Quick OT with apology: Al Franken up by 127 votes.

I’d add:
“The President-elect does realize that this site has a bigger readership than many ‘national’ newspapers. Why should this site continue to support him and his policies?”

and

“Does the President-elect intend to do other things which might infuriate his supporters who read this site and others that have supported him? If he does so intend, is the purpose of acting this way to (a) infuriate the supporters who read this site so he can point at the crazy liberals as forcing him to not totally abnegate himself to carrying out Republican policies, (b) provide entertainment for Republicans while he carries out Republican policies, (c) provide sadistic entertainment for himself, or (d)some combination of these?”

and

“Does the President-elect understand that, having won the election, Republicans and their supporters have to compromise with him and Democrats, and not the other way around? What other constituencies and/or of the Democratic party does the President-elect intend to cede to the Republicans to gain their friendship? Does the President-elect understand that Republicans view a compromise as ‘Democrats give Republicans everything the Republicans want and then allow Republicans to beat the Democrats over the head, too?’”

and

“Does the President-elect believe that, having abused some of his strongest supporters, they will nonetheless give him donations of time, money and effort in his re-election campaign?”

How can it be ”inclusive” to showcase a lying hatemonger?

Here’s my latest FaBlog post on the matter.

I’ve also written an essay for the L.A. Weekly about Warrengate and will link it when it runs.

There is nothing more for Barack Obama to do or say IMO.

HE IS DEAD TO ME!

I do believe that inclusivity is admirable. But when the person being included is fiercely and extremely exclusive, hurtful and harmful to a large segment of our population and the people who love them, this is no longer admirable. It is in-your-face callous. It is showboating. It is false. And those are the good things about it.

All good questions but too many if we’re actually expecting answers. There’s an art to asking questions. It’s not just listing every possible issue. But if the point isn’t to get a response, I do think this is a fine rundown.

Since we voted for the change that BO promoted why didn’t he choose an agnostic or atheists speaker, or a woman? Any of those would be a first. Especially since we have given the opportunity to be the first US black - African American - Bi-racial President.

Does the President-elect agree or disagree that gay marriage is equivalent to incest and pedophilia?

Oops.

Should read:

What other constituencies and/or ideals of the Democratic party does the President-elect intend to cede to the Republicans to gain their friendship? Does the President-elect understand that Republicans will be your friend only so long as you have something to give them and you ask nothing in return? Does the President-elect understand that Republicans view a compromise as ‘Democrats give Republicans everything the Republicans want and then allow Republicans to beat the Democrats over the head, too?’”

There. That’s better.

Last one, I think:

Does the President-elect agree or disagree with the opinions/positions that Pastor Warren attributed to Obama during Warren’s campaigning for Proposition 8?

If things work out, he’ll be known as “Landslide Al”.

No apologies necessary. That news is far, far, far more important than yet another thread about Warren.

No it isn’t.

More important question for Bam: Are you concerned Biden’s German Shepherd will devour the girls’ cute little puppy?

yeehaa

OH.

Why hasn’t the participation of religious organizations in the Proposition 8 campaign resulted in the removal of their tax-exempt status?

The organizaition Rick Warren runs pays no taxes. Does Rick Warren pay *any* taxes himself? What about an invocator for taxpayers?

No.

This has been another edition of…

501 (c) (3) status is rarely revoked. After all if the William Jefferson Clinton foundation can be directly traced to generating over 100 million in “speaking fees” in private income for the Clintons, your concerns pale next to that event

I’m guessing six years of belly-aching from Norm and the Normies about how that Jewish New York comedian stole the election. (sigh)

sorry in advance.

Franken +236 and climbing

Frankly, I would prefer to keep a separation between church and state, thanks. I say, have no religious speaker — keep it at home or in the church, please.

Will there be a *change* to the blatantly discriminatory policies that have burdened the LGBT community for so long? What kind of change will this be? Where does Warren fit with the promise of this change?

Good question, does the church pay taxes? And does the taxes it collects get sent to the gov?

Mid mid day FDL: It Ain’t Necessarily So - Marion Ross & Jerusalem Symphonic Orchestra.

I posted this to the Facebook “No Rick Warren” page a bit ago:

Doughnuts for Gays

Warren says he does not “hate gays.” this is quite consistent with the fundamentalist philosophy of “hate the sin, love the sinner.”
That still leaves us in the same place… honoring someone who thinks there’s something wrong with us as gay.

In 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed.
from the Wikipedia page:
“The increasing tensions and discontent of Baptists from the South regarding national criticism of slavery led to their withdrawal from the national Baptist organizations….
The consequences of the decision to separate from other Baptists in defense of white supremacy and the institution of slavery have been long lived…. During the conservative resurgence, the Southern Baptist Convention of 1995 voted to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery. The resolution repenting racism marked the denomination’s first formal acknowledgment that racism played a role in its early history.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Formation]

Religion has long been used as an excuse for bigotry. Passages of the Bible were used to justify slavery.
So Warren is saying “I don’t hate gays” I just don’t believe they should have the same rights as “normal” people. Pretty much like saying “I don’t hate blacks, I just don’t want to live next to one of “those” people.

In the US, we are supposed to affirm the rights of people to espouse such beliefs even now… but that does not mean that white supremacists, misogynists, or anti-gay bigots deserve to be honored.

I think we deserve a valid response, not doughnuts.

chris hedges wrote, from the perspective of a christian, a wonderful article last year. i’ll quote some bits, but i highly recommend the whole thing. i especially hope that barak obama and his advisors will read it and think about what movement they are helping to advance.

When They Came for the Homosexuals…
By Chris Hedges

The Christian right has begun to strip gays and lesbians of their constitutional rights and render them second-class citizens. The gay rights movement, which made many gains over the past couple of decades, is reeling backward. And the mounting persecution of gays and lesbians is ominous not only for them but for the rest of society.

I spent two years reporting and writing “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” At the numerous gatherings I attended around the country, one of the driving forces and most effective mobilizing agents was the issue of sexuality. This mass movement, led by figures such as James Dobson, claims that tolerance of “alternative lifestyles” is eroding the American family. They describe “same-sex attraction” as a disease that can be cured. And they condemn all sexual love that is not heterosexual as an abomination in the eyes of God.

These attacks mask a sinister agenda that has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with power. The radical Christian right—the most dangerous mass movement in American history—has built a binary worldview of command and submission wherein male leaders, who cannot be questioned and claim to speak for God, are in control and all others must follow. Any lifestyle outside the traditional model of male and female is a threat to this hierarchical male power structure. Women who do not depend on men for their identity and their sexuality, who live outside a male power relationship, challenge this pervasive cult of masculinity, as do men who find tenderness and love with other men as equals. The lifestyle of gays and lesbians is intolerable to the Christian right because its existence is a threat to the movement’s chain of command, one they insist was ordained by God.

My ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, Dr. James Luther Adams, told us to watch closely what the Christian right did to homosexuals. He had seen the same tactic in Nazi Germany, where he spent 1935 and 1936 working with the underground anti-Nazi church known as the Confessing Church. The Nazis also used “values” to launch state repression of opponents. Hitler, days after he took power in 1933, imposed a ban on all homosexual organizations. He ordered raids on places where homosexuals gathered, culminating in the ransacking of the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and the permanent exile of its director, Magnus Hirschfeld. Thousands of volumes from the institute’s library were tossed into a bonfire. The stripping of these Germans’ civil rights was largely cheered by the public and the German churches. But it legitimated tactics, outside the law, that would soon be employed against others. Adams said homosexuals would also be the first “social deviants” singled out and disempowered by the Christian right, but not the last.

Should another catastrophic attack such as 9/11 occur, should we enter into a period of prolonged instability and fear, what will prevent these preachers from calling for the punishment, detention and quarantining of gays and lesbians, as well as abortionists and Muslims and other nonbelievers to safeguard the nation? What will staunch hate crimes and physical attacks against those deemed immoral by fearful and angry Christians, against those whom these preachers have condemned as responsible for the nation’s abandonment by God? How will the nation function rationally if homeland security depends on an elusive piety as it is interpreted by the Christian right? And most ominously, the fringe groups of the Christian right believe “Bible-believing Christians” have been mandated by God to carry out Christian terrorism, to murder doctors who perform abortions and godless Muslims. In a time of anxiety and chaos, of overwhelming fear and uncertainty, how many more will be prodded by this talk of terror and divine vengeance to join the ranks of these Christian extremists?

We heard and saw the word “CHANGE” everyday. BO should expect us to hold him to his word.

If Warren is to speak, then there should be an abortionist and a married gay couple to balance his act….

I don’t have much else to say about it.

The way things seem to be going in that pair o’lawsuits against Norm and the FBI investigation, it may be that he, along with his future cellmates, will have most of the rest of the next six years to cogitate on that.

I have tried not to be afraid of some of the fear tactics used on us. This piece pushes me over the edge. I am now officially scared. But, I’m glad you posted it, thanks.

Besides being a hatemonger, Warren is just slimey. He looks greasy…sleezy. Not change I can believe in.

Do you think Norm’s more likely to concede or throw a tantrum?

i liked question five. hilarious.

this is going to be too long for accepted comment length, my apologies greg. i tried to edit it down, but they are both things i want to say.

http://www.umaffirm.org/gcnews10.html
i was holding this link back for another lowery diary i am working on later, but i’ll go ahead and post it here. lowery speaks at a banquet after a homophobic minister.
it’s from the united methodist affirm site, a lgbt caucus. lowery not only was a keynote speaker, he signed their official statement demanding the methodist church allow lgbt’s into the ministry and the church. and this was back in 2000. i remember it, clearly, it was a historic step and helped create the wave of discourse in the methodist church that is still going on. he is a believer that all are equal. and backs it up.

Lowery, noted over the years for his ability to not only “talk the talk, ” but “walk the walk,” addressed a series of justice issues that still challenge us in this first year of the 21 st century. Among these issues are -economic imbalances -biblically-based “affirmative action” -one-way racial integration -fear of Cuba, expressed through an embargo, contrasted by a quest for economic relations with China- a racially- biased justice system -the risk the church takes when it restricts, limits and excludes those whose orientation is homosexual. Dr. Lowery wondered out loud, “How could the church, because of a person’s sexual orientation, deny ministry to those whom God has called?” He then suggested that he would prefer to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

His comments on full inclusivity within the body of Christ were made in the late afternoon of a day that began with Bishop Arthur Kulah’s morning sermon, “Authority for What?” Bishop Kulah, the distinguished Bishop of the Liberia Annual Conference identified “homosexualism. ..as one of the threatening challenges to our church. …” It is interesting that Bishop Kulah near the end of the sermon, used the words that are so closely identified with Martin Luther King, Jr., “When you obey God. ..you will not judge people on the color of their skin, but by the content of their character!”

i keep saying, he is a butt kicker. the only way he would be allowed to speak is if someone like warren were also invited. i posted the video of his reality check thrown at bush and others at coretta scott king’s funeral in my other diary
doing a balancing act by using warren? yes.
chickenshit of the new regime? yes. realistic? yes.

lowery is 87, no way in hell he is not going to take this opportunity and run with it.

i was way more upset about warren until i read who is giving the benediction. i actually cheered. i couldn’t believe it. no way this will go without a response from lowery that lays the issue flat out. no way, it’s what he fights to do, it is his mission. working to ensure thatall are equal.

===
and i am reposting this next part in response to some of the other things that keep popping up and also relate to lowery and how people are missing things in the argument about why warren is such a sleazeoid creep.

i wrote a comment to melanie’s ‘the only bigot is you’ diary addressing the ’sin’ of teh gay so-calledly in the bible. if it is in the bible, it is no more or less a sin than gossiping. a sin is a sin.
here’s her diary defending warren.
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/2524

here is the comment–

melanie-
here is a quote from my oxdown diary that i wish you would consider:

and the ideals of Pastor Warren’s proponents will not shine in comparison to the truth-that we are all created equal and until we are all equal someone isn’t doing God’s work.

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/2512

i was raised a methodist, and am well-versed in the ways of many religions.in some religions being gay is a sin, i do not agree with this, but let’s just say it is, for sake of argument. and a few other things i no longer believe in there, too.

if you are a christian, you believe all human beings are created by God. you also believe that everyone is a sinner. equally. if you believe being gay is a sin, it is no better or worse than any other sin. your gossiping or envy of someone or any other sin is equal to someone being gay. do you want to be discriminated from a group, denied a right someone else has because you are a gossip or have envy or didn’t follow an edict of the bible or of your church?

when you deny someone a right that you have, that is discrimination. discriminating is being a bigot. if someone is discriminating, they are not doing God’s work and all of the ‘works’ you do in the world will not get you into heaven. so, saying pastor warren does good works does not erase the sin of the discriminating treatment of a fellow human being. if you are a christian and know your bible, you know there is much more written in all religious texts on this subject than the verses people quote about homosexuality.

there is also a lot in there about being ‘right’ with God. that means admitting sinning. and sinning is an act against God. all of the ‘good works’ in the world will not put you ‘right with God. that’s all over the bible and in other religious texts as well.

when i see someone like pastor warren interpreting the bible in a way that puts one human being over another based on one sin being ‘worse’ than another, and see that same person use his ‘good works’ to excuse and negate his own bigotry, that is not a man of God. that is not someone doing God’s work on earth. Satan breeds discontent and puts the seed of hatred into someone’s heart, so if you are doing acts that exemplify these things you are not following God’s written word.

like i said, until we are all equal, someone is not doing God’s work.

Would it be “inclusive” to invite David Duke?
OBL?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Ted Kaczynski?

He’ll throw up first and then throw a tantrum. ;-)

FYI…this nation was established around God…our Father in Heaven (who created all of us). Sorry! If you don’t like it, why don’t you move to an athiest nation???!!!!

In declaring that “we can disagree without being disagreeable,” does the President believe that equating the relationships of a large body of Americans to incest and pedophelia is not disagreeable? Does not being disagreeable refer only to tone, or is it something that only applies to liberals?

If I were going to edit these down (per the notion of someone up-thread), I think I’d do it this way:

(1) Was the Rick Warren choice yours, Mr. Obama?
(2) What message is this intended to send and to whom?
(3) Are you suggesting that Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery are somehow equal or offsetting choices?
(4) Is there a place for non-believers in your view of America?
Does the president elect believe that Warren’s faith truly embraces all the world’s people?
(5) Do you believe there are people or viewpoints that are too extreme to fit under your definition of inclusiveness, e.g., Rick Warren, Jeremiah Wright? What are your bawseline criteria?
(6) Do you believe that there is room under law for Warren’s interpretation of equal rights?
(7) Do you believe that Warren’s vision is compatible with yours and that of your administration? With the American public who voted for you?
(8) In making the Warren choice, you have, as you know, alienated a vast portion of people who believed in you–people who believe in the rule of law, in Constitutional adherence, in social justice and civil rights. What will you do to make genuine peace with your own disenchanted electorate?

I have decided that (unfortunately) this choice means he is doing ’something’ correctly. The religious right is fuming about this choice as well - they are angry at Warren for accepting the gig - claiming that he will be ‘endorsing’ that baby-killing, fill-in-the-blank names they all called Obama during the campaign (and are still doing so).

It has long been the best measure of success when attempting a true compromise. If both sides are angry - you are right on track.

I am hoping, with bmaz, that in order to get Rev. Lowery on the program (without so much as a murmer even!) all the attention will be diverted to this mess. Yeah, Warren gets to talk first. But always remember - whoever has the LAST word is the one who is remembered. And Rev. Lowery will have the last word.

Why did it have to be some purveyor of mass “faith”, another talking head
from the television world? Why not someone like Brad Braxton of Riverside
Church in New York? This megachurch, concert style has done more harm than
good imo. I think he is playing rock star… not a good sign.

Obama to GLBT: STFU. I’m elected now & who the hell needs you.

Yes.

Oops. Baseline.

I am a firm believer in seeking common ground with those that we have disagreements with, but the inaugeration is a mounumental event that the world will watch. It should be a beacon for change, for inclusiveness and the new way Obama campaigned on. Warren represents religous intolerance, even if it is wrapped in folksy marketing. His message is not inclusive or tolerant. He clings to his interpretation of doctrine above all else. President-elect Obama, we have had enough of these types. You campaigned on change. We rightly expect better than Warren.

and when i looked at the picture of the red phone, i thought of this song.

waiting on a friend.

http://noolmusic.com/youtube_v....._video.php

sorry, didn’t mean to scare anyone. but i do think obama is playing a dangerous game and ought to be called on it.

Strib says Franken up by 265.

umm, you have your history wrong.

the only way he would be allowed to speak is if someone like warren were also invited.

i don’t understand why lowery can’t speak unless warren does also.

I second that.

I am a firm believer in seeking common ground with those that we have disagreements with

Where would you draw the line? Surely Hitler would be on the wrong side of the line, but how about those who insult human beings verbally instead of killing them?

I don’t see what there is to talk about. There is no common ground on GLBT with Warren.

lol

my 46 was to mr why’s 25

FYI - this nation was NOT founded around God. That is a figment of your imagination. The founders explicitly said that this country was founded on FREEDOM of religion - in other words - everyone is free to worship as they choose. And that means they can worship any god/goddess/idol/rock/the sun or whatever. That also means they can choose not to worship any god at all. And the government cannot interfere, promote, favor or otherwise get involved in religion. It also means that religion has NO PLACE in our government.

All of you evangelicals seem to think that this country should be run by your ideas. NO, NO, NO, NO.

Read the Constitution. And by the way - most of the founders were NOT christians as you define it either.

Hey, some were deported from prisons, nothing to do abt religion.

cuz he’s way past the part of the ballpark where most of us are sitting is why. has been for years.

warren is here…….obama is here……..us……………………………………………………………………..lowery.

Oh, no, Selise. I didn’t think You were trying to scare me or anyone. The religious right is what I’m worried about. The comparison between our nation and Nazi Germany is, well, to put it mildly, staggering and nauseating.
We were hoping for a change of course with a new administration, and now we have been slowly getting a different view of how it may look.
It’s fucking scary.

i give up.
: )

bbl

Sorry - that was dmac not bmaz. My brain is a bit fuzzy this morning. Sorry dmac.

Thank you, dear dmac. I was going to say something, but, I don’t trust myself.
This is a response of appreciation to you from one Methodist to another.
PS, God doesn’t like ugly.

Obama was elected with the very good energy of a majority of our country. He spoke to that energy and we trusted him to articulate the vision of that energy as president. When he chooses people like Warren to give the inaguration, he not only disses the glbt community, he disses all the intelligent and compassionate people of spiritual faith who could have delivered this prayer, he disses our collective intelligence and, by that fact, his own. He becomes an ugly American. I don’t know how much political capital he came in with, but it’s already starting to run out a mere month before his inaguration - he must be able to see this isn’t good for his ( and our ) future. People like Warren seem to have a real hatred for their fellow gay human beings and that’s one thing. Obama has caved to the power of these negative emotions. In doing so, he’s aroused a very strong backlash from the people who actually put him in office and that’s a whole other thing. It will be a huge undertaking to get out of the orbit of a failed, corrupted,bankrupted empire. He will get no help from right wing biggots in this historic endeavor. He will get help from all the decent people who helped put him office but only if he listens to our collective voice. It’s not that we are telling him what to do or how to do it, it is though that we are telling him loudly and clearly what not to do. The choice is Obama’s.

yes he most certainly will….and he’s a man of eloquence and knowledge. and experience.
yep.

bbl

New post upstairs…

Well, then, God must be having a hard time with Limbaugh and Coulter.

God is a myth. Like many others made up by those long ago who knew nothing about how the real world worked. There are no sun gods or rain gods either.
We now have science.

I agree with you in some aspects on this. I do agree with Selise also - being aware of this history will allow us to do ‘watchful waiting’ instead of just sitting quietly in the dark thinking (or maybe hoping) that everything is alright.

If we are actively watching, rather than being passive, and we are aware of the past (that most people aren’t or choose not to be) we can serve as beacons shining light into the dark corners and exposing the fundies for what they are.

It is too bad that it is so difficult to communicate with people who have those belief systems. If you don’t believe it - just look at jane’s thread from yesterday! At the Rockridge followup-blog, we have been having an ongoing discussion on how to break through the fog of fundy beliefs in order to have some kind of a rational dialogue. Most of us are about to the place that we believe there is some genetic thing that prevents them from doing so. But we keep trying. One interesting actual ‘genetic’ thing has been discovered. Apparently people with a ‘fast-twitch’ reflex are about 95% correlated with fundy/right-wing ideologies. These people are more easily frightened by unknown things, stay frightened longer, and respond well to authority. ‘Slow-twitch’ individuals OTOH get over their first reaction quickly, then become curious and want to investigate, and tend to be much more independent. So maybe it truly is genetic.

I personally think Warren is a slimeball. But I also think there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who are trying to figure out a way to talk to these people. We (progressives/liberals) keep thinking that if we could just have a rational discussion, we could change their minds. Still haven’t figured out how to do that - but we keep trying!

This country was not founded “around God” — It was founded on the premise that all humans are equal.

The first colony was founded by people who came here to get rich — that’s the Virginia Company (1607) thirteen years before the people who tried to deny religious freedom to everyone else (that’s the Puritans) got here.

The first colony that WAS founded on religious freedom for all, Maryland, was the one founded by a Roman Catholic. The other colonies that promoted religious freedom were Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.

And some of the men who participated in the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Deists not Christians.

So stop spreading the lie that the US was founded as a Christian country — it never was, and the people who wrote our founding documents went to great lengths to make all references to a deity as non-specific as possible.

Another Warren thread upstairs.

I’m usually the type of person who seeks to find the common ground with another for an effective conversation. Some days I’m more hopeful than other days. Selise and I have talked about this several times and is more patient and successful than I am most of the times.
I wasn’t here for the big mud fling yesterday, but tried to read through some of it.
Where is this Rockridge follow up you refer to and how do I find out more on the fast-twitch, slow twitch theory?
And, thanks.

My guess is she is “mightily pissed”, which is worse than seriously disappointed.

well, i’ll look forward to listening to lowery. but i still don’t see why he can’t speak without a hate monger like warren.

redshift @ 38: yup, that’s what’s been going thru my mind too, Warren’s language is certainly ’disagreeable’ as far as I am concerned, so I guess there are not standards, except for us.

leftdcin72 @ 19: as far as I am concerned, WJC is not a religion … yet .. so that’s a different topic for me anyway.

I am looking forward to Lowrey’s address!

I am SO disappointed. To stick this guy in our faces after we have watched the religious right try to take away all the social gains,at great personal sacrifice, made by women and LGBT people in the last 40 years is practically un-contemplatible.

Is this Rev. Warren going to have your ear, sir? Will he be a frequent and welcome visitor at our House? Will he fulfill the role of Billy Graham for you , sir?

And here I was, foolishly I guess, thinking we MIGHT be moving toward separation of church and state again.

I almost don’t think I’ll watch the inaugural. I feel thrown under the bus

rwcole @ 69: rut-roh.

disagree.

sorry about my 77. i apologize.

Some people were not paying attention. I beat my head against the wall trying to convince people this was what to expect. No one listened. They projected onto Obama what they chose to believe. I witnessed the beginning of his run for the nomination. I saw the Gospel Tour that kicked off his campaign. It featured ex-gays, anti-gays, right-wing activists as they toured churches throughout the South speaking of Obama’s shared views. This was not a fluke. As for Gays, I am gay. I listened as Biden stated the same policy toward gay rights and marriage as Sara Palin during the debate. They agreed to the nth degree. It was Obama who refused to be interviewed by the gay press. It was Obama who refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsome, mayor of San Francisco. He has stated that his views have not changed, people’s perception of his views were wrong. He is the Messiah so I guess I will just join the club. I give up. You guys try to figure him out

Here’s an equal rights petition to send to Obama. It’s a goodie:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org.....ryjnk8e7x?
sign it please

Actually, research has shown that the some of the founders were connected to metaphysical groups. There is a real connection between the symbols on our money and the Free Masons, pagan groups, and of course the enlightenment. Research can be your friend. And remember, the constitution was established to prevent theocracy not support it. Our founders were pretty sick of the dogma and limits the divine king placed on them. Further, our own pledge of allegiance didn’t include God until the McCarthy era. Do you know what that was? It might be a mirror for you, or not. Blessings and Peace.