If you have "no place to go," come here!

No gays in Happy Valley

vastleft's picture

David Sirota...

Has anyone bothered to explain how giving a gay basher a national platform is a decision made in the name of ending division? I'm really confused - there are lots of clergypeople in America who haven't gay bashed. And remember - it's not just that Rick Warren is against gay marriage, it's that he's very publicly attacked gay people with the worst kinds of slander.

How are Barack Obama and Joe Biden publicly claiming that their selection of Rick Warren to deliver a prayer at the inauguration is in the interest of ending division?

... needs to learn about how Happy Valley works:

Once upon a time, long, long ago, there lay in a valley far, far away in the mountains the most contented kingdom the world has ever known. It was called Happy Valley, and it was ruled over by a wise old king called Otto. And all his subjects flourished and were happy, and there were no discontents or grumblers, because wise King Otto had had them all put to death, along with the trade union leaders, many years before. And all the happy folk of Happy Valley sang and danced all day long, and anyone who was for any reason miserable or unhappy or who had any difficult personal problem was prosecuted under the Happiness Act.

See how our awful divisions and bickering partisanship can be cleaned up in a jiff?

If there are any gays in Happy Valley, let us at least hope they know their place. If they stop asking for messy things like equal rights, there will be no divisions at all, and everyone will live in harmony — so long as they act in ways that are acceptable to the Religious Right and those who love to have rivalgasms with them, since that's the kind of happymaking that no one seems to object to.

No votes yet


Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

The first part kind of hits my confusion on this. Obama could have chosen from a plethora of other and prominent pastors/religious figures to speak at his inaugeral, and yet he chose Warren. It's almost as if he was going out of his way to flip the bird to liberals and progressives. He had to know that this was going to be a story; he's far from naive.

I can't really call it confusion, though. It's only confusion if you believe he's a secret liberal, and I don't, and for those that still do, he's making it more clear almost by the day that he's not.

I keep hearing from the O'pologists in his original fanbase that somehow he needs to keep up appeasing the right, which they can't even say with a straight face. Obama won. Hell, his movement was so big that he didn't even need to run to the right during the damned election, but we're supposed to believe that he has to appease them now?

This is so much bigger than the religion aspect of the whole thing. It's about Obama continuously creating unnecessary problems for himself among the people he used to get elected. It's why I have so little hope for him. He may not be dumb, but continually flicking the ears of those that got you elected is just plain stupid.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

he espoused in his book, or is bent on acting as though he does.

He is the perfect Village Democrat, recoiling from the incivility of the DFHs, but in a hip, chill kind of way.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Because it's easy enough to find someone who's a mainstream religious figure who's anti-gay, or anti-gay-marriage (easy enough to find one who's not, too). But the thing about Warren is, he has played a major *political* role in *stripping LGBTQI folks of their existing civil rights* as well as *endorsing a political candidate* (McCain).

So all these arguments that the Obama people are coming up with about inclusion of his *views* are pretty well crap. It's not his *views* that have been so odious (and against IRS rules, most likely), it's his *actions.*

And even his whole AIDS ministry thing isn't enough. Thinly-disguised conversion opportunity, anyone? Why fight AIDS in Africa and not push for proven measures, such as condoms, at home?

I haven't read it in a while, but I highly recommend this piece about Warren in the New Yorker, which describes how he built his church and how he became a player. Oh, and did I mention that megachurch pastors such as Warren routinely hide their real theology as they build their churches (registration required to read whole article, but well worth it; examination of how a baby megachurch in Connecticut is using deception and deliberate misdirection about its real beliefs to crack New England's megachurch-resistant religious culture).

Really, instead of a national platform to preach his hate, Warren should be getting a notice from the IRS that they're stripping his church's tax-exempt status as a consequence of his political activity.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren to speak at King memorial --

Just one day before giving the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, a local pastor will be the keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King Jr. Annual Commemorative Service, officials at Saddleback Church said.

Rick Warren – pastor of the 22,000-member Saddleback Church – made national headlines in recent days when proponents of gay marriage criticized the selection of Warren to give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration.

The service is scheduled for Jan. 19 at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and is included in the official program of the 10-day King Center's Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration, which begins on Jan. 10. ...

Phil Munsey, pastor of Life Church in Mission Viejo with a congregation of 2,200 of which 22 percent is African American, is not surprised with Warren's selection.

“I think it's unique given the backdrop of demographics of Orange County being so low for the African American community,” said Munsey. “To have an Orange County minister participating is an honor. Rick Warren's influence in the nation is intriguing. Even though it appears he's offended the liberals in his statement, Christians have to hold on to their belief system without being offensive. The controversy is countered by Warren's offer to participate in the MLK event. It shows the seeds Rick Warren has sewn towards reconciliation to bring people together. It's hard to do that in a divided nation.” ...

beyond appalling.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

The fact he, a bigot, realizes how damaging it is to be considered homophobic has got to be something positive. His misogyny is being ignored, but, at least, the public is shining a harsh light on his anti-gay views. I don't know if this means his spot at the inauguration is vulnerable, but I believe he understands that the key to his success, his benign public image, is being lost. And that says something about our society's progress that homophobia is now being increasingly seen for what it is: hate.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and the big media isn't reporting this removal at all -- only blogs. They've always painted him as acceptable and a million times better than other rightwing religious asses.

And as of today, the story's over, as far as tv is concerned, i'd say -- which sucks.

And it's the anti-woman stuff that's far worse and affects far far more people -- and that's still not the focus -- not Warren's, not Obama's, not the media's, not blogs -- nobody's.

us LGBT folks have very little to lose, bec we don't have national protections to begin with -- millions and millions of women do -- and they're all at risk.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Non-negotiable issues has he walked back? Or his refusal to vote for an atheist?

None? Sorry, I couldn't hear the MSM's answer over the moans of the rivalgasm.