn't vote for him I really shouldn't dictate what he should and shouldn't do but that's not how politics works in America and it's not the whole story. I am an active member in my local Democrats Abroad chapter. I organized the election night party for my neck of the woods. I even donated money to Obama and got others to do the same. See, I was starting to like the guy. He handled all the retrograde dung McCain and the RNC could throw at him. He was modest. He was intelligent. He was compassionate, and he is the voice of my generation.

I think that's why I am so upset with him right now. He's the voice of my generation-the most tolerate generation America has ever seen yet Rick Warren, self proclaimed James Dobson light, who thinks women must submit to their husbands in marriage, who thinks women exercising their constitution choice are hell bound sluts, forgoing their god given punishment of child, for easy tricks now. He compares homosexuality to pedophilia and polygamy and won't let gays join his church.

Shuush.... I can hear you. You're telling me to shrug it off. Khong Sao in Vietnam's vernacular. It's no big deal, he's just giving a two minute prayer where he won't say anything nasty. It's just a symbol. America is a diverse place and the inauguration should respect that. He's reaching out to those who disagree with him. The culture war is a relic, grow up you liberals!
I get it. I understand your arugments and no I don't think your dumb or are Jones town bound due to the kool-aide. But here's the rub. Those arguments don't convince me. Though these do:

* It makes Warren's brand of Homobigotry seem mainstream.
* It's shown the incoming administration that they can score political points by punching the LGBT and progressive communities in the face.
* The administration won't be able to call in the favor later. Conservative movement politics is based on backlash and victimhood. They won't be able to cooperate because it would destroy the underpinnings of their movement.

Further, let me use an analogy to put you in my shoes. Suppose you're a senior in college. You went to a "normal" college. It was left of center. Now the campus news paper comes out a few months before graduation announcing that Rick Warren will be your commencement speaker. How do you feel?

Betrayed? Couldn't we get anyone better? Most of the words that come out of that guys mouth would get him expelled here! Damn it, why can't we get Borat or Dan Savage?

Now the administration faced with push back from its supporters....err... I mean students tries to calm the masses with some talking points and then kind of just wishes the kids go and smoke some hope...err pot...and forget about the whole deal. The talking points slog on about diversity of though and how intellectual freedom and open minds are essential for the passage of health care... errr...success later in life. It will build character to hear someone you disagree with and be respectful of them. Who knows you may end up agreeing with him. Even though you are the only reason this event is happening-the commencement-your opinion doesn't matter because the administration (of the college) knows better!

Has the administration (of the college) convinced you? Me neither nor has the President Elect.

In the end though, I don't have much of a choice. Obama is going to (kind of) end the war in Iraq. (Kind of) bring about universal health insurance. (kind of) make that affordable. (Kind of) deal with reducing green house gases and the problems associated with the fossil fuel infrastructure of the country. (kind of) fix education. So hey, President Obama, when your buddies down there at NSA are listening to my phone conversation about how I disagree with you and am tired of being sold down the river, remember that I still think kind of is better then nothing-so don't send me to the (kind of) closed guitmo. maybe I (kind of) like it though. I though Obama was a crank during the primaries and I obviously didn't vote for him.

2 Million Pink Triangles--Loving Correction For Obama To Stop Beating Up His Base

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:30:00 GMT

Imagine 100,000 times this:

greeting Barack Obama and Rick Warren as Warren delivers the invocation at Obama's inaguration. Now, how would that be as a loving, tolerant way to tell Obama to stop beating up on the folks that put him in the White House?

Because it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight union member, environmentalist, peace activist, whatever. One thing is for certain--the contempt being shown for GLBTs today is the same contempt in store for all of us, if we let this continue. An injury to one is an injury to all. This moment, right now, we are all queer. Each and every one of us.

Whatever happened to this election being about "us", not Obama? It's time to remind Obama of what he himself said, before he destroys his own presidency, and everything that millions of supporters have worked so hard for.

Whatever Happened To "Respect Is Earned?"

Paul Rosenberg — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:25:17 GMT

"Respect is earned." It's supposed to be a conservative mantra. And Obama is supposed to be trying to reach out to conservatives. So, why does he insist we must bestow respect on Rick Warren that Warren clearly has not earned?

The fact is, there are a lot of "conservative" principles that I respect. Except they're not really conservative. And they're also not exclusive of other principles that might seemingly conflict with them. For example, I think that everyone is worthy of a basic level of respect. Being treated with a fundamental level of dignity is, to my mind, a human right. But I also think that there are higher levels of respect that must be earned, just as one must earn trust. And giving the invocation at a presidential inaguration certainly counts as a position of respect that must be earned.

So, like I already asked, whatever happened to the conservative principle that "Respect is earned"?

I ask because of an incident recalled by Dan Radosh, author of Rapture Ready: Adverntures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture. (h/t Andrew Sullivan by way of Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle). It seems that Warren himself has been none to open to the whole "having disagreements without being disagreeable" thing, as Radosh explains....
Radosh:

Being disagreeable

Barack Obama is defending his invitation to Rick Warren with a plea for postpartisanship.
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... That dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

Greg Seargant asks "why campaigning against division and polarization by picking an equally radical choice on the left to give the invocation would be politically unthinkable?"

Meanwhile, consider how agreeable Warren himself chose to be -- how open to dialogue -- after the gay group Soulforce prematurely announced that leaders of Warren's Saddleback church, perhaps including Warren and his wife Kay, had agreed to break bread with gay Christian families on Father's Day:

We did not invite this group and I will not be meeting with them. They invited themselves to draw attention to their cross country publicity stunt. My staff has already told them that neither my wife nor I will meet with them for any discussion or debate.

Bear in mind that the Soulforce families were not asking to speak from the pulpit, or for Warren to publicly embrace them. They wanted a private conversation, to let Warren get to know some real people who were being hurt by his teachings and actions. And yet, not a chance.

For those not familiar with Soulforce, here's what they say about themselves:

Soulforce Vision Statement
"The purpose of Soulforce is freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance."
Soulforce Mission Statement
The mission of Soulforce is to cut off homophobia at its source -- religious bigotry. Soulforce uses a dynamic "take it to the streets" style of activism to connect the dots between anti-gay religious dogma and the resulting attacks on the lives and civil liberties of LGBT Americans. We apply the creative direct action principles taught by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to peacefully resist injustice and demand full equality for LGBT citizens and same-gender families.

As co-founder Rev. Dr. Mel White explains on his not-recently updated bio page:

The Rev. Dr. Mel White has been a Christian minister, author, and filmmaker all his adult life. Raised as a evangelical Christian, taught that homosexuality was a sin, he fought to overcome his own homosexual orientation for decades in all ways available to him: prayer, psychotherapy, exorcism, electric shock, marriage and family. That struggle and his halting, poignant steps to understand and accept his homosexuality, reconcile it with his Christian faith, and express his sexuality respectfully and responsibly, are described in his book "Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America," published in 1994. His latest book, "Religion Gone Bad - The Hidden Dangers of Fundamentalism," is due out in September, 2006.
In 1993, Mel White came out publicly when he was installed as dean at the Dallas Cathedral of Hope of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC). He announced during his first sermon, "I am gay. I am proud. And God loves me without reservation."
Mel White founded Soulforce Inc. this year with his partner, Gary Nixon. Though Soulforce was established recently, Mel White has been developing his work with soul force principles for many years.
He was dismayed by the increasing confrontational tone on both sides the homosexual issue, and the hateful words and actions that increased the divide. Inspired by the nonviolence movements of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., White developed a program based on their principles. These principles were called satyagraha or "soul force" by Gandhi, who based many of them on the teachings of Jesus, and White adopted them to address the suffering of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people.
During his six years with UFMCC, he traveled across the country constantly to minister to those impacted by prejudice and hatred against gays and to campaign for civil rights, theological reconsideration, and social acceptance for sexual minorities. His work has resulted in his being arrested on the White House steps during a hunger strike protesting the 'Defense of Marriage Act.' He was also arrested for protesting the Rev. Pat Robertson's virulent anti-gay rhetoric. (After a weeks-long hunger strike in jail, White was visited by Robertson, who promised to avoid inaccuracies and inflammatory language.)
.... In addition, he ghost wrote several books for fellow evangelicals, including Billy Graham ("Approaching Hoofbeats"), Pat Robertson ("America's Date with Destiny"), Jim Bakker, and Jerry Falwell ("If I Should Die Before I Wake" and "Strength for the Journey"). In all those writings, however, he never wrote against homosexuality. White began coming out privately and gradually during the same period that the religious right stepped up its anti-gay rhetoric. Since 1993, he has devoted himself full-time to minister to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and the transgendered and to work on their behalf in the media, in the political process, and with fellow religious leaders.

In short, Mel White has more than earned a position giving the invocation at Barack Obama's inaguration. In fact, his presence there would clearly elevate the event.

Rick Warren, not so much.

But, then, when did the religious right ever walk the walk?

Respect is earned President-elect Obama. Never forget that.

Respect is earned.

Rick Warren Hates Atheists, Like Me

Chris Bowers — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:18:31 GMT

Left-wing pressure seems to have dubious effect, so here are some right-wing atheists upset with Rick Warren:

Too bad Rick Warren isn't so open-minded. After his over-hyped and intrusive interviews of Obama and John McCain this last August, the best-selling author of A Purpose-Driven Life disclosed to his congregation at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Ca., the one kind of person he couldn't vote for. "I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God,'" Warren preached, according to the Los Angeles Times. "They're saying, 'I'm totally self-sufficient by [myself].' And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It's too big a job."

It's hard to decide which is more laughable: Warren's conception of the presidency or of atheists. Unfortunately, both conceptions are widespread among Americans.

I second that. Warren posits atheists as people who are openly thumbing their noses at God--sort of like people who recognize there is a God but who just refuse to bow to "His" authority. As with many Americans, the notion that some people simply fail to believe in a self-conscious power that exists outside the laws of nature doesn't enter into the equation. Further, being an atheist isn't even a rejection of something--it is merely a failure to make an assertion. I always hate it when I have to answer the question "well, why don't you believe in God?" The burden of proof doesn't rest with me. God is a positive concept that must be proven, not an obvious construct that must be disproven.

More in the extended entry.

Now, atheists, like the LGBT community, are not as numerous as evangelicals. The most recent poll I could find on the subject showed 78% believed in "God," 14% believed in a "universal higher power," and only 7% believed in "neither" (1% was "unsure"). When you are an atheist, it is pretty obvious to you that you are in a small minority. Further, since many people, not only Rick Warren but often members your own family, consider your atheism as somehow an affront rather than just a personal lack of belief, to make life easier you do your best to never bring up religion as a topic at all. Just being left alone about it becomes both the short-term and long-term goal. I don't even like writing about it on Open Left, because I know that some members of my family read it.

I do have to wonder though--why are opposing equal rights for LGBT, and why are hating atheists, still tolerated as mainstream opinions in America? The only reason why someone like Rick Warren represents "bringing people together" rather than hatred of multiple large minorities in America, is because hatred of atheists and homosexuals are tolerated. Maybe people like me haven't done a good enough job of demanding that we be allowed to be open about our views and not hated for them. For one, it isn't difficult to succeed in life while still being an atheist. For another, it isn't difficult to hide your views in situations where they might cause you problems. Further, you don't want to be associated with the atheists that attack religion in general, and you really don't want to start arguments with people.

However, as atheists, it is probably time that we stopped being withdrawn about our beliefs. Our public image is lower than even that of homosexuals, for example. The reason it is lower is because they fight for their rights and they fight for inclusion. We atheists don't. If we are all working together to try and end homophobia as a tolerated, mainstream position worthy of the inaugural benediction for a Democratic President, then we should probably work to make intolerance of atheists unacceptable, too. When we start excluding certain groups, it has the potential to spill out over into all groups, as Natasha wrote yesterday at MyDD.

If I am not speaking up for my owns rights to tolerance and inclusion, how can I speak up for others? A lot of the problem is probably my own damn fault, because I have never bothered to even ask for inclusion and tolerance of my beliefs. So, let me start with this: I am an atheist, there is nothing wrong with my beliefs, you are not going to convert me, and so you are going to have to live with it.

Obama Is Not in Favor of Marriage Equality

Matt Stoller — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:23:00 GMT

It's worth noting, in this Rick Warren fiasco, that there isn't actually that much daylight between Warren and Obama on marriage equality. There is some, of course, since Obama was against Proposition 8 and Warren was for it. And I'm sure Obama is a whole lot more gay-friendly in general than Warren, and that will have important policy implications on things like hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace. However, on the basic principle of marriage, Obama and Warren agree that marriage is for a man and a woman, which the Yes on Prop 8 side did not hesitate to point out through a multi-million dollar campaign.

And yet, here's Obama on the Warren debacle.

"Let me start by talking about my own views. It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my Presidency. What I have also said is that it is important for Americans to come together even though we may disagree on certain social issues."

This just isn't truthful, or rather, it's exactly how Bush would justify a policy on pollution, by talking about how strongly he believes in the public's right to clean air. Obama might push for equal rights for gays in some instances, yet think that it is politically unwise to push for it in others. Or he may simply not believe that gay people should be able to get married. But he's not 'consistent' on fierce advocacy for equality, he's consistent in being a politician that won't support marriage equality but will support other advances in equal rights initiatives.

Chris and I were pretty consistent in pointing out that you should believe what Obama says, and not try to pretend that he's lying to the public so that he can get progressive policies passed. Obama's pretty upfront about what he believes. He tends to do politician-y things like use liberal rhetoric to justify limiting rights for gay people and disembodying the left so he can punch us in the face every once in awhile. But that doesn't actually mean that he's going to go our way on policy. He never was in favor of marriage equality, he's been consistent on that point. If you were surprised that he picked Warren or think he's playing three dimensional chess, you might consider opening your mind up to the possibility that he's just doing what he believes is the right thing to do. And that might just mean leaving gays out of his big tent (though I'd point out that Warren has a record that goes far beyond attacking homosexuals, and that marriage equality is not a 'gay' issue but a human rights issue).

Obama's Strategy Is Winning Evangelicals!

Matt Stoller — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:31 GMT

I just got this email from the Family Research Council.

With roughly 2,000 political appointments to make, Team Obama has had its hands full. This week, the President-elect concentrated on rounding out his Cabinet, naming his hometown school chief, Chicago's Arne Duncan, to head the Department of Education. Duncan is best known for advocating the use of the city's taxpayer funds to create a segregated high school for homosexuals.

That 'be nice to bigots' strategy is paying some serious dividends.

Bigotry You Can Believe In

Matt Stoller — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:58:44 GMT

Wow.

President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony will feature big names like minister Rick Warren and legendary singer Aretha Franklin, the Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced Wednesday.
Rick Warren, the prominent evangelical and founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, will deliver the ceremony's invocation.

I believe this photo about covers it.

A More Positive View of Saddleback

Mike Lux — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:30:00 GMT

There has been a lot of negative commentary, both in the traditional media and the blogs, about Obama's appearance at the Saddleback Church. Some didn't see the point of him going to a stacked forum, some didn't think he did very well overall, some were critical in both regards. While I didn't think he was as sharp as he could have been in terms of his performance, I think there were some very good things about him going to Saddleback. A couple of points on this:
1. In some senses, this is not that different than a McCain showing up at the NAACP strategy- the point isn't so much to win the people represented by Rick Warren, it's to appeal to moderates unsure about whether Obama shares their values. There are a small number of evangelical whites who are swing voters, but there are a lot more church-going, generally religious moderate Christians (moderate in both politics and theology) who are comforted by Obama reaching out to churchgoers.

2. Having Rick Warren talk about Obama being a patriot and a good man, and having Obama talk about his Christian beliefs, is going to help with the Muslim rumors and all the other rumors right-wingers are spreading about Obama.

Speaking more broadly than just about the political tactics of all this, I can say unequivocally that it made my day when Obama asked what was America's greatest moral failing, he talked about our failures to help the "least of these." I know we got a lot of you secular humanist types reading this, so let me reference what Bible story Obama was referring to here:

Matthew 25: 31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All the nations will be assembled before him and he will separate one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you?" And the King will answer, "I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers and sisters, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left hand, "Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, lacking clothes and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me." Then it will be their turn to ask, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or lacking clothes, sick or in prison, and did not come to your help?" Then he will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me." And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life."

These verses, the inspiration behind the new group Mara Vanderslice and others have started calling Matthew 25, are the clear, bright dividing line between Christians: those who quote and love it almost always are progressives, those who spend their time on the three verses in the entire Old and New Testament that mention homosexuality are invariably conservatives. It is verses like Matthew 25: 31-46 which make many of us think of Jesus as a lefty, and the right-wingers who claim to believe in him as flaming hypocrites, so it was a pleasure to see Obama quote that core verse of the progressive Christian faith as his choice for America's greatest moral failing.

Rick Warren, Neutral Arbiter

Matt Stoller — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:44:08 GMT

I think Obama's going to do very well in the Saddleback forum, but it's worth noting that Rick Warren is hardly the kind of figure to be validating.

JG: So America has a duty to help.
RW: The answer is, we must do all we can. People say America is not the policeman of the world. We may not be, but the Bible says, if you have been blessed, then you are to care for people who can't care for themselves, you are to speak up for people who can't speak for themselves, and to defend the defenseless.
JG: Some people argue that we're not so great ourselves.
RW: The difference is that there are no death squads in America. The worst you can get here is that you can get blogged, you can get Lewinskied, on the Internet. There is a difference between that and living under oppression, living with fear for your life. That's why whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point. Saddam and his sons were raping the country, literally. And we morally had to do something. If you have a Judeo-Christian heritage, you have to believe it when God says that evil cannot be compromised with. It has to be resisted, it has to be overcome.

So invading Iraq based on lies is not bearing false witness, as long as the end goal is just? Good to know. And what a just end goal!

Also, it's clear that the worst that can happen in America or by Americans is that you get blogged, or Lewinskied. It's not like there are 2 million people in prison here or substantially amounts of prison rape, or punitive immigration raids on families. Nope, not here. We've got to make sure that we export our no-sin-no-suffering model to the rest of the world through violence.

I'm so glad this is the man hosting the first major Presidential forum.