Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, December 19, 2008
Religion / Politics Christopher Hitchens on Rick Warren
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM
From Slate:
As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors.This quite simply cannot stand.... A president may by all means use his office to gain re-election, to shore up his existing base, or to attract a new one. But the day of his inauguration is not one of the days on which he should be doing that. It is an event that belongs principally to the voters and to their descendants, who are called to see that a long tradition of peaceful transition is cheerfully upheld, even in those years when the outcome is disputed. I would myself say that it doesn't need a clerical invocation at all, since, to borrow Lincoln's observation about Gettysburg, it has already been consecrated. But if we must have an officiating priest, let it be some dignified old hypocrite with no factional allegiance and not a tree-shaking huckster and publicity seeker who believes that millions of his fellow citizens are hellbound because they do not meet his own low and vulgar standards.
1
I find Christopher Hitchens to be a blowhard and a drunk and I almost never agree with him, except in cases like these.
5
"...redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors."
"...tree-shaking huckster..."
"...his own low and vulgar standards."
That was beautiful.
"...tree-shaking huckster..."
"...his own low and vulgar standards."
That was beautiful.
6
I still stand by my love-hate relationship with Hitchens. So much about him I hate and so much about him I love; this is the love type stuff.
7
Better to throw a bone the right with silly bullshit like this overblown ceremony than something that makes a real difference in people's lives like a cabinet or Supreme Court appointment.
9
(copied from another thread)
Also, check out who's giving the benediction: Civil Rights icon Joe Lowery, who supports gay clergy and gay marriage:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepher…
See what he's doing there?
Also, check out who's giving the benediction: Civil Rights icon Joe Lowery, who supports gay clergy and gay marriage:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepher…
See what he's doing there?
10
thank god for Hitchens. He reminds is that not only is Warren a hatemongering homophobe, he's also just a lame ass shuckster getting rich from exploiting people's hate. Great people you're reaching out to Mr. Obama.
12
at first i thought i was reading the thoughts of that prayer warrior "hutch" guy, i was very confused.
i really don't get this whole rick warren thing. why would obama pick him to give a pretty big speech? to appease the right? fuck the right, they've lost all credibility, why give them anything? i say kick 'em while their down.
i really don't get this whole rick warren thing. why would obama pick him to give a pretty big speech? to appease the right? fuck the right, they've lost all credibility, why give them anything? i say kick 'em while their down.
14
I'm torn here. I'm upset at the Obama team for green-lighting a high-profile appearance of a jerk like Warren, but if I thought for a second they were taking advice from Christopher Motherfucking Hitchens I would be livid. "Tree-shaking huckster and publicity seeker" indeed.
16
Hitchens is a drunken gasbag. He is practically incoherent when interviewed live. I agree with most of his views on religion, but I stopped subscribing to Harpers for the sole reason that I was constantly tripping over his drivel.
17
Hitchens is just one of those writers where I can agree with every word he says, but his actual writing style...yeech. It reads like a freshman comp class assignment where you can see that the author is TRYING to be clever, but...
18
Are all youse people crazy? Hitchens is one of the finest stylists writing English today. He was completely wrong on Iraq, but spot-on regarding just about everything else.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
19
Obama is choosing to lie down with a dog that is infested with flees. The kool-aid drinkers are akin to horses running towards a burning barn. The end results are predictable.
21
If you are gonna be attending the inauguration, I suggest you quietly, turn your back to Mr. Warren when he gives the invocation. Bow your head in shame if you feel like it. Imagine the effect of seeing thousands turning their backs in shame on the TV coverage.
22
Make no mistake, Hitchens uses the English language beautifully, without fault, and with dagger-like intensity. He writes in a way that is almost forgotten by most writers, especially journalists. I don't agree with him on everything but here? He nailed it. Gorgeously.
23
@21, yeah, nice idea. but there won't be "thousands" turning there backs. there will hundreds, if that. and that makes me sad, sick, and tired.
25
@24
Dear kool-aid drinker,
The problem is: you think that they will change.
There is no concrete irrefutable evidence that you or Obama can change ENOUGH of them to matter. But there is ample evidence that they will NOT change. Bill and Hillary got in bed with Billy G. and what did that get him? A: Impeachment proceedings. And what did it get gays and lesbians? A: DADT and DOMA.
Dear kool-aid drinker,
The problem is: you think that they will change.
There is no concrete irrefutable evidence that you or Obama can change ENOUGH of them to matter. But there is ample evidence that they will NOT change. Bill and Hillary got in bed with Billy G. and what did that get him? A: Impeachment proceedings. And what did it get gays and lesbians? A: DADT and DOMA.
26
Hitchens is just a imperialist douche. I don't even want to read what he said, I'd probably start liking Warren.
27
@25
I guess I'm not as fatalistic and angry as you.
As for DADT, you make it sound like it was a step backward. Well prior to "don't ask, don't tell", the military's policy was "don't serve". DADT made it legal to be gay in the military for the first time. Granted, it was only a foot in the door, but it eventually put an end to the witch hunts, it increased gay tolerance among troops, and it dispelled the fears that our troops would somehow be compromised if gays were allowed to serve.
If DADT is so bad, you should join the homophobes and demand that it be revoked.
I guess I'm not as fatalistic and angry as you.
As for DADT, you make it sound like it was a step backward. Well prior to "don't ask, don't tell", the military's policy was "don't serve". DADT made it legal to be gay in the military for the first time. Granted, it was only a foot in the door, but it eventually put an end to the witch hunts, it increased gay tolerance among troops, and it dispelled the fears that our troops would somehow be compromised if gays were allowed to serve.
If DADT is so bad, you should join the homophobes and demand that it be revoked.
28
@27
I'm not sure what history books you've been reading but I think you'll find that discharges increased exponentially after DADT was enacted. "Since its inception in 1993, over 12,500 service members have been discharged under the law." And in 2006 "A poll of more than 71,000 active duty service members at 38 military installations found that 80 percent had heard offensive speech, including derogatory names and jokes, targeted at gays." So much for all that "tolerance."
Don't serve was awful, but it turns out DADT was worse.
Clinton had no conviction on the subject, and because he was considered a "draft dodger" he seemed only too eager to capitulate. In fact, Clinton turned out to be like most democrats who claim to support or "fiercely advocate" for equality for gays and lesbians: all talk and no substance. They don't really believe or know what they're talking about.
It might be a good idea to not emulate them.
I'm not sure what history books you've been reading but I think you'll find that discharges increased exponentially after DADT was enacted. "Since its inception in 1993, over 12,500 service members have been discharged under the law." And in 2006 "A poll of more than 71,000 active duty service members at 38 military installations found that 80 percent had heard offensive speech, including derogatory names and jokes, targeted at gays." So much for all that "tolerance."
Don't serve was awful, but it turns out DADT was worse.
Clinton had no conviction on the subject, and because he was considered a "draft dodger" he seemed only too eager to capitulate. In fact, Clinton turned out to be like most democrats who claim to support or "fiercely advocate" for equality for gays and lesbians: all talk and no substance. They don't really believe or know what they're talking about.
It might be a good idea to not emulate them.
29
Does Hitchens have a Facebook page or something so that I can get in touch with him and arrange to have his baby?
32
Oh, Christopher Hitchens. Most of the time you're such a douchebag that I just want to punch you in the balls. And then you go and do something like this and make me want to marry you.
33
" one who hates religionists"
Explain to me the moral difference between one who hates religionists and one who hates homosexuals.
Me? I hate bigots.
Explain to me the moral difference between one who hates religionists and one who hates homosexuals.
Me? I hate bigots.
34
@33:
Sure!
Religion is a choice. If a person chooses to participate in a religion that is hateful and/or violent and/or bigoted and/or altogether ridiculous, then it says something about who they are, morally.
Homosexuality is not a choice, and it doesn't say anything about who a person is, morally.
To hate somebody for an inborn trait that has nothing to do with their character seems different to me than hating somebody for choosing to participate in a fucked-up institution.
Sure!
Religion is a choice. If a person chooses to participate in a religion that is hateful and/or violent and/or bigoted and/or altogether ridiculous, then it says something about who they are, morally.
Homosexuality is not a choice, and it doesn't say anything about who a person is, morally.
To hate somebody for an inborn trait that has nothing to do with their character seems different to me than hating somebody for choosing to participate in a fucked-up institution.
35
@34: wonderfully put.
I read that Hitchens article within about an hour of it being posted on Slate. Some of his articles I vehemently disagree with, but others - like this one - are brilliant. I love Hitchens much more than I dislike him, and this article is ample justification.
I read that Hitchens article within about an hour of it being posted on Slate. Some of his articles I vehemently disagree with, but others - like this one - are brilliant. I love Hitchens much more than I dislike him, and this article is ample justification.
36
Has anyone mentioned Yesua. From what I know Rick Warren has worked with Bono in africa to stop aids. Yeah, to me that doesn't sound like a Homophobe does it. Yet, I bet most of you are unfamiliar with who Rick Warren is and what he stands for....
The Cool thing is that Jesus Loves Warren and Hitchens. When I hear Warren speak, I do not hear a man who is angry. when I hear Hitchens speak, well I hear a man who is bent on destroying people's faith (that's why Chris Hitchens agrees with Bush on waging war in the Middle east).
Anyways Peace to all. I can tell that many people who have written on this blog have been hurt by individuals calling themselves Christian. Well, I apologize for them. Jesus Loves You and I love you. CHeck out Shane Claybourne and Greg Boyd great modern Christian Thinkers.
The Cool thing is that Jesus Loves Warren and Hitchens. When I hear Warren speak, I do not hear a man who is angry. when I hear Hitchens speak, well I hear a man who is bent on destroying people's faith (that's why Chris Hitchens agrees with Bush on waging war in the Middle east).
Anyways Peace to all. I can tell that many people who have written on this blog have been hurt by individuals calling themselves Christian. Well, I apologize for them. Jesus Loves You and I love you. CHeck out Shane Claybourne and Greg Boyd great modern Christian Thinkers.
38
Because they cannot see or hear the soul bodies and psychic energy of living organisms, Atheists make the assumption that any living organism does not have psychic energy, or an energy body.
What we have called religion is but only a method of how people have made attempts to understand their psychic or energy body, thus liberate their awareness of such things.
Although attempting to enhance the welfare and well being of humanity, Atheists often unfortunately and (I hope), unintentionally make many highly patronizing, condescending and self assured comments about what they assume and presume the behavior of those whom seek spiritual awareness, within any form is.
Now I must very kindly ask you not to make any self righteous assumptions based on your experiences, that I may be mentally or emotionally unwell, that I suffer psychosis, or that I have schizophrenia, that I play make believe or whatever else.
Such statements are just a quick and easy, give it to me now way of rationalizing what I may have said. This includes the typical patronising assumptions such as, those whom seek spiritual awareness have a psychological need that they are unable to face death, they have a psychological need to allow themselves to be controlled or enslaved and that they need a leader to tell them how to behave, etc etc. I have a bag full of responses to that sort of “I am an amateur Sigmund Feud, I am an amateur psychologist”, pip squeaking, yet however would like to assure you that I will always make all efforts to speak respectfully to everyone else’s cognitive perceptions of what they consider that those whom have sort awareness and knowledge of what the psychic body of any orgainism, does. This includes even when a secularist makes such presumptions and assumptions which however are based on their individual limited experiences and cognitive reasoning.
Is it asking too much that those whom are not able to see, hear or sense the psychic and spiritual body of beings to not continually pass patronizing and insulting assumptions and presumptions about the behaviour of those whom seek spiritual/psychic awareness?????
Now you probably are all wondering and will like continue wondering until the day you die, “if that annoying man was absolutely full of it or not”. My answer to that is certainly does appear that very few people in this world have the abilities that I have, so based on that I would either be telling the truth, or not telling the truth. I did not intend to develop the skills I have to see and hear souls. However in hindsight I have become aware how I have achieved this. Though due to concern for the safety of the learning method, will not elaborate how to you, as there may be someone whom may attempt to destroy or damage this learning method.
More...
What we have called religion is but only a method of how people have made attempts to understand their psychic or energy body, thus liberate their awareness of such things.
Although attempting to enhance the welfare and well being of humanity, Atheists often unfortunately and (I hope), unintentionally make many highly patronizing, condescending and self assured comments about what they assume and presume the behavior of those whom seek spiritual awareness, within any form is.
Now I must very kindly ask you not to make any self righteous assumptions based on your experiences, that I may be mentally or emotionally unwell, that I suffer psychosis, or that I have schizophrenia, that I play make believe or whatever else.
Such statements are just a quick and easy, give it to me now way of rationalizing what I may have said. This includes the typical patronising assumptions such as, those whom seek spiritual awareness have a psychological need that they are unable to face death, they have a psychological need to allow themselves to be controlled or enslaved and that they need a leader to tell them how to behave, etc etc. I have a bag full of responses to that sort of “I am an amateur Sigmund Feud, I am an amateur psychologist”, pip squeaking, yet however would like to assure you that I will always make all efforts to speak respectfully to everyone else’s cognitive perceptions of what they consider that those whom have sort awareness and knowledge of what the psychic body of any orgainism, does. This includes even when a secularist makes such presumptions and assumptions which however are based on their individual limited experiences and cognitive reasoning.
Is it asking too much that those whom are not able to see, hear or sense the psychic and spiritual body of beings to not continually pass patronizing and insulting assumptions and presumptions about the behaviour of those whom seek spiritual/psychic awareness?????
Now you probably are all wondering and will like continue wondering until the day you die, “if that annoying man was absolutely full of it or not”. My answer to that is certainly does appear that very few people in this world have the abilities that I have, so based on that I would either be telling the truth, or not telling the truth. I did not intend to develop the skills I have to see and hear souls. However in hindsight I have become aware how I have achieved this. Though due to concern for the safety of the learning method, will not elaborate how to you, as there may be someone whom may attempt to destroy or damage this learning method.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (38) RSS