Susie Bright: Rick Warren can either come out of his closet, or go take a hike

Discuss

223 Responses to “Susie Bright: Rick Warren can either come out of his closet, or go take a hike”

  1. wolfiesma says:

    A funny cartoon on the conflation of Obama and God.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloyddangle/3096745112/

  2. iamelectionday says:

    @ Nigel

    I think civil rights IS definitely a political issue. I just felt like others were treating it like a run of the mill problem, when it’s arguably the most important political issue.

    If Warren has a nuanced view of anything, I guess that really remains to be seen, but his Prop 8 messages didn’t seem to support civil unions at all. Also, I doubt he’d get any support for a bill outlawing divorce because divorce has become socially acceptable.

    And his environmentalism can only really be seen in how he lives his life (kind of the same message he preaches in his books). I’m saying it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s just his issue to keep butts in the ever more empty seats. If he is also a true environmentalist at home, then I’ll take it back because I surely can’t make that claim yet.

    Just to be clear, I have no problem with the millions, no billions, of people around the world that keep their faith private and personal. I just have a problem with the evangelical industrial complex, and those uber-religions operating with similar agendas.

    That being said, canceling his appearance could create more support for him than just letting him have his 15 minutes. I only wish they’d have chosen a less controversial figure (e.g., an unknown community leader from a liberal church).

  3. minTphresh says:

    he could make a mommie outta ye.

  4. pAULbOWEN says:

    I find it astonishing that a man so ignorant of the ways of others and so incurious about his fellow humans that he can say straight-faced that it has been accepted for 5,000 years by all cultures and religions that marriage can only mean a union between “one man and one woman, for life”, can yet consider himself qualified to pronounce in public on the behaviour of others. Really, seriously astonishing. Where is the humility of these oafs?

  5. Slicklines says:

    Ill Lich @ 103

    My point wasn’t that Obama was somehow not a politician, my point was he seems very willing to put politics ahead of what’s right.

    This isn’t about reaching across the isle or getting some bill through a bitterly divided congress. Face it, they already hate Obama — they have already tried everything they can think of to tie him to Blago back in Illinois. Does anyone really think choosing this guy will in anyway heal things? Pfft, I say.

    This is about someone — anyone — in a position of power with the cajones to stand up and say, “You know what? I will not tolerate what this man stands for.” I am saddened that Obama (as we should have guessed after his FISA vote) just does not have the courage to do what is right.

    And by the way, I voted for him. Which says a ton about the alternative choices.

  6. Capissen says:

    @RICHSPK I’ve been wondering the same thing. We claim to be a secular state, have a constitution that pretty clearly lays out the separation of church and government, yet our presidential (and presumably gubernatorial, senatorial, and representative) inaugurations still require a divine anointment. Congressional sessions are opened with prayer (and there’s even a chaplain on staff!). Our currency says “In God We Trust.” Our national anthem places the whole of our united nation “under God.”

    I think it might be a sham, folks.

  7. minTphresh says:

    heck, paul. that’s only a thousand years less than the maximum age of the universe! and, apparently for the first thousand years, gay marriage was o.k.

  8. plover says:

    ACrocker- ha! Exactly.

    Obama is going to screw up. I suspect this is his first screw up, of many. The man is human. An exceptional human, but a human, nonetheless.

    Even knowing he’ll screw up, he still was the only viable candidate. He is the only national political candidate I’ve ever voted for (rather than voting against), and the only one I’ve ever given money to.

    So, I would rather listen to a few minutes of vitriol from this closet case during the inauguration than, oh, give $15 BILLION of my money to a few outgoing GM executives in trade for their promise to stop using their corporate jets before they golden parachute out of their bankruptcies in March … to compare this story to another story that’s on the front pages today.

    Obama’s going to make mistakes … economically, politically, and socially. But, I believe he will learn and grow from them, rather than denying them. That’s why I voted for him. That’s what makes him different from this Warren character, as well as most other national-level politicians in my lifetime. That’s what makes me hopeful that, in time, Obama will support gay marriage.

    And, while Susie is not my favorite guest blogger on BB (sorry Susie), this post made me laugh, because there is such a strong tradition of these evangelical leaders getting a little boy-nookie on the side.

  9. Takuan says:

    I don’t think that is fair to the Marquis, at least he created.

  10. arkizzle says:

    iamelectionday:

    Clearly I am…

    Ah hah hahahaha! ha..

  11. arkizzle says:

    iam- the only gay in the village

  12. ill lich says:

    The only thing I “like” about choosing this guy, is that the frothing right-wingers who all want to hate Obama so much as “the most liberal member of congress” (a charge they trot out every election it seems) will have a moment of cognitive dissonance.

    If we are going to come half-way with the other side (whoever that may be), toes are going to get stepped on (on both sides). I don’t like the guy’s views, but if Obama wants to get anything done in the next 4 years he’s going to have to offer olive branches to the right, and choosing a homophobic minister for his inauguration might make us upset, but it’s less harmful than giving us a homophobic Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice.

  13. DWittSF says:

    This makes as much sense as Obama inviting David Duke to speak, and then wondering what all teh fuss is about…

  14. Ohhhsnap says:

    Getting angry isn’t going to make Rick Warren disappear from existence.

    He, and the millions of people like him around the world, will always be here.

    Obama chose Warren for a reason. He chose to focus on the good things that Warren does, despite his bigotry.

    Warren does more to help this world than the vast majority of the rest of its population. Yes, he has terrible views towards some social issues, but he IS doing some good.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I’m so glad I don’t have to live in the US

    - Queer and atheist from Australia

  16. minTphresh says:

    scribbler, ( geez what a whiner!) how about this: you see susie’s name in the column byline, you skip over the post to the next one. if her name is there, repeat step one. pretty simple. now, go away and STFU.

  17. Geektronica says:

    I’m with Scribbler (#22) on this one – I read BoingBoing for interesting links, not divisive personal attacks and below-the-belt accusations.

    I don’t consider my personal interests a valid rubric for what BoingBoing should post; for example, a lot of Mark’s art posts don’t interest me, and I think we can both be fine with that. Lots of authors, lots of readers, lots of topics and diverse interests. However, there are certain topics, such as porn, that make me question whether BoingBoing is a site I really want coming up on my screen. Five seconds on Susie’s site told me that it was not something I could spend any time on. Some of us have jobs and families that lead us to be careful about things like that.

    What’s particularly offensive about this post is that you’re looking at Rick Warren as the enemy, and labeling him a homophobe and bad guy, without really knowing anything about him prior to when his church hosted the presidential candidates’ forum. What you may not realize is that he has taken evangelicalism in a much more moderate direction than conservative leaders of the past such as Pat Robertson.

    You’re bashing someone who, in a strange sort of way, has made this nation more progressive than most progressive leaders. BoingBoing’s audience (myself included) is pretty far out of the mainstream, and you move the mainstream from within, not by insulting its leaders from afar.

    So, not a fan of this post or Susie or similar guestbloggers, FWIW.

  18. Minoru says:

    I think Susie’s argument here is not that Warren is gay–although if he were it would certainly fit in with recent trends in conservative outings–but that Warren is a hypocrite and a bigot. We should be alarmed by Obama’s decision to have Warren present at the inauguration. This ominous decision may indicate that Obama has a less than progressive stance on issues involving the equality of all Americans and that he also may be willing to toe the conservative line for the sake of popularity. Does Obama’s decision mean we are in for more of the same mediocrity and callous indifference to the rights of Americans? I’m afraid that in the history of the world no one was ever invited to a party just to be to leave.

  19. Minoru says:

    @Iamelectionday. You’re assumption that you are the first openly gay to have commented on this post is incorrect. I’m openly gay, and perhaps because it is germane to this issue I should have made this fact more clear.

    But I’m not sure if stridently proclaiming my homosexuality makes my opinion on this issue more weighted than others. My post still contains my own ideas and values. I’m afraid that stating my gayness may depict gay rights as an issue that only gay people care about. And because I think everyone should care about it, I chose not to make the distinction.

  20. Anonymous says:

    my money’s on warren turning out to be a chickenhawk.

  21. Sceadugenga says:

    What amazes me more than the particular choice here, is the fact that everyone seems to have completely accepted that somehow a pastor is a necessary part of a presidential inauguration. Not me. Whether it’s homophobic Rick Warren, or a kindly liberal quaker in a broad-brimmed hat, or a priestess of Ba’al, or a Scientologist giving Obama a once-over with an e-meter, it has no place in our secular government.

  22. skarbreeze says:

    “Are you posting as Skar over at Scalzi’s blog? If so, hi.”

    Nope sorry, different person.

  23. jere7my says:

    Antinous @68 said,

    I loathe Obama. I have always loathed Obama. I will probably always loathe Obama. He is a vile, two-faced poseur. He talks about equality out of one side of his mouth and undermines it with the other. Can we find a candidate for 2012 who’s not a liar?

    Aren’t you a moderator, Antinous? Wouldn’t this comment be disemvowelled in the ordinary course of things? C’mon, man.

  24. jjasper says:

    Teresa – I’m not sure exactly where you disagree with me. Let me see if I’ve got this correct –

    Toward the end of the Obama campaign, we were seeing photos of people with Obama campaign signs next to the Confederate flags out front of their houses. If you can’t accept your well-wishers and fellow-travelers, you can’t accept success.

    OK, what I don’t want is “fellow travelers” who’s well wishes or support is contingent on LGBT people making out movement looks like something other than what we want it to be, and who insist we conform to a standard of shutting up when it comes to actively criticizing Obama for inviting Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration.

    When people threaten to take their marbles and go home because they don’t like the way I protest, or gay pride parades with guys wearing leather, or so on, they’re trying to hold that support hostage based on me conforming to their views. They’re not well wishers or fellow travelers. They’re trying to hijack the movement, and I won’t stand for it.

    Real supporters are always welcome. But rhetoric about how we have to act from people on the outside is not welcome. There are plenty of dissenting queer voices on what we should or shouldn’t do. Some want us to abandon marriage completely because it’s not sexually liberated. But I don’t think I’ve ever hear done of them threaten to vote differently, or drop support because we disagree.

    The trick, I suppose, is distinguishing those who are working inside your tent from those who are standing outside it and making unhelpful comments.

    And that’s what I think I’m doing. If you think I’m missing something, let me know what and where. I see people from the outside saying

    Nobody wants to help angry, bitter, and hateful people achieve their goals, regardless of how much we admire those goals. We just want them to go away and shut the hell up. Your attitude is a total slap in the face to every straight who ever thought gays were getting a rough deal in life; and I can tell you right now that MY gay friends just roll their eyes at folks like you.

    to be unhelpful. I’m glad he later thought better of it, but if my response to his apology was off-base, I’d be curious to know where it was off.

    As a rule, anyone invoking alleged gay friends in criticism of a LGBT voice in a political debate is instantly suspect. If you’ve got gay friends, bring ‘em over. Speaking on their behalf to condemn an LGBT person is presumptuous.

    The other authority I’ll cite on this subject is Miss Manners, who advised teaching children that learning to receive presents pleasantly and graciously means people will want to give you more of them.

    What does Miss Manners have to say about presents with strings attached?

    Anyhow, I think I get what you’re saying in that we do need the honest work of both sides, but it has to be honest. I can talk to people who profess views like Obama’s – they’re for civil unions, but don’t want the word marriage contaminated by icky gayness. People like Rick Warren are smiling villains. I’d work with him on an AIDS initiative, if he was honest about it, but he organize fundraisers to destroy marriages. He’s not disarming. He’s building an arsenal. I could debate someone like him without using profanity, but I keep having people tell me I need to stop using the words “bigot” and “hate” in reference to him and his movement, and then accusing me of bigotry and hate.

    This is the conservative side trying to define terms of the debate in their favor. It’s not an open hand of fellowship.

  25. Scribbler says:

    ffr th pnn tht BB cn d bttr thn gst blggr wh nslts smn nd mk snd cmmnts bt thr sxlty nd ‘m bng rd.

    thr cmmntrs mk snd cmmnts bt my cmmnts nd tll m t STF nd th cmmnts stnd. gss ‘rd’ s n th y f th bhldr, Thrs.

    • Antinous says:

      Scribbler,

      What you’ve done is repeat yourself. Over and over. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were just trying to make certain that nobody could miss your talking points.

  26. Ohhhsnap says:

    #46 @ MINORU

    There are two other people speaking at his inauguration:

    Elizabeth Alexander and Reverend Joseph Lowery.

    Google ‘em.

  27. IWood says:

    #73 posted by iamelectionday:

    I’ve had more men than you’ve had hot dinners!

    But seriously: not everyone conforms to your notion of what an “openly gay person” should think and say.

    The intersection of politics and personal identity continues to produces some odd ideas…

  28. Scribbler says:

    N, jst rspndng t Thrs’s cmmnt, ntns.

  29. whatbryan says:

    How positively intolerant of you.

  30. Tom Hale says:

    Takuan, I get the impression that you don’t like Rick Warren. A month or so ago, you nothing’d him -now it sounds like you hate his guts – I can’t begin to imagine what you must feel for earth’s really, really bad guys.

    Not trying to pick a fight here or anything, just making an observation. Other than about 5 minutes about him on the news and what I’ve read here, I know nothing about the man and have no opinions about him whatsoever.

  31. jstueart says:

    @JERE7MY

    Thanks for the info on the Benediction speaker. Good to know.

    About the racial epithet. Hmmm. I don’t know that I need to go farther than Michael Richards, Don Imus, George Allen, or other charged phrases like a famous politicians who use a rape comment to talk about politics. You see the American people leap in one accord against those people. While Obama held onto Wright for awhile, he eventually distanced himself. I think we wouldn’t be talking about Warren if he had used the n- word or if he had talked about black people going to hell for their choices.

    I think if Warren were held in contempt by a larger part of the population for comments made against a different minority (because racial slurs are universally unacceptable–see Sweden’s and France’s debacle over racial slurs as well), he wouldn’t be giving a prayer.

    However, since I know the ReligRight will be incensed about the Benediction, I feel everyone’s about even in their feelings of being insulted.

  32. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Jere7my, Antinous and I have swapped off. He’s now moderating the thread about the Ukrainian teenagers who recorded their murders. If you like, I can pass on your sentiments to him.

  33. lawyer says:

    Big supporter of Obama, here. We need to tone down the angst over this decision. Obama is doing *excatly* what he promised to do: move us past the tired conversations about sex and reproduction. I don’t agree with many of this guy’s social views, but he has, unlike many other evangelicals, spoken up about poverty, climate change, and other causes that are important to progressives. So finally we get to have a country that’s run by an adult. Yes, we cannot accomplish everything, but this is the right direction. Keep in mind that the religious right is berating Warren for accepting the invitation. That is telling.

  34. Dan Tacos says:

    If it was anyone other than Obama consorting with this guy, I would be more irritated. Maybe I’m too optimistic about Obama’s intelligence and political skills, but I get the feeling he knows exactly what he’s doing here. Obama would have to be stupid not to realize what an ass Warren is, and he’s not stupid. I think by letting Warren air his ill-reasoned, hate-and-fear-based ideas, Obama is giving the more reasonable elements of the public a chance to consider and, I hope, reject those ideas.
    Maybe I’m being too optimistic.

  35. cycle23 says:

    Well… he does have a goatee after all.

  36. buddy66 says:

    Don’t let [BB] descend into another cesspool of leftist vitriol.

    #22, It took Susie Bright for you to come up with that? Go back to lurking; you might slip and fall in.

    A lot of people are closeted not by choice but by circumstance. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to script likely scenarios. My sympathies go out to them. But few of the closeted are given to attacking the desires they hide. It is no longer a good tactic; too many people are hip to the ”protesting too much” smokescreen. Only people with loose screws engage in queer-baiting, especially when they are themselves queer. Such public denouncers are either crazy or using an evasive tactic guaranteed to fool no one but the most ingenuous.

    It is my experience that sexually comfortable people don’t much give a shit about the sexual identities and legal sexual activities of others, outside of the typical human activity of bawdy gossip, which everybody loves (and if you say you don’t, you’re either a liar or a Baptist). That’s why alarms go off when the God-driven get exercised over homosexuality.

    Something about Warren set off Susie Bright’s alarm. I’m sure she is no stranger to the varieties of homophobia, and when she writes on such subjects, I listen. The choice of Rev. Warren for such a sober occasion is, and should be, a fit subject for debate. I am undecided and uncertain about its political wisdom, and since I am a student of politics, however unenlightened I remain, this thread is of great interest to me. The moral wisdom of this bigot’s selection is another matter: it is reprehensible.

    Obama may not even get his 100 days to crash and burn.

  37. Scribbler says:

    Regarding my comments, I make the same suggestion to you, Mintphresh.

    scribbler.
    whining, apparently.

  38. minTphresh says:

    u want cheese with that, scribbie?

  39. jere7my says:

    Hi, Teresa. Thanks for responding. Sounds like y’all have already sorted the issue out behind the scenes.

  40. AirPillo says:

    You know, I swear I’ve heard Obama express respect for at least one president who had a cabinet full of people with views that widely contrasted with his own.

    It’s impossible to really know, but I’m inclined to think that maybe this is what he’s attempting to emulate. Dissenting opinions, intolerant or otherwise, are still a valid source of perspective and an insight into a way of thinking that is not his own.

    I’m being optimistic, however, and I’m aware of the potential naivete of that.

  41. Takuan says:

    let the mountebank mount the stage. Then focus all attention on him, every ear and every eye. All the time. As Susie says, it’s just a matter of time. Make him fall HARD.

  42. edgore says:

    Regarding the “Team of Rivals” argument, it is important to remember that everyone who *really* disagreed with Lincoln had already seceded from the union…

  43. clueless in brooklyn says:

    Liberal atheist Obama supporter here.

    I don’t have any problem with Obama choosing some racist. homophobic christian guy (who represents more than half of this country (yes, white, racist, bigoted…)

    He’s not giving this guy a position in the cabinet. He’s not giving him the power to create policy. He’s giving this guy some press and it will help unite all those crazy religious, deep-down racist pick up truck drivers who represent a vast part of America.

    Let’s not forget that Barack Obama is smarter than me, you, Susie Bright and most other people. He has a plan and a vision that is currently unbreakable.

    You might not be able to make sense of everything Obama is doing because of this vision, but I personally am going to trust it for now and see where everything lands.

    I mean, he’s keeping Gates. A lot of liberals are against that, too, but keep in mind, Gates legacy will include the closing of Gitmo Bay thanks to Obama’s vision.

  44. Takuan says:

    an intelligent, cynical and therefore politically praiseworthy move by Obama. He knows what he is doing. We must all play our roles. I’ll shed no tears for Warren when he gets his, since he is the most implicit in the blood spilled.

  45. Takuan says:

    (more submarine cable breaks, I blame Warren)

  46. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Skarbreeze @19, how are we to supposed to believe that you’re a regular Boing Boing reader, but you can’t abide “flaming personal attacks”? They’re not exactly a staple of Boing Boing’s blogging, but they’re by no means unknown.

    IWood @20, sorry about that. Will it help if I confirm that those really were a couple of sow’s ears you used to make that silk purse?

    Scribbler @22, we do indeed read the comment threads. I’m happy to welcome you to them. The trouble is, you’re being very rude to your fellow guest. It has nothing to do with the rightness or leftness of your opinions; it’s just bad manners.

    I hope you won’t take the loss of some of your vowels personally. The judgement’s on the comment, not the person who wrote it.

  47. minTphresh says:

    well scribbie, at least u r consistent.

  48. RedMonkey says:

    @Lawyer

    Yes, so let’s please not critize the President-elect, because we all know how well that’s worked out in the past.

  49. IshmaeLeaver says:

    Warren said that “Every culture and every religion for the past 5000 years defined marriage as one man and one woman”. This reminds me of the stubborn donkey on Family Guy who insisted that Kevin Bacon wasn’t in Footloose. I mean, we wiped out hundreds of cultures before we even knew what they thought about marriage, and any anthropologist will tell you that 1+1 marriage is relatively rare cross-culturally.

    This guy is a D.U.M.B A.S.S. !

  50. jjasper says:

    Speaking as an Honest To God Queer Person ™ I’m pissed off at the choice. I (not the people who’re nattering on about Ms. Bright’s prose, but aren’t queer) get to choose to be offended or not.

    And I’m disappointed in Obama to. I’m a supporter, and I did vote for him. I’d do it again, because he’s spent time with ‘phobes before, and that didn’t stop me, despite being disappointed then too.

    All of the rest of y’all who aren’t queer? You get to shut up and let us queer folk decide how we, as individuals, and as a movement when it comes to our groups, how we want to respond. You don’t get a vote on who gets to be pissed at Obama or not, and what our reactions were, understand?

    You. Are. Not. Us.

    You are not queer, you’ll never get what it’s like to be queer, you’re not the one living in our world day to day, and you don’t get to decide what we get pissed off about and how we express it.

    To fellow liberal straight people who’re getting cranky at us spoiling your perfect parade, I have the same response. Feel free to threaten to take your marbles and go away. We’re used to it. We don’t shut up on command.

  51. prom77 says:

    As a liberal evangelical, I used to hold a tentative amount of respect for Warren. I was worried about his “mega-church” (those things scare me), I was unimpressed by The Purpose Driven Life, but I still held out hope for him.

    Speaking as one inside the Christian community, there are a lot of progressive evangelicals behind-the-scenes, but we have few public role models to look up to. Warren was always teetering on the edge of fitting that bill, but his Prop 8 nonsense lost him my respect (not that he’s likely to miss it). Messing around in politics has never worked out for the cause of Christ, IMO.

    Anyway, enough griping for me.

    I would have picked Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo, but I’m not Obama.

  52. nigelfootpowder says:

    @ Iamelectionday

    I can’t see anything in your post that I disagree with. One small question- I’m a little unclear on what you mean when you say “Civil rights isn’t a political issue”. I take that to mean that there’s not a good argument to be had about whether or not everyone is entitled to the same rights as everyone else, and I agree with that. But if there is a discrepancy in the society, politics is how we have to address it. We address it by changing people’s attitudes, and we can’t change their attitudes when we are calling them a bigot. It’s not to say that we shouldn’t defend ourselves, but when we have the opportunity to show grace, we should do it- not to give way to someone else, but because when we show grace, the other person must also show grace, because in failing to do so they are diminished in the eyes of society. And this is especially powerful when you are dealing with one who espouses a religion of love.
    I think Warren might have a more nuanced world view than we give him credit for- he has said that he supports civil unions incidentally, and has also said that he believes divorce is more harmful than gay marriage, but I’ll agree with you if you wonder why he’s not calling for divorce to be outlawed- maybe if there were a bill pending, he’d give it the same support as he did prop 8.

    And as far as “finding an evangelical niche and running with it” with environmentalism, isn’t that what we hope for? He has found a way to show others that environmentalism is not incompatible with evangelical christianity, and that in fact it is essential to it. Hopefully he and others can come to a similar conclusion about homophobia(ie that homophobia is incompatible with their religion).

  53. Teller says:

    #112: Very passionate, honest and heartfelt statement, bt, t m, fts, nfntl pstn.

  54. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Oh, look — Scribbler is complaining about censorship, when his entire agenda here has consisted of trying to get us to suppress Susie Bright’s writing, and to make Boing Boing conform to his preferred political positions.

    I point my finger, I laugh a lot.

  55. noen says:

    Teresa, that’s messed up… and you have no idea why, do you?

  56. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    WhatBryan, do you want to expand on that?

  57. skarbreeze says:

    I must say I’m unimpressed by Susie’s commentary. I agree it’s an odd move for Obama to make, and it surely offends some of his supporters, but this post was unwarranted. Ss sn’t wht ‘d cll wrthwhl ddtn t th gst blggng stff. Sty clssy BngBng.

  58. grimc says:

    What’s particularly offensive about this post is that you’re looking at Rick Warren as the enemy, and labeling him a homophobe and bad guy, without really knowing anything about him prior to when his church hosted the presidential candidates’ forum.

    Aren’t you doing what you decry by assuming Susie doesn’t know anything about Warren?

    Personally, I’ve known about Warren long before the forum. I first heard about “A Purpose Driven Life” years ago, and laughed when he was enjoying all that good press after that hostage incident. Remember? The one where a meth addict took a woman hostage in her apartment, but supposedly gave up because she read him passages from the book.

    ‘Course, it often goes without mentioning that she also gave him some of her own meth stash while she was regaling him with Warren’s blathering.

  59. Takuan says:

    maybe Obama wants Warren because he knows what Warren really is. Maybe in a year from now, when some fundie tries to lean on Obama in puffed up righteousness and demand that yet another atrocity be committed in the name of jeebus, Obama will be able to hand him a newspaper clipping of Warren’s trial and walk away.

  60. FoetusNail says:

    15 billion dollar abstinence only program, 200 million to Uganda, that’s good livin’.

  61. Another Aaron says:

    H*ll, I’m an Obama supporter….I don’t expect to agree with all his choices, he isn’t my twin…but d*mn if this doesn’t turn my stomach.

    And yes, it’s just my opinion, but yall are being too optimistic. Obama isn’t pulling a Lex Luthor here…..there’s no grandiose master plan. He’s just being a moron.

  62. Takuan says:

    (minT, the time has come. Your country calls upon you in its hour of need. It has to be you since you are still young and cute and besides, only you fit the harness since I put on all that weight. I’ll run the camera. Rick is bound to come back to the club again sooner or later.)

  63. Scribbler says:

    (ywns)

  64. brucethehoon says:

    I’m disappointed both with the GB and many of the comments in this post.

    How many posts talk about the “half of America” that are “truck driving bigots”? At what level do you find yourself in a position to make these derogatory comments? Half of America can think that homosexuality is a sin, and it’s a completely invalid, incorrect and abominable position, yet the more liberal half can make grossly blanket comments about intelligence and breeding with impunity?

    Forgetting about any racial divide that exists in this country, is it any question why the “right wing wackos” are distrustful of the “bleeding heart liberals” around the place? There is fault to be found on both sides of this.

    The bible teaches people to turn the other cheek and that you should PRAY for your enemies. Many (MOST) people on the right are not doing this.

    Liberal “theology” says that we need to be tolerant of EVERY lifestyle. Except 50% of America that believes in God. When commentary is made by someone who finds it easier to accept bestiality (see how I made an uninformed blanket comment there?) than Christianity, I am not surprised by anything I read.

    I’m guessing that most people who follow Rick Warren are not truck driving bigots. I’m pretty sure that saying that someone who has advocated (and threatened) the destruction of an entire nation and all of it’s people should be “taken out” is not a uniquely TRUCK DRIVING BIGOT habit. Poor form, Susie.

  65. Marsha Keeffer says:

    I’m with Jjasper – bulls-eye on that comment. Interesting that I mentioned my feelings about Warren yesterday on Twitter and immediately lost 50 followers.

  66. assumetehposition says:

    Maybe Obama should have chosen the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to deliver the invocation. I’d like to have seen that.

  67. noen says:

    I really don’t care about Rick Warren much but he is a good choice. If you really want to change the national dialog on these hot button issues then you work with what you have. Rick Warren is the most liberal evangelical around. He has a lot of influence even outside his immediate circle so if you want change, if you want movement towards a more accepting society and away from the extremism of the right he is a good choice.

    You change people by working with them, by engaging them honestly and compassionately or did people learn nothing from the Obama champaign?

    “Let’s not forget that Barack Obama is smarter than me, you, Susie Bright and most other people.”

    Obama’s IQ is what? 136? 147? I think I read that somewhere. yawwwwwwnnn… mine is 130, I remain underwhelmed. Where Obama does impress is his ability to navigate the political minefield. His campaign was just brilliant and a textbook example of cognitive behavioral theory applied to the political arena. THAT shit impresses the hell out of me.

    It is absolutely necessary that Obamam have someone like Warren on his side if he wants to have a realistic chance of achieving his goals for his first term. It’s a good politically pragmatic choice.

  68. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Geektronica @45, are you having a grumpy day?

    Shadowganger @47, it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn’t say all acts and occasions of government are obliged to pretend religion doesn’t exist. Besides, leaving out the invocation and benediction would be a loud pointless signal on a battlefield where Obama has no plans to fight.

    NigelFootPowder @54, your comments would have much more clarity and force if they had paragraph breaks.

    Lego7 @55, please show more respect for your fellow commenters.

    Maturin @58, I know you’re a better writer than that. Please try it again, only this time explain why.

  69. lawyer says:

    Redmonkey,

    There is a difference between blind faith and my support for this decision. If you want to move the masses on climate change and poverty, you can’t just have Al Gore and Bono running around asking for money and votes. You need Rick Warren asking for money and votes on behalf of baby Jesus. Building coalitions means inviting people who don’t follow the party line on everything you believe in. Obama understands this. And that’s why I voted for him. This is part of the hard medicine that’s going to get us back on track. You can harrumph from the sidelines, but Obama’s has a plan, here.

  70. arkizzle says:

    Is this not the beginning of “sitting down with our adversaries”?

  71. Machineintheghost says:

    Homer Simpson wears a pink shirt to work . . .

    Burns: Why is that man in pink?

    Smithers: Oh, that’s Homer Simpson, sir. He’s one of your boobs from Sector 7-G.

    Burns: Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he’s some sort of free-thinking anarchist.

  72. Geektronica says:

    Found this elsewhere, and it’s a little more to the point than what I said above:

    “If you followed the internal politics of evangelical and fundamentalist leaders, you’d see this for what it is — not an elevation of Warren, but a slap in the face of the old guard leaders like Dobson and LaHaye. They’ve been fighting to see who gets to be the spokesman for the movement, and lately it’s been a tie. Obama just broke it.

    And let’s be clear, there is a difference between those groups. Warren may not be progressive on gay rights, but he’s been out front on a number of issues of global justice—traveling from Davos to Damascus, and working hard to get rank-and-file evangelicals invested in “creation care” environmentalism and the fight against global HIV/AIDS.”

    In other words, Obama is reaching out to evangelicals, and he picked one of the least odious figureheads possible to do so.

  73. AirPillo says:

    What’s with all the dumping on the guest blogger(s)?

    If you want to reply to what she has to say, and disagree with it, that’s peachy!

    But it’s mean-spirited to just imply that she somehow lacks the necessary quality or somesuch to be a guest blogger here. Debate the opinion, not the person.

  74. Anonymous says:

    This tiny screenshot makes it look like he’s appearing on Jeopardy.

  75. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Clueless in Brooklyn @60: Send me a note telling me which corner you’re on and where you want to go, and I’ll send you an annotated map.

  76. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    MichaelKelvin @164: I’m sorry, but your attempt to claim extra privileges for yourself by arbitrarily labeling as “extreme” the opinions of our esteemed guest blogger is hereby denied.

  77. Tensegrity says:

    I thought this post was damn witty. “Paging Jeff Gannon!” Classic.

  78. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    By the way, I have a question for this thread: where are all the abject apologies from everyone who called Antinous a brainwashed Obama supporter when he moderated their comments? We should have been seeing quite a few of those.

    You know who you are. I keep lists, so I do too. You’ve lost major points on this one. There may even be public finger-pointing and scoffing if you ever call someone else a hypocrite.

    This has been a public service announcement.

  79. IWood says:

    #1 posted by bat21:

    You see the POLITICS tag up there? Not exactly a new thing, you know.

    And Stan…I totally get what you’re saying, but there’s lots of free ice cream on the web. Plenty of flavors for everyone.

    That said, I try to give maximum credit to folks whose positions I oppose because it makes my eventual devastation of their positions that much more effective. :-D That means I try my best to avoid ad hominem altogether. Susie doesn’t, and never has. But she’s not engaged in dialectic, she’s engaged in rhetoric. Different rules, different goals. Some find it persuasive or simply entertaining, and some don’t.

    I, for one, take note the interesting prevalence of the protest-too-much syndrome among a certain echelon of the religious right. However, that doesn’t mean that the legions of Americans for whom Warren claims to speak are all closeted. Attacking him doesn’t do much to sway them, and, as this is purportedly a representative Republic, persuasion ought to be the goal. You can’t persuade people who are convinced you hate them. That’s why Warren utterly fails to convince those who disagree with him.

    And that’s why Obama’s putting him on the podium. It’s high-minded, and I think it’s the wrong thing to do. It is, however, the politically practical thing to do, and it’s why I never bought into the Obama hype. He’s a politician, and I think he’ll be an effective President, which means he’ll be an excellent sausage maker.

  80. FoetusNail says:

    Scribbler, please trust, as I do , that Mark, Cory, David, Xeni, and John are not going to allow someone to share this space who would make that statement and mean it in any other way than my interpretation. I doubt you will ever find a more progressive feminist than Susie Bright. I also doubt you will find many people more sensitive than Susie to the issues facing GLBT’s.

    In other words, any time you read a statement concerning gay sex or GBLT issues on this site and you feel it to be offensive, rude , derogatory, or insensitive have another read. Antinous is rather outspoken on this subject, so if you’re unsure wait and see if he finds it offensive, Teresa and he are fairly trustworthy barometers. If you are still unsure post a comment asking Antinous if he feels as you do about a particular statement.

    P.S. Warren is a homophobic bigot. He should wear the title proudly, he earned it fair and square. If you have read these comments you will find we find his type infinitely more offensive than Susie Bright. Sorry, but that’s how it is around here. Hey, don’t worry she’ll be gone soon enough. Maybe then the shoe will be on the other foot ;)

  81. Takuan says:

    is she heavier than a duck?

    Let’s load up the scales: on one side, all the dead and bleeding from largely religion-driven gay-bashing. In the other pan: all those bruised sensibilities caused by people refusing to conform to someone else’s idea of who they must be.

    Tricky call, better toss her in the pond.

  82. kateblack says:

    Yyyyeah. The consensus around our place is that between his overt fixation on the evils of queerdom + his tidy little facial hair configuration, he’s a mean ol’ grumpy closet case.

    I’m waiting for a foot-tapping public bathroom scandal.

  83. skarbreeze says:

    “Debate the opinion, not the person.”

    Susie is entitled to her opinion. Some things shouldn’t be dignified with a response – and just as I don’t come here to surf porn, find cracks for video games or look up telephone numbers, I don’t come here to read flaming personal attacks. I am interested in informed commentary, and I know that Mark, Xeni and David, Cory and John all deliver that – even when I don’t agree with it all. This isn’t consistent with my expectations, and I think it’s worth taking the time to say so here.

  84. nigelfootpowder says:

    I think we make a mistake when we say “What this person has said does not make sense to me, therefore they are a corrupt bigot who is stupid”. From a rigidly fundamentalist perspective, something like evolution and gay marriage goes against “common sense”, therefore, in their minds, we who accept it are corrupt and stupid. What we ask of them is to open their minds and ask, “What if I assume the person on the other side isn’t stupid, isn’t corrupt, is a decent person like myself- how can I make sense of what that person believes?” If we ask that of the person on the other side, it’s fair to ask it of ourselves. To me it’s silly to tell someone they can’t marry the person they love, and it’s offensive to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, incest, beastiality. None of these things make sense to me- but sometimes otherwise sensible people say these things, and how can I make sense of that? We’ve all said things clumsily, we’ve all said things that could be interpreted as racist, or homophobic, or otherwise bigoted. And we were probably, at the time, getting at something else when we said those things. In Warren’s case, there is a tradition he comes out of, as did Billy Graham, and he is (I think, genuinely) attempting to reconcile a very intolerant tradition with a message of love and acceptance- it’s been mentioned elsewhere that he reverse tithes (giving 90% of his income away- income that comes from his books, not from the church), and he is involved with climate change, aids relief, and fighting poverty. His theology is perhaps not as intellectually rigorous as others, but he seems to practice a living religion, that is capable of change. We might think about our own intellectual growth- our opinions and thoughts have all changed through the years, and will continue to change, we might recall positions that we took years ago, that we are now embarrassed by, and in years to come we will be embarrassed by things we say now. We should recognize that others are on the same journey, and while we hold our principles, we might try to understand how other people aren’t there yet, and how, by reaching out to them, rather than condemning them, we might help each other.

  85. freetardzero says:

    Speaking only as an individual who has abandoned his Evangelical background (though not his faith) precisely because of the evils perpetuated by the religeous Right, I will say that although Rick Warren gives me the heebie jeebies, he is definitely moving ‘mainstream Christianity’ slowly more leftward (read: Libertarian). I’m sure he’s still very much a ‘hoo-rah salute the flag wage war on the evildoers of the world’ kind of guy; yet he does encourage people to think about other important issues such as the environment and AIDS and poverty (as others here have pointed out). This sets him apart significantly from the rest of the crowd in the RR. He’s nowhere near the stance of the Emergent Church movement, but it’s still an improvement for a faith that is very slow to accept new ideas (especially when it has its claws so deeply embedded in the political machine of a nation). See: Galileo, et al.

    As for his being a good or bad choice for this tradition, I agree that Obama could have done a lot worse (from a libertarian point of view). As for those who say Warren’s ‘controversial’: he’s not, really, except among radicals on both sides (I speak of the James Dobsons and the Susie Brights here). For anyone wishing a moderate future and a more balanced approach to the interaction of religion and politics in America, Warren is an ideal candidate. So far. If he, like Susie implies, crashes in a pile of burning megachurch wreckage due to a moral misfire, then of course, his involvement will become controversial- except that having already been and gone, it will really be a non-issue. And there’s no guarantee that he will ever fall like others in the megachurch environment have: look at Billy Graham, whose controversies, while they exist, are pretty minor compared with some of the other mega-evangelists out there. It is reasonable to assume a possibility that Rick Warren really is a good guy without a closet full of skeletons (or boy-toys); a less cynical viewer than Ms. Bright would say that its our duty to give people the benefit of the doubt, no matter what we feel about their beliefs.

    What some of the readers here may not be aware of, is that an increasing number of Christians are becoming vocally opposed to the status quo, and are working for serious change in Christendom. We don’t all think that gays should be prohibited from marrying; we don’t all think that it’s right to wage war against nations who don’t share your religious or societal convictions; and we don’t all think that the Free Market Economy is God’s Way. We’ve got a long way to go (especially in the States, where thank God I *don’t* live!), but we’re working on it. America is pretty fucked up in terms of its politicians bedding down with Evangelicals, and it’s going to take a long time for that to change- after all, the founders of the Nation were Puritans, right? That’s blood that runs deep, I’m afraid. It’s entirely possible that there can never BE the change we’d like to see, without a) violent revolution (aka “the War of Independence”), or b) cesession (which could also include the first option). I am an advocate of neither of those options, but it obviously meant enough to the founders of your country to opt for both.

    All that aside, I personally feel that Obama could have chosen worse, so I can give him a bit of grace in that regard. I’d have preferred to see a Mennonite there instead (given their stance on war), but *that’s* not likely to ever happen!

    Oh, and JJASPER, you’re just an idiot. People like you set any movement back decades, just because you piss everyone off. Nobody wants to help angry, bitter, and hateful people achieve their goals, regardless of how much we admire those goals. We just want them to go away and shut the hell up. Your attitude is a total slap in the face to every straight who ever thought gays were getting a rough deal in life; and I can tell you right now that MY gay friends just roll their eyes at folks like you. To perhaps make it a bit more clear, you are to the GLBT movement what all the Pat Robertsons and Rick Warrens are to Christianity. Yeah, I’m so sorry I will never understand what it means to be gay. I will also never understand what it means to be starving, or have AIDS, or see my family murdered in front of my eyes; yet that won’t stop me one bit from trying to end the evils that cause those injustices. Get over yourself.

  86. IWood says:

    Damn it, Teresa, you deleted both of my references!

    Or maybe the medication is wearing off.

  87. lego7 says:

    It seems the most vocal critics of this decision are practicing the same type of “We don’t like you, so you can’t sit at our cool table” school-lunchroom politics they often decry the far right of doing.

    What about inclusion? If your “enemies” can’t practice it, does that mean you should stoop to their level?

  88. Takuan says:

    why does it always return to this? The westboro thread, now here, just what the hell is it?

  89. Takuan says:

    I find Susie’s post very informed and appropriate commentary. I find skarbreeze’s rather a flaming personal attack.

  90. clueless in brooklyn says:

    ACROCKER-

    But I can prove the existence of Barack Obama. I can’t with God.

    And I am not jumping of Obama cliff.

    And I’m not comparing IQ scores and cock sizes here.

    I’m just saying that I believe in him more than other politicians, Lawyer-guy, Susie Bright, myself and now you.

    It’s not about faith, it’s about an educated guess.

  91. Slicklines says:

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss…

    Time to pick up your guitar and pray. If Obama did this for political reasons — which some here seem to be defending, then he is pretty much like the guy we just kicked out. Remember? Politics over any sort of spine to do the right thing? Sounds like more of the same to me.

  92. grimc says:

    Rick Warren is the most liberal evangelical around.

    *cough* Jimmy Carter *cough* Jim Wallis *cough*

    In fact, I think Carter is a pastor in his own right. Now that would’ve been a smart choice.

  93. sasuke says:

    He’s another Ted Haggard. Just doesn’t know when to shut up

  94. maturin says:

    thnk ths s shmfl pst.

  95. mightymouse1584 says:

    Is the name calling in this post intended to be ironic?

  96. leonjacobs says:

    Some of my best friends are fundamentalists.

  97. Scribbler says:

    If Boing Boing bothers to check the comments section, I hope they’ll take note of this post. I’ve been following this site daily for years, and this is my first comment.

    Pls rcnsdr S.Brght s gst blggr. ‘v fnd nt n f hr pst ntrtnng r nfrmtv. thy’v mr ftn bn ffnsv nd dvsv. BB s n f th bst sts nln. Dn’t lt t dscnd nt nthr csspl f lftst vtrl. gd nmbr f yr rdrs ln rght, vn f BB dsn’t y rsk lsng gd nmbr f s f ths s th drctn yr st s gng.

    Starting gay rumors about the guy who does the invocation. Sweet Raisin Danish, this is pathetic.

  98. Scribbler says:

    Thanks for the response, Theresa, though it took me a few minutes to figure out ‘disenvoweling’. Nonetheless, I reiterate my opinion. I have no qualms against opinions different then my own; Wht dslk s th rdnss nd vtrl n Ss’s pst. I click onto BB a few times a day because I like the tech posts, the art posts, and the nostalgia posts. BB is one of the best sites out there. ‘m skng stff nt t lt nw gst blggr trn t nt nthr Wnktt r smthng.
    Mkng snd ccstns bt pstrs sxlty s, n my pnn, lwrng th stndrd fr ths st.

    • Antinous says:

      Scribbler,

      The point of guest bloggers is to bring some new perspectives into the mix. Guests bloggers are invited because some of the Boingers find them interesting and want to give our readers the opportunity to check out something that they might not have discovered on their own.

      Ms. Bright’s post is practically Victorian in its manners by normal internet standards, so I really don’t get the accusations of rudeness and vitriol. She’s pissed off and she expresses it with calm humor.

  99. clueless in brooklyn says:

    I’m so clueless!

  100. lego7 says:

    @86: My comments were directed at this debate everywhere, almost entirely outside this forum.

    I didn’t think they were disrespectful, but having said that, I will only give my fellow commentators as much respect as I wish, and I expect they will do the same.

  101. Takuan says:

    can a fundamentalist actually have friends? Aren’t all the people in their lives just there to play roles in their little pageant or serve some purpose?

  102. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Freetardzero @139, I really liked your comment until the last paragraph. JJasper is a regular commenter here, and a very sensible guy. I think those of us who don’t suffer the mistreatment our society regularly dishes out to gays can endure hearing about his anger and alienation when he feels like he-and-his are once again getting backhanded and dismissed.

    Being oppressed doesn’t turn people into saints. We can’t make our support contingent on them always behaving as though they were.

  103. Anonymous says:

    I think it’s cool that Rick Warren is legitimizing and supporting Obama’s views by accepting the President-elect’s invitation to “join us.”

    “I’m not locked in here with all of you; you’re all locked in here with me!”

  104. mightymouse1584 says:

    You know, i like Obama’s invitation here. He can maintain a progressive point of view without censoring those who disagree with him. good for him.

  105. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Takuan, fundies have friends. They have mommies, too.

  106. jjasper says:

    freetardzero – Apology accepted. If you read closely, I wasn’t saying your support was worthless, I was saying that straight people don’t get to decide how the queer community ought to react.

    And now for the lecture on what you did wrong. I don’t mean this with any hard feelings, but you need to hear it.

    ———————————————-

    As a rule, if you’re interested in social justice, threatening to take you marbles and go home if you bump into a minority person who’s really pissed off is bad practice, because you will always run into pissed off people. If you can’t take it, your commitment to social justice is not real. It’s something you tell yourself to make yourself feel better.

    A real commitment to social justice means knowing that when you’re a member of a majority group, minority groups will be pissed off at your group, and probably complain loudly about it. Showing some humility and trying to address the cause of the pain is an adult thing to do. But if your support is conditional on queer people acting according to some script you’ve written up, then yes, your support is not welcome because it’s not real. I don’t want fake support.

    Do you understand why? It’s not that you’re unwelcome because you’re straight. It’s because straight people don’t get a vote in how the movement works, even if they’re supportive. You’re welcome, as long as you can understand that you’re not one of the voices that gets to direct the movement, or tell it’s members how to act.

    LGBT people are welcome to tell me if my actions are hurting the cause. Because they’re the reason for the movement, and I’ll listen to them. I may not agree, but I’ll listen.

    Susie Bright has been a part of the movement for a a long time. I don’t always agree with her, but she’s always been there for the community. Hell, Andrew Sullivan is a part too, and god GOD that man annoys me. He’s racist. But he’s also a part of the community. I can’t remove him any more than I can un-Jewish Jewish people who I don’t agree with. And they don’t get to remove me either.

  107. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Melonbread @72, how long have you been hanging out in Boing Boing’s comment threads?

    IAmElectionDay @73, go to Antinous’ user profile page and start reading.

    Jere7my @81, would you believe me if I told you we just like making it hard to figure out which one’s the good cop?

    Noen @85:

    Teresa, that’s messed up… and you have no idea why, do you?

    Noen, how kind you are to bring back nostalgic memories of my childhood during this blessed holiday season!

    Now: what, exactly, are you referring to?

    Geektronica @87: That’s an interesting take on things. Warren’s not untalented, and he’s been angling for Billy Graham’s old role as the presentable guy with a foot in both camps. I’ll agree that this rewards Warren for the reasonable part of his stance. I’m not sure it makes him the spokesman for Evangelism, though; it seems to me more likely to make the old guard mistrust him. A split’s a good spot for a wedge.

    Tensegrity, it’s a good thing I only appear as text, because I’ve never been good at keeping a straight face.

  108. Anonymous says:

    “Aside from whether or not you think it’s an insult to entertain a notorious bigot at the television event of the year…” Rick Warren is the halftime show at the Superbowl?

  109. Takuan says:

    any news on Warren yet? I’ll be checking every day.

  110. franko says:

    @ #1 — yes, you got that right. i am proudly intolerant of homophobic bigots.

  111. Scribbler says:

    Antonius, She wonders why this ‘notorious bigot’ hasn’t been caught in a gay act yet and you’re not seeing the rudeness?
    I’m always interested in hearing new perspectives myself, but vitriol like this is not why I come to BB. I see I’m not the only one, either.

    • Antinous says:

      Scribbler,

      He is a notorious bigot. Perhaps you’re trying to protect him because you agree with his notorious bigotry. Otherwise, I don’t get what you’re angling for. And, yes, notorious anti-gay bigots rather frequently get caught with gay hookers.

  112. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    MightyMouse1584, I think it varies from one instance to another. What did you have in mind?

    Lego7 @95: Ah, that makes it much clearer. Thank you. I honestly couldn’t tell. My apologies for doubting you.

  113. clueless in brooklyn says:

    Calling out people you don’t know and calling them closeted homosexuals with little grounds or proof is homophobic.

    It’s juvenile and the underlying idea when this is said, is used as an insult.

  114. Another Aaron says:

    Just a note : I always find it interesting when folks take “being in the closet” to be an insult. So, someone is gay but isn’t socially ready to tell the world about it, or potentially hasn’t come to terms with it themselves……if you consider such an accusation to be deeply insulting, it sounds likely to me that you find the thought of being gay insulting.

    It’s kinda tipping your hand.

    On a separate note : There’s a reason folks often suggest “homophobe” or that someone is in a closet…..often, folks who are confused over their sexual feelings ARE the ones “protesting too much.”

    H*ll, it’s anecdotal, but I happen to know that the biggest “anti-gay marriage” fellow I know has had sexual experiences with other men (he doesn’t realize anyone else knows about them)….when other folks get all hot and bothered about what other people do in the bedroom, it’s legitimate to wonder WHY they seem so interested in it…

    Oh, and if Susie Bright’s posts are the first ones you’ve noticed leaning left, well, I’m kinda at a loss on how to answer that.

  115. Takuan says:

    I couldn’t be friends with someone who might kill me for an abstract idea. Isn’t the ultimate test of fundie faith the willingness to sacrifice your own mother?

  116. grimc says:

    He’s giving this guy some press and it will help unite all those crazy religious, deep-down racist pick up truck drivers who represent a vast part of America.

    As if Warren needed help getting press. And you can’t seriously think this choice is going to do anything to move fundamentalist right wingers to the left.

    It’s a slap in the face to one of Obama’s constituencies, and from Donnie “I was cured of teh gay by God” McClurkin headlining a fundraiser, through Obama’s tepid statement against Prop 8, and now this–the LGBT community can pretty much write off any change that they were expecting.

  117. lawyer says:

    I agree that this post is below BB. I like how BB leans left on many things, such as green technology and slow food. The joy of these posts for me, a very political liberal beast, is that they serve as a sort of “soft power” for liberal causes for an audience of intellectually curious readers – they advance progressive issues without drawing lines in the sand or alienating readers. But this post is not subtle or effective. It’s more suitable as a humor piece for a site like Wonkette (although I don’t think it would make it onto the page).

  118. ablestmage says:

    I tend to avoid calling anyone a bigot for fear of committing the identical crime in the very accusation. Other fellow bloggers seem to have the shoe primed and ready for the mouth.

  119. FoetusNail says:

    Scribbler, no one is saying being caught in a gay act is a bad thing. What she is saying is anyone who makes it their life’s work to suppress something is often caught doing what they outwardly try to suppress. So, getting caught in a gay act is unimportant, unless you are a notorious anti-gay bigot. Getting caught with a hooker of either sex or orientation is not newsworthy unless you have devoted your public life to fighting prostitution. I’m sure you remember Eliot Spitzer.

  120. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    My very favorite version of “Hallelujah.” Thank you, Takuan.

    Teller, Freetardzero, well said.

    Freetardzero, I believe the only sacrificed mom in the Bible was Hagar, and it was a temporary thing, aside from whatever long-term feelings she had about the arrangement.

    Scribbler, not well said. I’m sorry to see that you don’t put any value on moderation via suggestions and explanations. We’re out of patience with you.

    JJasper @160, I understand your sentiments, but I don’t completely agree with them. Homophobia is like sexism: it hits with about two hundred times more severity on one side than on the other, but both sides suffer, both would be better off without it, and neither side can unravel the knot of it without the other’s engaged cooperation.

    Also, the more effective and successful any political mass movement becomes, the more heterogenous it will be, and the more its aims and requirements and informing logic will be understood by people who are unlike its founders. Toward the end of the Obama campaign, we were seeing photos of people with Obama campaign signs next to the Confederate flags out front of their houses. If you can’t accept your well-wishers and fellow-travelers, you can’t accept success.

    The trick, I suppose, is distinguishing those who are working inside your tent from those who are standing outside it and making unhelpful comments. Have you ever read Frederick Douglass on the subject of John Brown? Douglass could, with more reason than most of us, have insisted that only his people could understand his people’s struggle, or have anything to say about it; yet he accepted allies where they turned up, and he had considerable respect for that crazy old white man from Kansas — whose zeal in the cause of his people’s struggle, Douglass said, was greater than his own.

    The other authority I’ll cite on this subject is Miss Manners, who advised teaching children that learning to receive presents pleasantly and graciously means people will want to give you more of them.

  121. bat21 says:

    Who in the hell deleted my post?

  122. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Bat21 @100, that would be me, unless Antinous or Avram got to it first. What name did you use on it?

    Sceadugenga @102, HollywoodBob @119, Richspk @122, Capissen @127: It’s good to remember, and to mention where people will see it, that the prayers are a relatively recent addition to the ceremony. While we’re at it, “In God We Trust” only got added to our iconography in the 1950s, supposedly to establish that we were fighting the Godless Commies. Your average 19th C. politician would be amazed by the amount of religiosity that’s been dragged into secular civic affairs. The idea that “America was founded as a Christian nation” is pure hogwash — the Founding Fathers could hardly have made it clearer that it’s a secular state.

    I don’t think we can know what Obama really thinks about having prayers at inauguration ceremonies. If he didn’t have quite so many other fights on his hands, we might judge that it’s a choice. Under the circumstances, I don’t think we can. What we can do is be disappointed at his choice.

    Scribbler, I think this word “vitriolic” doesn’t mean what you think it does. I also think you can’t have read much of Daily Kos if you think they merit that label.

    The Boingers were undoubtedly familiar with Susie Bright’s writing and opinions when they invited her to be a guest blogger.

    Would you, while attending a gathering at someone’s home, sit within earshot of an honored guest while repeatedly telling your host that that guest ought not have been invited? It would be shockingly bad manners, yet that’s what you’ve done here. You ought not have done it, and must not continue doing it.

    @132: I’d advise against trading shots with MinTphresh, since you’re almost guaranteed to run out of patience and good spirits before he does. All the days of the afflicted are evil: but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast.

    Teller @135, you might conceivably get away with using those words in a longer and more discursive comment. All by themselves, no.

  123. Takuan says:

    bigods, the fundie turf’s a veritable jungle in here. Just as well, they show the murderous hatred and ignorance that is behind Warren and his ilk.

  124. FoetusNail says:

    When we learn that we are all the same, that 80% of us are fighting over 20% of the pie, then we will all start to get what we need. Only then will all people be treated equally and justice finally served. We divide ourselves for those that would exploit us. Until we are united and indivisible, there will never be Liberty and Justice for all. If any among us are denied their rights then we are all at risk.

  125. FoetusNail says:

    When we add that up, let’s make sure everyone remembers millions of dead in Africa because the Church opposes contraception, meaning condoms. There was a choice to be made around 20 years ago and the Church chose abstinence instead of protection. Millions have died because of those self-righteous fools.

  126. noen says:

    The only real fundamentalists in America are the Amish.

    “Nobody wants to help angry, bitter, and hateful people achieve their goals, regardless of how much we admire those goals.”

    Very good. I’d put that in my sig if we had those. The reason the extremists on the left and the right hate each other so much is they see themselves in each other eyes.

  127. acrocker says:

    #7. Liberal atheist here as well, and I’ve got to say your comment made me chuckle:

    “Let’s not forget that Barack Obama is smarter than me, you, Susie Bright and most other people. He has a plan and a vision that is currently unbreakable.

    You might not be able to make sense of everything Obama is doing because of this vision, but I personally am going to trust it for now and see where everything lands.”

    Now replace “Obama” with “God”. …yeah.

  128. jjasper says:

    skarbreeze – Are you posting as Skar over at Scalzi’s blog? If so, hi.

    If you assume that Warren is speaking and acting in faith, rather than malice (and self-interest), there is nothing charlatanic about him. That is my opinion, and you have yours.

    It’s the lying and saying that civil unions are going to force pastors to marry same sex couples that’s the work of a charlatan. This is a scare tactic. It’s been pointed out all over that it’s a scare tactic based on likes, but Warren goes with it.

    It’s also the gay = pedophile, and gay = incest scare tactics. That’s pure Anita Bryant tactics.

    I say he’s a charlatan.

  129. clueless in brooklyn says:

    Lawyer,

    You could say that any blog that has serious praise for scientific process and understanding to be left-leaning.

  130. Takuan says:

    I could get along with the Amish – if I didn’t have to live among them. I also expect they wouldn’t have any problem with me leaving.

  131. mightymouse1584 says:

    Teresa. ablestmage sums up my views pretty well.

    to elaborate a little more, i don’t really like what these “pastors” go out and “preach” but it seems to me that calling them notorious bigots and calling for their demise only makes the more accepting point of view look somewhat ironically stand-offish. Cant we let them say something stupid then tear it apart after the fact? it worked just fine for the University of Columbia with the president of Iran.

  132. Sceadugenga says:

    I’m not objecting that having a witch-doctor or rabbi or priest etc. speaking at the inauguration is illegal or unconstitutional – however close it may resemble official prayer in schools, which certainly is.

    I’m just bemoaning the fact that one of the serious questions asked in the USA is, Which holy man or woman should be invited to speak on the country’s behalf to the all-powerful god of Abraham?

    I don’t pretend that religion does not exist; but traditions like this implicitly send a message, “America is for the religious”. I know Obama is politically if not personally obligated to send that message – he can’t do otherwise – and that is precisely the state of affairs I object to.

  133. Clumpy says:

    Sceadugenga, I’m sure freedom of religion allows a President-Elect to choose anybody they’d like to speak at their inauguration, including a religious figure. In fact, I’m certain that right is protected.

    After all, it hardly has anything to do with Congress enacting a law establishing a national religion. It seems that misinterpreting the establishment clause as some sort of legally-enforced secularism is as much a tradition as asking pastors to speak at inaugurations.

  134. ianm says:

    See Rick Warren talk.
    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/rick_warren_on_a_life_of_purpose.html

    See Daniel Dennett talk.
    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html

    See Rick Warren have his ass handed to him by Daniel Dennett (in the most polite and gracious way you could ever think possible).

    Warren, when not being offensive, is too effusive, inane and just outstandingly thoughtless and vapid to be of any consideration. Why not have Dan Dennet give the invocation at the inauguration? He is clearly the greater man.

    (Seriously though, watch these talks (well, at least 3 minutes of the Warren, its hard to tolerate more than that of his mindless dross) but the Dennett is so sublime and masterful in its total destruction in the most kindhearted and respectful way – it is a lesson for all who wish to simultaneously destroy and attract the followers of people like Warren.)

  135. Antinous says:

    Hey, let’s use the Aryan Brotherhood to do security for our next Gay Pride march! I mean, we’re trying to create unity, right?

    I loathe Obama. I have always loathed Obama. I will probably always loathe Obama. He is a vile, two-faced poseur. He talks about equality out of one side of his mouth and undermines it with the other. Can we find a candidate for 2012 who’s not a liar?

  136. minTphresh says:

    takuan @ #137, my brother u do but flatter me! i guess u haven’t seen me lately as i am now 6′ and 260lb.s. i don’t quite fill out the old leather harness like i did in my earlier days. or, to be more specific, i way overfill it. plus, at 49, not as young and cute as before either. now phikus is still young, trim, and mantastic. maybe if we bribed him with some bootleg zappa tapes he might do it. come to think of it, i haven’t heard from him l8ly, u out there phike?

  137. ill lich says:

    #93 SLICKLINES

    If Obama did this for political reasons — which some here seem to be defending, then he is pretty much like the guy we just kicked out.

    Well, we’re talking about politicians here, no matter WHO gets elected, once they are in office they ARE a politician, by definition. Al Franken (god willing) may soon be a politician and not a comedian. Obama isn’t some superhero-wizard who can magically make partisanship evaporate in DC, and we can’t rely on one party always having complete control over all 3 branches of government (and after Bush we shouldn’t wish for such a thing), all we can reasonably hope for is a modicum of cooperation between parties, and that something gets done (and if it turns out to be the wrong thing, then our politicians learn from that mistake and correct it rather than reverting to partisan talking points and pointing fingers). Yeah. . . well. . . maybe that is too much to ask for, but I seem to recall the word “hope” appearing on Obama posters so I’ll give it a try.

    Obama is no more the same as Bush simply because he wields the tools of politics than Rothko is the same as Rembrandt simply because they wield the tools of painting.

  138. skarbreeze says:

    Teresa:”Skarbreeze @19, how are we to supposed to believe that you’re a regular Boing Boing reader, but you can’t abide “flaming personal attacks”? They’re not exactly a staple of Boing Boing’s blogging, but they’re by no means unknown.”

    I frankly don’t really care what you believe – that I visit the site every single workday, and have for years, is not terribly relevant. Flaming personal attacks with some grounds are one thing (and I can stomach, even enjoy that) – baseless slander is quite another. I suggest offering a rational rebuttal to a post rather than questioning whether someone is a regular reader, it stands to change minds more than being insulting. Though I wouldn’t disagree that Cory and others go on the attack from time to time, they do so with something to back their arguments, unlike Suzie’s entry here.

    Try harder Teresa, you can do better at curbing my comments than questioning my readership and disemvowelling my posts :)

  139. Takuan says:

    @bat21; well, I did pray for it’s deletion. Does that count?

  140. Anonymous says:

    ACROCKER@28 FTW!

  141. Talia says:

    “I don’t like Susie Bright’s Posts. Therefore, she is unfit to guest blog for Boingboing, because I am god of the internet!”

    Some of you commenters have pretty impressively huge egos.

  142. grimc says:

    It’s not white Christian evangelicals that need to be shown they’re accepted, anyway. If this was truly about inclusion, he should’ve picked an imam or rabbi.

  143. h4x0r says:

    I don’t like this guy but, to say that because he doesn’t support the idea of gay marriage he must be a closet homosexual, is pretty f*cken ridiculous. Those people objecting to his participation here are being douche bags. It’s not like the guy is being appointed to do anything that will affect any laws or lives. Get the f over it. Seriously.

    I voted for Obama…but that doesn’t mean I am now going to demand that the guy surround himself or do things I only approve of. As long as he does the job better than the last joker..who gives a rats ass about this non issue?

  144. jstueart says:

    Susie’s blog entry is a bit more insightful as to the reasons this Warren selection is controversial. Hit the “second look” button for more, but here’s the nugget I found, and I summarize:

    If Warren had said a racial epithet Obama would never have considered him. He threw off his team the woman who called Hillary a monster (okay, she’s back on…) Still, one racial comment and you are axed from public appearances. A lifetime of excluding gays and putting them down in public and you are giving the Prayer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in front of Millions. (Actually, God should have him removed from the service–he misrepresents God much more than he does Obama).

    The fact is that there are more even-keeled pastors out there who would still have the respect of Evangelicals and the LGBT community: FIND ONE.

    Don’t insult the voting base by hoisting up a bigot as your choice to pray to God on your behalf. Even Jesus looked for a change in someone before he gave them a position of power…why not reward someone else for doing right?

  145. Another Aaron says:

    Ahhh, the “cool kids” and “high-school lunch cafeteria” comments are getting pulled out.

    I choose who I eat lunch with. You don’t, Lego7?

    I’m a pretty d*mn tolerant person…especially towards racists, bigots, etc…I live in the South. If I stop talking to folks because of their biases, well, I’m going to be a hermit pretty quick.

    But when I pick who I’m going to eat lunch with? That’s different. I’ll eat with who I WANT to eat with. Frank in accounting who wears a pillow sheet on his head on the weekends and who talks about the black and gay employees behind their backs is NOT one of the cool kids, and does NOT get to sit at my lunch table because he gives me indigestion.

    If the “cool kids” don’t like you, you should either 1) learn to live with it, 2) find a group of kids more similar to you, or 3) and this is the big one, if nobody likes you, maybe you should figure out WHY no one likes you and change it.

    Nobody hangs out with you because you pick your nose on the school bus? Stop doing that. You dress weird and girls won’t talk to you? Stop dressing weird. People think you have bad personal hygene? Fix it.

    God, there’s nothing that drives me up the wall more than people complaining that the “cool kids don’t like them.”

    Yeah, whining about it is going to take you REAL far in life.

    (*I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.)

  146. Anonymous says:

    Well, Warren could pass easily in the “Bear” community.

  147. HollywoodBob says:

    I think for me the most disappointing part of all of this, is not the choice of Rick Warren, but that there will even be an Invocation and Benediction. We’ve lived nearly 8 years with an idiot as President who thinks that God put him in his position. I was really hoping Obama would try to distance himself from that breed of lunacy and try to move this country to a more rational way of thinking. The Saddleback forum disgusted me, religion has no place in politics.

    It’s time for our leaders to stop pandering to the evangelicals. Obama’s first step should be entering his office without any religious bullshit.

  148. minTphresh says:

    now, i am asking this out of real curiosity, and not joking. does the LGBT community look at mellissa now as some sort of ‘lesbian uncle tom’?

  149. mdh says:

    Other commenters make snide comments about my comments and tell me to STFU and the comments stand.

    Insulting your hosts is quite different from insulting the other guests. You seem afflicted with the mis-impression that someone is trying to be superior, someone other than you, that is.

  150. lawyer says:

    Clueless,

    I don’t think I would be venturing onto untenable ground to make the claim that the Bush administration and many conservatives have not exactly been on the side scientific process and understanding. See climate change; stem cell research; abstinence-only education; evolution, etc.

  151. Antinous says:

    jjasper,

    You’re on my dance card.

  152. Takuan says:

    “baseless slander”? oh no, everything said about Warren is true, therefore not slanderous. People throw around that “S” word a lot. How about all the real slander Warren and his cronies hurl against gay people every single day? How about the real damage in lives taken by murder and bodies maimed by gay-bashing egged on by Warren and his little friends? Let’s add up the damage in something you can understand like dollars. I see Warren as at least a few billion in the hole paying off wrongful death lawsuits he is implicated in. Shall we go there?

  153. Takuan says:

    finally watched the video. He does not believe what he is saying. Read Melissa’s statement; she is hoping for what is not there.

  154. Takuan says:

    I can’t be sure, but I suspect that if people sent communications to Warren clearly laying out the deaths, injuries, psychological costs and general human suffering caused by the murderous and hateful ignorance he espouses as a matter of political convenience, his conscience might be touched. I can’t say the same for the current pope though, he’s disgraced himself as a human being yet again with his latest blather. Once a nazi…

  155. Takuan says:

    hee! looks like some multiple marrying mormoms are going to argue that if gay marriage is legal then they should be allowed to have a half dozen teenage brides. Talk about the chutzpah of the parent-killer pleading for clemency because he is an orphan!

  156. jstueart says:

    I’ll agree with posters who say that Susie calling Warren closeted with scant evidence, the same kind of stereotypical “evidence” that the Right uses, doesn’t help anyone. Warren’s noose is his own words, and attacking him for being in the closet is just bad argument. You had him at his anti-gay rhetoric. You didn’t have him at “Hello!!”

  157. michaelkevin says:

    Teresa, I’m disappointed with some of this post deletion and disemvoweling (though it’s great to finally know what that is when the words get all messed up!). If Boing Boing is gonna post this more “extreme” Suzie Bright stuff, it seems fitting to be more allowing of even “rude” opposing reactions.

    Really, I’d just like to be able to decide if the comment warrants my time to read. Less censorship here seems the more progressive approach

  158. buddy66 says:

    I want to thank you all for this thread. I slept on it and woke up to coffee and a new day, convinced that Kid Stardust made another politically savvy choice. It’s got to be, so far, the smartest post-election maneuvering I’ve ever seen. Goddamn, but he’s got some game! He was never my choice (except at the finals), but his moves are as good as it gets.

    ——————————–

    “You are not queer, you’ll never get what it’s like to be queer, you’re not the one living in our world day to day, and you don’t get to decide what we get pissed off about and how we express it.

    Does this mean you don’t want our help? I’ll bet Obama is glad the Negro community didn’t discourage the millions of us who pushed civil rights into the forefront of the 1960s. We fought racism with or without their approval. It was an insult to every intelligent American, as is homophobic bigotry today.

    You can’t go it alone; you can’t win without us.

  159. Takuan says:

    playing favorites again?

  160. Takuan says:

    OK, pay attention now, this is important:

    http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=969486

    “saddleback”, “saddlebacking”, got it? Spread it.

  161. Skullhunter says:

    Takuan, I don’t think so. Warren is clearly intelligent (intelligence of course, being perfectly capable of existing without basic human decency) and not of the frothing-at-the-mouth Fred Phelps school of hate. He knows what he’s doing. He just doesn’t care.

    He supports Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria’s efforts to criminalize any display of homosexual behavior with a penalty of at least five years in prison. He’s committed to sabotaging the HIV prevention efforts in Africa by narrowing its scope to abstinence as the only means of preventing the disease’s spread. As you mentioned, he compares consensual adult relationships to child molestation and incest. He can’t be this knee-deep in what he’s doing without noticing the bodies he’s treading on. He’s likely seen the statistics on gay teen suicide rates, or anti-gay violence, or HIV transmission. He’s not some drooling mouth-breather standing on a streetcorner waving a luridly-phrased sign and shouting ugly, simplistic slogans. He’s an order of magnitude worse than that because he takes all that vileness and wraps it up in an almost rational-sounding package.

    This goes beyond simple friendly disagreement. This person sees other human beings as unworthy of the same protections and privileges due all of us simply because of who they are attracted to. He will lie and slander to see those people kept down. There’s nothing friendly or redeemable about that.

    • Antinous says:

      There’s nothing friendly or redeemable about that.

      Which brings us back to the truck stop men’s room where we started.

  162. senorglory says:

    Obama’s gonna have the invocation given by one christian preacher or another, and to my mind, there’s little difference between one snake-oil salesman or the next.

  163. Scribbler says:

    No, Antonius, I just think insulting someone by calling him a charlatan and a bigot, then telling him to come out of the closet or take a hike is neither polite nor thought-provoking, and expect more from a website I read daily.
    Th nly thng m ‘nglng fr’ s fr BngBng t py hd t LL f t’s rdrs nd kp th st frm dgrdng nt smthng tht lks lk th cmmnts sctn f Ks.

    Foestusnail, had she phrased it as you did, I wouldn’t have batted an eye, nor bothered to comment.

  164. Takuan says:

    Hi Micheal: read the Moderation Thread (all of it and note dates while you do).

    Why is Susie “extreme”? Why should extraordinary rudeness be permitted to her?

    Further, why is permitting abuse “progressive”?

  165. skarbreeze says:

    Re #184 posted by Takuan

    THIS is a good response, and would have been a valid rebuttal to my post by Teresa. Thank you Takaun, even though I don’t agree. I consider calling someone “charlatan-tastic” is very much a slanderous statement, but it depends heavily on your perspective. If you assume that Warren is speaking and acting in faith, rather than malice (and self-interest), there is nothing charlatanic about him. That is my opinion, and you have yours. I concede that yours may be correct, as I don’t know the man personally, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt due to Suzie’s post bothering my sensibilities.

  166. Takuan says:

    “16. Rick Warren

    Charges: Dubbed “America’s Pastor” by The Nation, he’s duped people from both sides of the political spectrum into thinking he’s the kinder, fatter version of James Dobson. Though he is fatter, how could anyone think a man who—professionally—quotes a book written by a make-believe space-giant, instructing the murder of homosexuals, could be anything other than a delusional bigot? Still riding the undeserved wave of fame onset by a meth-head kidnap victim’s ownership of his pop-psych hybrid of churchy prudishness and self-help pabulum The Purpose Driven Life, Warren had a big year hosting a presidential forum at his gay-sounding Saddleback Church, helping to pass Prop 8 and being tapped to invoke said make-believe space-giant at Obama’s inauguration. Plus, his neatly trimmed goatee is the queerest thing we’ve ever seen.

    Exhibit A: “God tells us that he created all the land animals on the sixth day of creation, the same day that he created mankind. Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.” Can you feel the wisdom?

    Sentence: He shalt giveth The Lord a blumpkin and eatheth of the pie until he bursts.

  167. Takuan says:

    I can’t say. Watching his face in the interview,it is clear he knows he is lying. This allows the possibility of redemption. He may choose to keep lying – and killing, but unlike the true fanatic that believes its self-justifying evil, I have the inkling that he may one day decide to tell the truth to himself. It might even be as Susie initially suggested; he’s in the closet himself. Maybe to himself. Don’t misunderstand me, if his life as an evil-doer had to be traded to save the lives of the many innocent,I would not stand in the way. I, you, all of us, have to go sooner or later.
    Certainly those that kill for fear and power have less claim than those that won’t. That’s why I find so much human evil incomprehensible, why use your short time to hate and kill for imagined reasons? He’ll be gone and forgotten soon enough.

  168. minTphresh says:

    scribbler, really? then may i suggest that when confronted by the dreaded ‘librul’ susie’s posts that you SKIP OVER THEM AND REFRAIN FROM COMMENTING AND MAKING YOURSELF SOUND FOOLISH. i, for one, find them to be not only informative, but entertaining as well. definately a ‘wonderful thing’. first comment, eh? and this is the best u got? whining about s.b.’s posts? i’m thinkin “log-cabin replicrat”. scribbie, you doth protest too much.

  169. Scribbler says:

    ‘v lwys njyd Bng Bng’s pst’s ppsng cnsrshp, Thrs. Lks lk ‘ll b njyng th rny tht gs lng wth thm frm nw n, s wll.
    Fght Th Pwr, tc. tc.

  170. Takuan says:

    did you read the Moderation Policy?

  171. RichSPK says:

    I don’t understand why a Presidential inauguration needs any religious figure at all.

  172. Norm1 says:

    People need to get along lets fix this damn country before dems and repubs screw it up more.

  173. Takuan says:

    might as well be a synonymn for “Warren”

    “char·la·tan (shär’lÉ™-tÉ™n) Pronunciation Key
    n. A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

    [French, from Italian ciarlatano, probably alteration (influenced by ciarlare, to prattle) of cerretano, inhabitant of Cerreto, a city of Italy once famous for its quacks.]
    char’la·tan’ic (-tān’Ä­k), char’la·tan’i·cal adj., char’la·tan·ism, char’la·tan·ry n.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    Cite This Source

    charlatan
    1611, from It. ciarlatano “a quack,” from ciarlare “to prate, babble,” from ciarla “chat, prattle,” perhaps imitative of ducks’ quacking.

    Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
    Cite This Source
    charlatan

    noun
    a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes [syn: mountebank] “

  174. noen says:

    richspk – you’re not really from around here then are you?

  175. help i cant comfirm my username themelonbread says:

    Wait a sec… I hit refresh and I can’t see certain comments anymore… they’re not even disemvoweled! What happened?

  176. freetardzero says:

    Teresa, thanks for your patience with me (and thanks for leaving my vowels intact!). And JJASPER, I apologise for lighting into you like that. My hackles go up when I hear people whose causes I support claim that my support is worthless, because I am not in their boat, so to speak; however, I shouldn’t let that make me say rude things, and I’m sorry.

  177. rgc1600 says:

    t’s dstrbng hw mny nt-Chrstn, nt-Gd, nt-rsn sttmnts hv bn pstd hr, n rspns t pst tht hs N BSNSS bng n Wb st tht pstns tslf s ” drctry f wndrfl thngs.” nd Wrrn, wh spks nt frm th frng, s y sm t mgn, bt frm th mnstrm f mrcn hstry, s cnsdrd th bgt. Lk n th mrrr, th bgts r hr.

  178. bhorn says:

    When I saw that Susie was going to be a guest blogger here I was really looking forward to it because I thought that she would bring some topics or viewpoints to this web site that most people have never heard.

    I personally think that raising controversial subjects is a good thing, especially if you have strong rational arguments to back up your opinion about them. whether each reader agrees with you or not, carefully examining the reasoning behind their own opinion on the matter will help them in one way or another. Either they will see the topic in a new light and change their opinion or it will reinforce their existing opinion and make them more confident about that. Wherever they end up, I think they will be the better for it.

    I enjoy following many sites. Some of them such as Gizmodo are purely technical with little in the way of politics, art or social commentary. Others are mostly social commentary, etc. I have always enjoyed BoingBoing for falling somewhere in the middle. A great mix of all of these topics and more. So I do believe that it is an appropriate place for the topics that Susie brings us.

    As far as the topic of this post is concerned, I do believe that anyone who thinks that Warren should not be involved in the inauguration should tell Obama that. However, I do not think that it is the only important thing we should tell him and if he does keep Warren as a part of the inauguration that will not cause me to reject Obama. In spite of this I think that he will be an awesome leader for us.

  179. FoetusNail says:

    jjasper, I’m in a similar situation. As a stay-at home-dad I’m usually the only male in the group. All my best friends are women. But sometimes I’m like a white volunteer down at the NAACP. They love me and appreciate my help and support, but I will always be a daddy and never a mommmy.

  180. FoetusNail says:

    I knew skinheads who liked Jimi Hendrix. Music can make strange bedfellows.

  181. Teller says:

    Teresa: Thanks for explanation; understand. Someone a bit later did a better, more comprehensive comment on the comment than I did or probably could have.

  182. noen says:

    America is a country where a clear majority believe in the Biblical account of creation and something like 60% believe in angels. It’s easy to mistake the beliefs of one’s own group for the those of the whole. I think people are asking America to be something it can’t be.

    “Obama is no more the same as Bush simply because he wields the tools of politics than Rothko is the same as Rembrandt”

    Bush is the Marquis de Sade painting his walls with his own shit.

  183. Takuan says:

    *sniff*, yep I know that one.

    Warren kills people.

  184. Takuan says:

    jeez, Obama’s picked a queer-killing, saddlebacking jew-hater.

  185. jmullan says:

    Saddleback Mountain?

  186. minTphresh says:

    foet, they gots surgeries for that now. i know a guy who knows a guy…

  187. freetardzero says:

    Takuan @ 146: Actually, the ultimate test of fundie faith, as you put it, is to sacrifice your son. Now, I don’t have the entire Bible memorised, but I can’t recall any instances of mothers being sacrificed. Lots of bloodshed in general (especially in the Old Testament), but not very many mothers being killed off.

  188. Takuan says:

    “bear”? wombat maybe.

  189. pollox87 says:

    Looking at the following paragraph:
    “Deja vu: major Fundie evangelist can’t stop talking about how disgusting gay people are, comparing them to incestors and pedophiles. Decries loose women having abortions. Demands his enemies be offed.”

    The first two sentences are exaggerated. They do not coincide with the articles you linked, but are just personal attacks. He does not say gay people are disgusting or anything like it. Same for “loose women”. The “offing of his enemies” is misleading at best. He is referring to the countries enemies, not his personal enemies.

    Look I dislike Rick Warren too, but you really do a disservice to BoingBoing writing attacks in this manner.

  190. Takuan says:

    Buddy, you’re probably right about the Kid, but never forget your bedrock :3D.

  191. jboison says:

    i love how the photo looks like he’s a contestant on Jeopardy.

  192. iamelectionday says:

    Clearly I’m the first openly gay person to comment on this story because the rest of you in support or against Susie’s claims or Obama’s choice just need to ask your GLBT friends, family, and colleagues about how THEY feel. I’m certain that conversation would color your responses differently.

    I disagree with Obama here a little. Individuals like Rick Warren don’t come to the table to compromise or learn about how their ideas fit with the ideas of others; they come to the table to spew rhetoric and shore up their own base. And, he isn’t just talking about the church’s definition of marriage because if he was, I wouldn’t be so disturbed. He, and other Prop 8 supporters like him, are wanting to ensure that even the Civil Union form of marriage is stopped.

    As far as the prayer at inauguration, if we MUST have it, why such a controversial figure? Most of you seem to think civil rights is a political issue that holds the same weight as the automaker bailout or the war in Iraq. It isn’t that mediocre, and this issue means the denial of basic legal rights to millions of Americans. There is no room for discussion here–just like there was no room for discussion in slavery or keeping ANY American from voting. I know that it will take time, as any social issue, to work itself out, but remember there are still people alive today that voted FOR segregation in the 60s.

    And as far as Mr. Warren being “progressive” on other issues like the environment, good for him– he should be. I truly think it’s more likely he foresaw there was an evangelical niche there, and ran with it. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t hand him any Nobel Prizes anytime soon.

    In short, good for Susie for posting this issue here and rattling the BB cage a little. I agree that I don’t think she is calling Mr. Warren gay, she is just merely pointing out that over-baked evangelicals, like Mr. Warren, all eventually suffer from hubris. He can’t possibly live up to his own rhetoric, and it’s only a matter of time before it happens. The problem is there’s a line about 150miles long full of people waiting to take his place. We should make it clear that even though they have a right to their opinions, those opinions are antiquated and are no longer relevant—just like we wouldn’t give any credibility to anyone wanting to reenact prohibition or making divorce illegal.

    Now, is this post the right commentary for BB? That’s for the editors to decide. I for one think that these are important topics that transcend games or gadgetry.

  193. jere7my says:

    @33:

    The fact is that there are more even-keeled pastors out there who would still have the respect of Evangelicals and the LGBT community: FIND ONE.

    JStueart, he did. Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights icon and proponent of gay marriage, is giving the benediction.

    If Warren had said a racial epithet Obama would never have considered him.

    Do you have an example of this, or are you assuming that’s what Obama would do? I recall him saying he still loved his grandma despite her occasional use of racial epithets.

    What I see is Obama doing what he said he would do: inviting a wide range of people to the table, even when he strongly disagrees with some of their positions — while making clear just which positions he disagrees with. This is exactly what Bush refused to do. I’m happy to see it.

  194. FoetusNail says:

    There’s no way to hide these feet.

  195. Teller says:

    I don’t see any difference between Obama’s position on gay marriage and Rick Warren’s.

    Which is Obama? Homophobic or a repressed homosexual?

Leave a Reply