Alex Blaze

Obama picks arch-homophobe Rick Warren to deliver inauguration invocation

Filed By Alex Blaze | December 17, 2008 5:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Media, Politics
Tags: Ahmadinejad, Aretha Franklin, assassination, Barack Obama, chosen family, gay friends, gay marriage, homophobic behavior, inauguration, marriage, marriage equality, Prop. 8, rick warren, saddleback church, same-sex marriage, sean hannity

This is unbelievable. Just when you thought the era of insane right-wing pastors having the president on speed-dial was over, Obama goes and shows that it's not:

Aretha Franklin and Dr. Rick Warren, an evangelical minister of the Saddleback Church, are among the select group of people who will participate in Barack Obama's inaugural swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20.[...]

Dr. Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," will deliver the invocation. He will be followed by Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul, who sang "Someday We'll All Be Free" and "Respect" at a concert for Bill Clinton in 1993, but not at the inaugural ceremony.

Rick Warren is the charlatan behind The Purpose-driven Life, and when it comes to politics, his game is to be the media-adored centrist. But his politics are right there with James Dobson, he just sounds nicer when he says it. In fact, Warren said about as much himself.

Some hits of his wingnut bat-shittery are after the jump. But, seriously, Obama? Were there absolutely no left-wing pastors available that day? Was there absolutely no one with a clue who could have penciled in the inauguration?

Just this morning, I posted Rick Warren saying that he has gay friends:

I have many gay friends, I've eaten dinner in gay homes, no church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of "A Purpose-Driven Life" helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't believe in the re-definition of marriage.

Not just anyone with AIDS - just those who got it through "gay relationships"! Or does he think that everyone who gets HIV gets it through homosexual sex gay relationships?

He also thinks that prohibiting same-sex marriage is non-negotiable, unlike peace, fighting poverty, improving education, or improving people's lives. That's what led Warren to back Bush in 2004:

Both men also share political skills of a high order. Like Graham, Warren allowed himself to get too close to the Republican Party. In 2004 he supported Bush behind the scenes, taking part in White House conference calls and informing thousands of pastors that they should regard issues such as abortion and gay marriage as "non-negotiable."

In fact, he spelled it out while he was telling everyone on his email list to vote for Bush in 2004:

But for those of us who accept the Bible as God's Word and know that God has a unique, sovereign purpose for every life, I believe there are 5 issues that are non-negotiable. To me, they're not even debatable because God's Word is clear on these issues. In order to live a purpose-driven life - to affirm what God has clearly stated about his purpose for every person he creates - we must take a stand by finding out what the candidates believe about these five issues, and then vote accordingly.

Here are five questions to ask when considering who to vote for in this election:

1. What does each candidate believe about abortion and protecting the lives of unborn children?

2. What does each candidate believe about using unborn babies for stem-cell harvesting?

3. What does each candidate believe about homosexual marriage?

4. What does each candidate believe about human cloning?

5. What does each candidate believe about euthanasia - the killing of elderly and invalids?

Yup. I don't see anything there about peace. But maybe that peace thing isn't that big of a deal in the Bible.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Rick Warren is full of shit and cares about as much about the Bible as anyone who'd abuse it for political gain would: pick out the parts that support his beliefs and then pretend like the rest doesn't exist. Because how could he give his religious opinion in support of Proposition 8 if he didn't pick and choose?

But his hatred of the homos isn't just Biblical. He has some interesting ideas about biology. Because, you know, science.

WARREN: Now people ask me all the time what do you think about homosexuality, OK? Well, I don't approach it -- I approach it like this. When you look at a female body and you look at a male body it seems that naturally certain parts go together.

KING: It seems that way, therefore how do you explain why someone is homosexual?

WARREN: I don't explain it. I don't explain it.

KING: Well, then that doesn't suffice.

WARREN: Well, and...

KING: Do you know why women, why you like women, just because the body is shaped differently?

WARREN: Oh, no, I'm sure I know why I like women.

KING: You do?

WARREN: I think -- I think I was wired by God to like women. I think they...

KING: So, what did he do to the gay person, God?

WARREN: I don't know that God did that. I really don't.

KING: You mean he did it to you but he didn't do it to them?

WARREN: You know, Larry, we all have instincts and we all have urges and we all have desires. That doesn't necessarily mean that I fulfill all of them. In other words, as a heterosexual man I might desire to have sex with 100 women. That doesn't mean I do it because that wouldn't be the right thing.

KING: All right, but if you desire another man and you're a man and you're an adult, who are you harming if the two of you agree and it's your life?


KING: It's not Rick Warren's life or Larry King's life. It's their life.

WARREN: Well, again, I would just say I think to me the issue is, is it natural? Is it the natural thing? I mean here's an interesting thing I have to ask. How can you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and homosexuality at the same time? Now think about this.

If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.

KING: So, we take the reverse. The creator then approves of it.

WARREN: Well, I believe...

KING: Darwin's wrong. The creator is right. Gays are right.

WARREN: Yes well, of course, I believe that God created one man for one woman for life. A lot of the problems -- as a pastor I've notice that when God gives certain rules they're really for our benefit. They're not because God's capricious or just "I think that I'm going to make your life miserable."

Wow! Thanks, Pastor Warren! Now I get it! I'm gonna go find me a woman to marry now that you've shown a complete mastery of the theory of evolution! Yee haw!

It's not just the gays, though. Warren, as he said in a quotation above, is lock-step with the Religious Right in all their issues: preventing women from having the freedom to carry a baby or not, stopping science, and eliminating people's autonomy by writing his interpretation of the Bible into law. He also believes in lower taxes for the rich, like a good little right-wing ideologue.

Not only that, he pulled a Pat Robertson moment the other day by calling for the assassination of Ahmadinejad:

HANNITY: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.


HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.


HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe...

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

HANNITY: I'm just gotten, thanks to my wife, who you know, you know, been reading the Old Testament. Because as a good Catholic growing up, I studied more the New Testament.

WARREN: Just ignored that part.

HANNITY: I ignored the Old Testament. But what about King David? What about the -- all the battles, all the conflict, you know, going back - - you know, Abraham -- Adam and Eve and their children, going forward?

WARREN: The point is, there are some things worth dying for. There's no doubt about that. And I would die for my family. I would die for my freedom. I would die for this country.

HANNITY: If somebody broke into your house, you would be justified to kill them?

WARREN: I would be justified to protect my family. Absolutely.

HANNITY: And if it took killing them?

WARREN: Absolutely.

HANNITY: But it's not murder at that point?

WARREN: No. Murder is not self-defense.

That's so Christian, calling for the heads of specific people. I suppose he'd like to have it served on a silver platter and to drink the blood afterwards?

This is absurd. This man should be about as close to Obama's presidency as Dick Cheney. Or as anyone else who thinks assassination of heads of state is a good idea.

Both Obama and McCain were running on versions of the "post-partisan" message. But I thought that Obama's version was that he was going to bring people together under progressive policy, not just put up the banner of guns, God and gays and hope no one asks that many questions.

Update: Rick Warren doesn't like Christians who disagree with him.

Rick Warren, cloaked in his public image as a "new" kind of evangelical, took aim at non-evangelical Christians this week, saying in an interview with Beliefnet editor Steven Waldman that "social gospel" Christians believe that they "don't really need to care about Jesus' personal salvation any more. You don't really have to care about redemption, the cross, repentance. All we need to do is redeem the social structures of society and if we make those social structures better then the world will be a better place. In many ways it was just Marxism in Christian clothing."

The Beliefnet interview led associate dean of Religious Life at Princeton University Paul Raushenbush to write on his blog that he is "sick of Rick." About Warren's boasts of awakening evangelicals to God calling them to help the poor, Raushenbush writes "duh!" and asks the celebrity preacher "to have a little humility about the work of his church on AIDS ('my church has done more than any other church helping people with AIDS' -- please! Try talking to Glide Church in the Tenderloin area in San Francisco)."

And HRC has a statement out:

Dear President-elect Obama -

Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years. And by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, "there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it's a lie today.

Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian James Dobson disagree on. Rev. Warren is not a moderate pastor who is trying to bring all sides together. Instead, Rev. Warren has often played the role of general in the cultural war waged against LGBT Americans, many of whom also share a strong tradition of religion and faith.

We have been moved by your calls to religious leaders to own up to the homophobia and racism that has stood in the way of combating HIV and AIDS in this country. And that you have publicly called on religious leaders to open their hearts to their LGBT family members, neighbors and friends.

But in this case, we feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination. Only when Rev. Warren and others support basic legislative protections for LGBT Americans can we believe their claim that they are not four-square against our rights and dignity. In that light, we urge you to reconsider this announcement.


Joe Solmonese


Human Rights Campaign

This is a big "Fuck you" to the left and the groups that make up the Democratic Party.

This is only going to feed those "Democrats divided" stories, even though it's nothing of the sort. If anything, I see the entire left coming together to call this idea just terrible.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Perhaps Gene Robinson would have been a better choice.

There shouldn't be any pastor at the inauguration, left, right, or center. It's called separation of church and state, but as he showed with his stance on faith-based initiatives, Obama doesn't believe in it anymore than Bush. As for selecting Warren, you should be used to his betrayals by now. The man just can't sell out his base swiftly enough before January 20.

It was the choice of the Inaugural Committee not Obama's, although he could have vetoed it.

And thus McClurkin's fiasco repeats itself. Crawford must be proud!

Hils never would have made a move like that. Tsk, tsk. Let's hope this fuels the fire even more in our fight for gay marriage. It's the only silver lining I can offer.

Mcclurkin? What about the guy whose pew Obama sat in for years? Numerous people were pointing out the danger signs during the primaries, but so many didn't want to hear.

I can't wait for him to appoint a "socially liberal on everything but the gays" Justice to the Supreme Court.

Jeremiah Wright is about 20 light-years to the left of Rick Warren. He helped create a gay and lesbian singles group in his church, was one of the first in the religious community in Chicago to do outreach to HIV-positive people, and he speaks out regularly in favor of LGBT people.

Also too his church is UCC, and Warren's is SBC. Hillary Clinton's, George Bush's, and John McCain's churches (Methodist, Methodist, and Baptist, respectively) are all much more homophobic than Obama's was.

I'd be much happier if Jeremiah Wright were invited, even though that wouldn't happen in a billion years. But there are definitely quite a few people who could have been invited instead.

I would like to see Bishop Selders of the HRC Religious Advisory Committee with his tie dye shirt and dread-locks give the invocation. He is great and would add some class to the whole affair. I would hope he would bring bongo drums.
BTW, I am so proud of the HRC sending a letter to President Elect Obama objecting to Warren. They are suddenly getting active. Must be Melissa Etheridge's influence.

Haha. If it is, we'll be hearing a folks song about it soon.

Does anyone know what would rhyme with "Rick Warren"?

Perfect, Charles. Let's advocate for Bishop Selders. :)

There should be no invocation at all.
That peaceful protest scheduled for this weekend all around the country? Let it change its focus to a protest of this new nonsense, and let it be loud and boisterous and angry.

Having an invocation is a long-held tradition from the beginning of the Republic. It underscores the solemnity of the proceedings and the sense that we tie in to something bigger than ourselves. I have no problem with having one at the Inauguration, although it would have been neat to have several: Why not have a Christian one, -and- Jewish one, -and- a Muslim one, -and- a Hindu one, and so on? Or how about having a truly inclusive non-sectarian one?

If they only have to a Christian invocation, well, Obama is a Christian, so o.k.. I suppose he'll swear on a Bible, too -- fine. But you think he could have at least chosen someone from an "open and affirming" congregation.

This is the point where I should call up the Unitarian minister I spent a lovely evening with awhile back...

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | December 17, 2008 7:58 PM

I'm in agreement with gkruz. There should be no religion at the inauguration.

And, Scott, you said it best!

I am so sick of religious fundamentalists.

Then why did you vote for one?

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | December 18, 2008 4:13 PM

Bill, one thing Obama isn't is a religious fundamentalist of the ilk of Palin, Bush, and Warren. He and his advisors perceive that it is politically expedient to appeal to the Religious Right. He sees nothing to lose and everything to gain. It is up to what remains of the Left in this country to convince him and the Dems otherwise.

And just who would you have advised we vote for instead? Hillary? McCain/Palin?

I'm probably as radically left as you, if in a slightly differently-skewed direction. And while I admire Obama for many things, including having come from a bi-racial, single-parent, lower income family; working as a community organizer when he could have gone for corporate law instead; being intelligent and eloquent; and persevering to become the first black president in US history, I never had illusions that he was a progressive. The fact I voted for him doesn't mean I can't now be angry and hugely disappointed when he pulls a stunt like inviting Warren to the inauguration. Moreover, I'm bracing myself for much worse to come.

Also, what's your solution, given the entrenched two party, pro-business system in this country? Don't vote at all? Armed revolution? Leave the country? I may eventually resort to the last; I will never sign on to the other two.

If you're going to continue to excoriate the lefties here, I suggest you start coming up with some viable alternative actions to those you're criticizing.

Bill, one thing Obama isn't is a religious fundamentalist of the ilk of Palin, Bush, and Warren. Sure he is. He, Biden, Clinton, Palin and the others are all bigots who oppose same sex marriage. He used Warrens forum to mobilize bigot voters and it defeated same sex partnering in three states.

He and his advisors perceive that it is politically expedient to appeal to the Religious Right... It is up to what remains of the Left in this country to convince him and the Dems otherwise. Captured GLBT Democrats have failed miserably at that task for decades. You will continue to fail because you have no, zero, nada, zilch, clout. The owners of the Democrat party dismiss you as weak and unimportant. Time and again.

And just who would you have advised we vote for instead? Hillary? McCain/Palin? Any socialist communist or labor candidate with a decent GLBT program. Or just join the tens of millions who sit it out because they know it’s pointless. You don’t have to choose from their list. Leftists only win if we use to educate and organize. You use them to bolster bigots like OBama. If elections actually produced change they’d be outlawed. People like you keep voting for change and hope and keep insuring that all of us will be thrown under the bus.

I'm probably as radically left as you… Probably not. And that’s not a criticism, just an observation. Radicals and leftists don’t vote for bigotry, war and Wall Stree lapdogs. You did.

And while I admire Obama for … being intelligent and eloquent; and persevering to become the first black president in US history, I never had illusions that he was a progressive. The fact I voted for him doesn't mean I can't now be angry and hugely disappointed when he pulls a stunt like inviting Warren…Moreover, I'm bracing myself for much worse to come. You voted for a bigot, a warmonger and a Wall Street lapdog. You own every anti-worker screw-up, every military escalation and every sell-out of our equality. You voted for all that and you own it. I'm sympathetic with your discomfort when that's brought up but we're all paying for your ill thought out vote for a bigot.

Also, what's your solution… Don't vote at all? Armed revolution? Too bad, Brynn because I’d have joined the Minutemen of 1775 in a heartbeat. I (presumably) had ancestors in the coalatin that gave Custer what he had coming and in the IRB/IRA and I’m immensely proud of them.
In 1861 I'dve happily worn blue, shouldered a rifle and and helped give the slavers a taste of their own medicine.

If you're going to continue to excoriate the lefties here, I suggest you start coming up with some viable alternative actions to those you're criticizing. Brynn, leftists don't vote for war bigotry and rule by the rich. You did. Your ‘viable alternatives’ are wasted attempts to change a system ruled by the rich. They out gun you. People like you don’t have a snowballs chance in hell of changing the system. So you end up swinging between hysterical election hoopla (McCain is the great satan) and despondency (Oops, so is Obama).

I cannot imagine why you’d be gloomy about the chances for fundamental change as we enter a period marked by unchecked militant bigotry, an unwinnable war and an economy that just struck and iceberg and is listing 90 degrees. Unless you’re a left centrist stuck in a right centrist party, locked in the last closet, the political closet.

We have heard all that religious prayers to the air have to say anyway. Just a few moments of silence would suffice.

Per Deborah's comments, let's make this another "blessing in disguise." It's time to react to this as we did to Prop. 8 (while Warren and Prop. 8 are linked together).

Just proof that a single vote is not sufficient for change - it requires continuous involvement. This is when you write physical letters. To the editor, to the officials involved, to get the word out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The Very Rev.Katherine Jefferts-Schori, archbishop of The Episcopal Church, or the Rt. Rev. John Chane, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, would have hugely better choices. Jefferts-Schori, especially, is trying to lead her entire Church toward open acceptance of LGBTs, despite withering opposition from a loud, well-financed Right Wing. Choosing her would have sent a clear signal to all mainstream American churches. Choosing Warren sends its own reactionary message.


Hey welcome to under the bus LGB'ers!

Now you know how the Trans community feels much of the time. Does ENDA ring any bells? Or a whole slew of hate crimes legislation that snuck by in some states without that pesky 'T' getting in the way?


I wonder how many other "deals with the devil" he has had to make just to try and survive til inauguration?

Maybe if everyone would have given a little more critical thinking to the candidate during the election process it wouldn't be such a shock now. You were all overwhelmed by charisma and coming down from it will be very hard.
Let the rationalization begin.....let's have some more projection all around. Displacement, yes....let's kick the other guy to feel good. Wake up! This is going to be like the watching the Poseidon Adventure. No matter whether you head for the bow or the stern, the ship will be going down, and in the process the ugly side of your personalities will emerge.

Before we get too crazy-mad about this, remember that Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, an icon of the Civil Rights movement and someone who outspokenly supports us is giving the benediction at the ceremonies:

Is it possible that Obama really meant it when he said he was about building bridges and bringing together people who disagree? He's not and has never been an ideologue. He's acting like a leader, and yes, like the shrewd politician he is.

This is the sort of thing Obama's always done and will always do: He does not shut anyone out, he brings them in and works to bring them around toward compromise. Compromise is how our system works toward change over time. And yes, sometimes it does mean sucking it up, working with people you don't like, and getting less than everything you want when you want it.

"Is it possible that Obama really meant it when he said he was about building bridges and bringing together people who disagree?... He's acting like... the shrewd politician he is."

So why is he delaying his invitation to the KKK?

As Rick Warren said above, his positions are non-negotiable. Including him and his ilk will mean that we'll be the ones to compromise in the end, since they certainly never will.

But beyond that, as Bill Perdue points out, there are all sorts of horrible people Obama could have invited to have a "big tent." Why not James Dobson? or Pat Robertson? or David Duke? Or George Bush?

In the end, I would have hoped that he would have picked people trying to make the world better, not hucksters trying to make a cheap buck off people's hatred.

"This is unbelievable."

No, it’s not. It's par for the course.

Obama insured his election by reaffirming his bigot bona fides at Warren’s Saddleback Forum. He did it by saying ‘god’s in the mix’. That brought our bigot voters by the hundreds of thousands who voted for him and for 8, 2, and 102. Obama’s simply returning the favor Warren give him for an opening to a wider bigot vote base. It was probably a deal made before at the time.

Only gullible people, aka Obama voters, are shocked by this and think it’s unbelievable. For the rest of us it’s all part of a pattern beginning with Obama’s primary revival meetings starring bigoted scum like MaryMary and McClurkin. Throughout the campaign his message was the same; “Love the sinner”, i.e., no unnecessary constitutional amendments but “Hate the sinner”, i.e., no right to get married because "god’s in the mix” and ‘he’s’ a bigot too and the law should mimic the bigots.

“This is a big "Fuck you" to the left and the groups that make up the Democratic Party.” Alex, no one in the Democrat party is part of the left. They will be when they leave but for now they support the party of pandering to bigots, enlarging the war and giving trillions to the uberrich. That’s a right centrist agenda and those who support it are right centrists because they support it.

Oh but, hey, we get a band. So all is well...

Rick Warren is a symptom, not a cause.

The questions this prompts for me are:

* why wasn't this flagged as objectionable, right off the bat?
* why is HRC sending out press releases on this (like an outsider), rather than preventing it from happening in the first place (aren't they the ultimate Washington insider org)? if they're not on the inside, who is?
* are there no queer folks, no queer organizational representatives, on the inside of the administration, inaugural committee, etc. who could have flagged this as an objectionable choice?
* worse: did they raise the issue and get blown off?

This choice originated in the Inaugural Committee:

Take a look at who is on it: DiFi and Nancy Pelosi. Maybe they deserve a few calls and emails themselves? Are there no queer folks on the inaugural committee staff?

I urge folks to think about how this happened in the first place, to focus and communicate about the larger picture, as well as the smaller one, and to frame demands that ask for an infrastructure to be created that will prevent a repeat of this screw up. Dumping Warren without solving the underlying problem that brought him on board is a non-optimal outcome.

Curtis Morton | December 18, 2008 8:00 PM

Just to start off, I am not a Republican (I'm a registered Independent, but with more conservative views than liberal views; however, I'm still pretty much in the middle). I also grew up attending Saddleback Church from 1986-1999, when I graduated high school and ventured off for college.

I think that your bashing a pastor for believing in what he believes in, just because he has conservative views and doesn't agree with you, is pretty narrow-minded. Pastor Warren doesn't agree with same-sex marriage due to his religions beliefs, which is his right, but he doesn't come out like a lot of pastors have and say that we are going to hell and that we are all doomed sinners because we are gay. He just says he doesn't agree with it. And while he doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, he has done a lot to help AIDs victims and doesn't disgriminate gays and lesbians from attending the church (and it's not for money).

A lot of people just don't understand. I recently went on a mission trip to Mississippi to help rebuild some of the Katrina houses with a group of Christians, and the topic of Prop 8 came up (I was the only one in my group who voted No on 8 of course). Some of them couldn't understand that homosexuality is not a choice, but something deeper ingrained in us (whether it be from birth, or events that happen in our early childhood, or whatever). They just need to be educated, but it will take generations to really make changes in how people view gay couples.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 19, 2008 7:42 AM

No, Curtis, it will take at most two generations -- as long as it will take for enough of them to die off and enough young people nor poisoned by the likes of Warren to take their places as those in charge -- probably a lot less time, especially if people like you quit making excuses for Warren and his followers and providing them aid and comfort as their token queer pet, letting them think that, because they haven't strung you up on a fence or run you over then set fire to your body amidst a pile of tires, they're not the pig bigots they are. You're the one they use as their "some of my best friends are..." Quit playing the Quisling.

And none of us have "bashed" Warren, much as he deserves to have his face rearranged for his Energizer Bunny activism to try to change Microsoft's fair employment practices to steal from us and our spouses and spousal equivalents out, to add to the long list of hurtful things he's pulled.

But haven't you heard? We're the GENTLE angry people. Bashing is what Warren inspires like-minded bigots to do to us by dehumanizing and demeaning us. We're the ones who've turned the other cheek so often we're bruised and scarred -- if we survived at all. Those of us who have survived tend to be smart enough to realize that only those who hold the reins of power can get away with real bashing and that it tends to backfire on those of us in minority groups when we make the mistake of fighting that way. Bayard Rustin was right about that much.

Warren's just had his Christian cred and general humanity and integrity questioned and his gross disconnects from those exposed with a wee bit of his hatefilled words and behavior. I have fundie in-laws -- a trial beyond measure -- so I understand how such crit, however justified, can give a fundie follower such as yourself the heebie-jeebies. But that doesn't make it "narrow-minded". In this case, the crit is righteous. The man is a hatemonger and a pig. And, if you keep crawling around in the mud with him, don't be surprised if people mistake you for one, too.


NOTHING can defend this horrid choice!

i am prouder each day that obama is my second choice for prez!!!!

alicia banks