So fucking rich. Dan, why exactly would you cite the eugenics-supporting Andrew Sullivan in an article about anti-oppression? Sullivan's history of supporting whacked-out racist shit has been evident for decades: http://nsfwcorp.co/dcie9s
Just watched the video. Why credibility of that magnitude is given to hateful, religious zealotry is beyond me. The news anchor even called out Sprigg for his hateful rhetoric but was given almost equal billing.
Where's the debate on White Supremacy? Where's the debate on anti-semitism? Like Wayne said - if this was about ANY OTHER minority group, this interview would never have taken place.
Actually the far more disturbing bit is that no one on team Obama has learned a goddamn thing in four years. After the Warren dust-up last time, shouldn't the third or fourth thing on the inauguration planning list have been, "Don't do something that fucking stupid again"? Or perhaps "Fully vet the invitees before 1) inviting them and 2) announcing them"?
Ya know...if you want to avoid courting controversy in your choice of who gives the benediction at your inauguration, you could always just not have a benediction at your inauguration.
(I do realize that choice would itself send some folks off the handle. But is it really so radical to propose that a secular ceremony be...you know...secular?)
As I see it, these guys are so zealous about homos in the bible because homos give them boners. Sounds high schoolish? It is. They just can't grow the fuck up about their own feelings.
"Louie Giglio is free think gays have a malfunction that he can cure. And we’re free to tell him to take a hike."
Can I get an AMEN!! Freedom of speech for everyone! "I hate you and I hope you die" is legal to say, but it can be darn rude and does not merit a come-to-the-White-House.
I would like to see a Native American tribal elder do a blessing, full out with chanting and smoke and everything. Or maybe a Native Hawaiian ceremonial opening - considering our President's birthplace. Getting away from the Muslim-Christian-Jewish tension would be a good way to start the new presidency.
PS to @11 - and I understand that the native cultures, both mainland and island, had no problem with the occasional same-sex attraction in the tribe - no biggie, move on, nothing to see here.
What's always so stupid about these guys is that Leviticus et al. are in the Jewish bible (Torah) and if you'd ask any Jew on the street what they think about homosexuals being stoned to death, etc., they'd tell you something like this: "Jesus [so to speak}, why do you people go on about that crap? We don't follow it; our rabbis finessed that away because it was a stupid rule written down 2,500 years ago in a different world. The only reason it's still in the Torah is because we don't take anything out. But we're not stupid enough to think we have to follow everything that's there. Apparently you people are."
@21 That would be awesome and it would give Obama major cred. Unfortunately, Obama's not that "evolved" yet. Maybe in a couple presidential elections we can have a lesbian pastor deliver the benediction.
Leviticus. The book of the Bible of, by, and/or for the Levites, the priestly caste of the Temple. The Temple has been gone for 2000 years, along with its priests, its stone altar, and animal sacrifices. It hasn't been germane to Judaism in 2000 years and it's never been germane to Christianity.
Where's the debate on White Supremacy? Where's the debate on anti-semitism? Like Wayne said - if this was about ANY OTHER minority group, this interview would never have taken place.
(I do realize that choice would itself send some folks off the handle. But is it really so radical to propose that a secular ceremony be...you know...secular?)
Can I get an AMEN!! Freedom of speech for everyone! "I hate you and I hope you die" is legal to say, but it can be darn rude and does not merit a come-to-the-White-House.