Barack Obama picked Rick Warren, a right-wing Christianist who hates gays, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Obama loves haters–but he’s not a hater himself. Uh-huh.
Rainbow of Hatred
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
26 Comments. Leave new
As one who attends Pastor Warren's church, I've never heard him say anything hateful to gays. As a matter of fact his, AIDS initiative has helped millions.
I respected everything I'd heard about Rick Warren up until his pathetic little interviews of the two candidates last summer. He talks a good game about being more than just abortion and gays, but he was extremely shallow in his addressing of all those issues he supposedly thinks are (also…sorta) important. A complete tool.
So he's not QUITE as bad as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. . . .um…that's like not being QUITE as bad as the Soviets or the Nazis or Saddam Hussein.
The United States has become a nation of "at least we're not AS BAD as….."
Rick Warren douched out during the campaign, for obvious reasons. Having him do the invocation is just such a gimmick.
Dave
Maybe the gimmick's point is to reveal the true face of evangelicals so that all may see.
"As one who attends Pastor Warren's church, I've never heard him say anything hateful to gays."
Warren campaigned for Prop 8, which took away the legal right for gays to marry.
…I mean he (probably) has never said that gay people should be burned to death, but pretending he isn't a homophobe is just plain delusional.
"Maybe the gimmick's point is to reveal the true face of evangelicals so that all may see."
They haven't exactly been hiding for the past few decades. Anyone who doesn't see by now, doesn't want to.
As for Obama himself, I have too high an opinion of his intelligence to imagine he doesn't know exactly what he's getting with these bozos. Picking a right-wing preacher for his inauguration is no accident. Slick Barry knows what he's doing.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith WSG: Nothing is so conductive to toleration as the knowledge that one’s bread depends upon it.
hmm you're reaching new heights in subtlety, Ted
Warren campaigned for Prop 8, which took away the legal right for gays to marry.
…I mean he (probably) has never said that gay people should be burned to death, but pretending he isn't a homophobe is just plain delusional.
Marriage has been defined for 5,000 years as between a man and a woman. Because someone does not want the definition changed does not make them hateful. Why is it that leftists cannot argue ideas without accusing someone of being "hateful"?
"Warren campaigned for Prop 8, which took away the legal right for gays to marry.
…I mean he (probably) has never said that gay people should be burned to death, but pretending he isn't a homophobe is just plain delusional."
Marriage has been defined for 5,000 years as between a man and a woman. Because someone does not want the definition changed does not make them hateful. Why is it that leftists cannot argue ideas without accusing someone of being "hateful"?
– Always Right
Because your side comes up with the hateful ideas, whether it was opposing civil rights, opposing US entry into WWII (seen by many rightists as a commie plot), or the twenty-year anti-gay pogrom/jihad. And even your economic ideas have some venom to them because they hurt the working poor, the dirt poor, what's left of the working class, and the shrinking middle class.
Merry Xmas.
-Strelnikov
I don't care about Obama anymore. I just lost my retirement money. CalPers, it turns out, is not insured.
My retirement, all $2000 of it, gone forever. Guess i can just kiss that yacht goodbye…
Always Right, I don't think you're being hateful. Misguided, certainly. And a bit of a presumptuous asshole. (Ted, you can edit that if you wish).
The Legal institution of marriage in this country has NEVER been defined at a federal level, and has only recently begun being defined at a state level, and only then pushed forward by a handful of religious zealots bent on Christianizing this country.
Your religion might have defined marriage for 5,000 years, but your religion has nothing to do with my government and the legal statuses it defines or bestows.
We're not trying to redefine anything. There never was a definition.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…" -George Washington, from the Treaty of Tripoli
Marriage has been defined for 5,000 years as between a man and a woman.
When confronted with this degree of willful ignorance, it's difficult to know where to begin. Clearly, with a statement like that, you don't know jack about the history of marriage.
Historically, marriage has most commonly been between two families. Variations have included multiple wives, multiple husbands, same gender, and even (our current, and rather unusual, fixation) individualistic monogamy.
I seem to recall there was a controversy in the Church about same-sex marriage over 1,000 years ago.
Of course, I forget the Conservative's definition of tradition: the American middle class way of life in the post WWII boom. Everything that came before was clearly just like that.
That 5000 year definition was between a man and ANY NUMBER OF WOMEN. As many as you can get. How many can YOU get?
"Why is it that leftists blah blah blah"
Because you're a hater, baby. You're the one changing the subject and hating on "leftists" now. Why are you even here? You're here to hate on leftists. Fuck off already.
I have no idea who Rick Warren is, but I gotta go with "Always Right" here: there's nothing hateful about these folks wanting to maintain their traditions as they stand. Hate is an abused word, and for what it's worth, I see more hate when you commies (Ted included) preach on about the "wealthy", than anywhere else.
Myself, I wish government stayed out of the marriage business altogether and people could enter whatever kind of civil partnership their little hearts fancy: same-sex, polygamist or whatnot.
Marriage has been defined for 5,000 as between a man and a woman. But for about 4950 years, it was defined (for most western cultures, anyway) as between a man and woman of the same race, religion, and (relative) social standing.
The definitions have changed, and few people would argue that this is a bad thing. This whole resistance to changing a definition (that has changed and may well change in the future) is a red herring.
Two men or two women can have a long-term relationship, and this is (now, finally) legal. Keeping marriage from this group is, in fact, hateful. It's based on nothing but fear and hatred of gay people. This defense of a definition at the expense of civil rights seems silly.
yikes incitatus:
"I see more hate when you commies (Ted included) preach on about the "wealthy", than anywhere else."
Yeah, put wealthy in quotes. Afterall, what is wealth? Does it really exist?
Life isn't all about money…
As you can see, this thinking does not even pass the smell test. Luckily, we don't need to be so subjective. Health and Human services just released a new report about wealth and life.
At work one of the "good christian republicans" talks about how he hopes Obama gets shot. That puts him in line with the skinheads,aryian nation,and kkk. Some do not find it abnormal for the christian right to align with these groups. Why?
Yeah, Angelo, scary quotes can be annoying, but they serve a purpose besides irritating your opponents. Which is to demonstrate how often the Left's rhetoric is as impregnated with "hate" (here I go again) as the Right's. Life is indeed not all about money, and not all money is tainted.
On a differente note, I find it odd that many on the Left who are so fixated on the politics of sexuality make such a fuss about an irrelevant wacko like Fred Phelps, while giving a free pass to a bona fide homophobe, and a much more politically relevant one, the moribund Comandante of the sad Queen of the Caribbean.
> Of course, I forget the Conservative's definition of tradition: the American middle class
> way of life in the post WWII boom. Everything that came before was clearly just like that.
Indeed. It's like the Flintstones Doctrine.
Resentment about inequality is only "hate" if you think that wealth is an intrinsic quality of a human being — you ARE your possessions, and you HAVE them because GOD SAID SO — and not the result of the particular social contract that we have, which is man-made and supposedly voluntary.
Arguments that try to invert "hate speech" to make it apply to grievances against rich people and cops are absurd. Wealth is not an ethnic group, and a badge is not a sexual orientation … one would hope.
We're not trying to redefine anything. There never was a definition.
Good lord, you wrote that with a straight face?
I consider my self away from center
in the left side with strong mixture of populism and libralism.
I am for equal rights for every body regardless of race , ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual orientation.
I am also an atheist.
With that said, the definition of
the word "marriage" was for thousands of years for all cultures and civiliztions is that
it was a union between a man and
a woman.
I am not sure why gays insist on
calling their union a marriage.
What is wrong with a civil union with all the legal rights of a marriage.
This issue is taking to much time
and energy from much important issues and might invite hostility
toward gays for "IMHO" is not that
important issue.
Good lord, you wrote that with a straight face?
No, I wrote it with a gay one. Did you have an argument or are we done here? I don't have time for smug.
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Democrat (and rapist) Bill Clinton. It was passed with 118 democratic votes in the House and 31 democratic votes in the Senate. Are they all Christian Conservatives as well? And what about the 73% of the blacks that voted for Prop 8 in California? I suppose they are also Christian Conservatives.
Anon 12/27: "the definition of
the word "marriage", for thousands of years for all cultures and civilizations, was that
it is a union between a man and
a woman
For many cultures, a marriage was between one man and one or more women.
For a few, between one women and one or more men.
For a very few, it could be between two men. Inuits have a form of shaman who is a man who "becomes a woman" and is taken by a man as a "wife".
A very few cultures let a woman "become a man" but I can't recall whether any of them allow them to take wives.
On a differente note, I find it odd that many on the Left who are so fixated on the politics of sexuality make such a fuss about an irrelevant wacko like Fred Phelps, while giving a free pass to a bona fide homophobe, and a much more politically relevant one, the moribund Comandante of the sad Queen of the Caribbean.
I challenge you to name one person who makes a fuss about Phelps and gives a pass to the Fidel Castro of 1965.
(What will he change the subject to now, I wonder…)
At work one of the "good christian republicans" talks about how he hopes Obama gets shot. That puts him in line with the skinheads,aryian nation,and kkk. Some do not find it abnormal for the christian right to align with these groups. Why?
And for almost eight years, so called tolerant, high-minded deep thinking libs have been wishing death to "chimpy" and "darth cheney". So please can the phony civility.