Our godly inauguration

Via the blog Feminist Law Professors, a few additional pearls of wisdom courtesy the renowned "Pastor" Rick Warren.

Here’s Rick Warren’s response to the whole controversy: those who oppose his presence at the inauguration have engaged in "hate speech" and are "Christophobes."

There shouldn't be much doubt on the issue among progressives and feminists. Doesn't Warren's response make that clear?

It was already more than clear enough beforehand but, yes.

And beyond even "Pastor" Warren's comically ill-informed homophobia, there's also his atavistic, patriarchal sexism:

According to Warren, it is better to maintain an abusive relationship than seek the immediate relief of divorce.

Warren’s views give abusive spouses one more tool to control their victims: the Bible.

His teaching undermines the resolve of women who are debating ending an abusive marriage. According to Warren, a Christian who divorces another Christian will ultimately look back and say, "I told myself it was for a right reason but now I realize it was more my selfishness than anything else."

Great call, Obama. Change, we need. Not more of this drek.

California preacher has lots of gay friends

But how many pedophiles, he isn't saying

A number of observers on the political left have expressed degrees of concern with self-styled God-spokeperson and megachurch proprietor "Pastor" Rick Warren's comparison of gays with pedophiles.

While it's true Warren likened gay couples to child molesters and it's also true that the comparison is outlandish and wildly insulting on its face, there are at least two important distinctions overlooked by most of those observers.

Pedophilia is an aberrant psychological condition and plenty of pedophiles are already legally married. They just aren't married to children. And when it comes to sexual — or even contractual — relationships involving children, the question of consent arises.

Because as a matter of fundamental legal (and psychological) principle, children aren't even capable of extending consent. Whereas among adults, consent is not an issue. It's a given.

Nevertheless, the ongoing debate over gay marriage is not so much a question of sexuality or even consent but of equality and civil rights, two other fundamental legal principles.

And the civil rights and bonds sought by many gay people are no different than those enjoyed by anyone else. It just so happens that those bonds are sought by two people of the same gender. All of their other goals and aspirations may be identical to those of other legally married couples, including child rearing and even child bearing.

Take a look, for example, at this assembly of New Jersey plaintiffs.

In a number of the same sex marriage cases litigated throughout the country, States have asserted, in opposition to SSM, that State's compelling interest in fostering procreation. Frankly, it's just about the strongest argument they have.

Except nobody ever said that gay couples can't procreate, either through surrogate parenting or adoption.

Nor has any State forced more "traditional" couples to procreate who otherwise might decide not to — or even have intercourse, for that matter. In other words, women and men, regardless of their sexuality, are still able to fulfill those State objectives if they so desire. Or not. They remain free to make those choices.

Much in keeping with the U.S Supreme Court's 1967 unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia, it took a judicial decision in California to recognize the constitutional right of gay people to enter into the same type of civil arrangement that the widely admired Britney Spears was able to freely enjoy for as long as 55 whole hours.

Former Paramount Studios head Robert Evans enjoyed it so much he did it seven times with nary a peep from the religious rightists.

Yet "Pastor" Warren, allegedly at the personal behest of noted civil libertarian and community organizer Jesus of Nazareth, helped lead the efforts of Californians to rescind that right on November 4.

That alone should preclude him from sharing the inaugural podium with the president of all Americans a month from now, in my opinion. But that's Barack Obama's decision, and he can take his political lumps for it. And he will. And he should. And he deserves to.

Warren's position is not a "principled decision," as some might suggest. That Warren views consensual, adult gay relationships through the same antediluvian blinkers that he does those who would commit first degree sexual assault of a child, which carries a 60-year prison term in Wisconsin, is instead strong evidence that his position is one of a foolish and unprincipled ignoramus.

As for Obama's selection of Warren to intone some species of abracadabra during the chief executive's installation next month, we don't yet know of its exact content. But Warren says he plans to "pray God's blessing on the office of the president," so obviously it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference one way or the other.

John Sidnevich McSolzhenitsyn?

The Christian Prison Guards of Communist North Vietnam.

Evidently John McCain was in no "cone of silence" either, as Left Coast megapastor Rick Warren had claimed on Saturday evening.

Rick Warren completely contradicted himself on whether or not he knew McCain was in the building. Twice. First, he says they had a coin toss before the forum started to see who would go first. But if McCain was not there, how could they conduct the coin toss? And if Warren knew McCain wasn’t there to do the coin toss, why did he continue to state that McCain was in the building? The second contradiction was his remarks to CNN’s Rick Sanchez where he said that he did not know that McCain was out of the building ... but then felt compelled to ask Obama an extra question because McCain had not yet arrived at the building! Is he for real?

Funny business.

Regardless, Senator McCain lately seems to have become considerably less reluctant to discuss his experiences as a POW.

Last week, when the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a close Bush ally, publicly questioned McCain’s character, the McCain campaign responded by highlighting McCain’s background as a prisoner of war. When Dems attacked McCain’s healthcare plan in May, McCain responded by noting his background as a prisoner of war. Asked by a local reporter about the first thing that comes to his mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, McCain responded by talking about his background as a prisoner of war.

And, just yesterday, on the bogus "cone of silence" question, a McCain campaign spokeswoman replied:

The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.

What's that got to do with it? There's no question McCain's experience as a POW was horrendous and dreadful, and it took great character and courage to refuse the North Vietnamese offer of release, but it doesn't otherwise indemnify him against scrutiny.

So let me get this straight

A famous and apparently widely admired person, the "Purpose Driven Pastor" Rick Warren, who claims to follow and represent The Lord and Saviour on Earth, has to be "pressured" by the media to condemn Uganda's official plans to execute homosexuals.

Because when they asked Pastor Rick Warren about it before, he said oh no, it's simply not appropriate to comment on some other country's internal affairs.

Is that about the size of it?

What's especially ghastly is how much he looks like Jerry Falwell.

Rick Warren never endorsed Prop. 8

What an unmitigatedly baldfaced liar this man is.
Earlier: The "Reverend" Rick Warren

McCain's absolute faith based pandering

Last night during Left Coast megapastor Rick Warren's Q&A session with Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, Warren asked for both presidential candidates' view of the so-called faith based initiatives, whereby federal funds are diverted to religious groups for performing otherwise non-religious social services:

WARREN: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows religious organizations, not just churches, but faith based organizations, to keep and hire the people that they believe [they] share common beliefs with.

McCAIN: Yes.

WARREN: Would you insist that faith based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?

McCAIN: Absolutely not. And if you do, it would mean a severe crippling of faith based organizations and their abilities to do the things that they have done so well successfully.

Then, my friends, McCain rambled away into another tedious stump speech, which is pretty much all he did for an entire hour.

McCain doesn't have a clue, although his stream of absolutisms plays well with the evangelical crowd, who are absolutely enamored with the idea of absolutely absolute everything.

But federal funds are not available for programs whose implementation involves discrimination on the basis of religion.

Obama got it right:

I think generally speaking faith based organizations should not be advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to getting federal funds by virtue of the fact that they are faith based organizations. They just want a level playing field.

But what we want to make sure of is that as a general principle we're not using federal funding to discriminate but that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government. That does not affect any of the other ministries that are taking place.

In other words, they're free to discriminate with their own money, and the government isn't going to stop them from discriminating.

McCain's "absolutely not" is as silly as his suggestion that the rights of fully grown, adult women must be abrogated in favor of the "human rights" of an undifferentiated zygote they may be hosting.

Interestingly, McCain also referred to the right to privacy as "one of the fundamental and basic rights we have," which, as everybody except John McCain seems to understand, is one of the core constitutional principles underlying Roe v. Wade.

The constitutional right to privacy was only recently "discovered," as many conservatives will tell you, in a 1965 case called Griswold v. Connecticut. It's nice to know, however, that McCain is apparently a big supporter of Griswold.

Indeed, that it's a "fundamental and basic right" is at the heart of Lawrence v. Texas, another U.S. Supreme Court case hated by conservatives, in which statutes banning sodomy were struck down.

McCain's all mixed up. No wonder conservatives don't trust him.

Incidentally, Senator McCain voted 'Yea' in favor of the nominations of three of the four sitting Supreme Court Justices he now claims he wouldn't have nominated. The fourth, Justice John Paul Stevens, was named to the Court before McCain arrived in the Senate.

And let's not forget Robert Novak's reporting that McCain had referred to Justice Samuel Alito as "too conservative" for McCain's liking. But suddenly Alito is one of McCain's "most recent favorites."

What, now Justice Alito is liberal enough for McCain?

Which is more laughable

Asks Heather MacDonald:

Warren would apparently feel more secure if a president said: "After consulting God, I have decided to bomb Iran," than if he said, "After consulting my advisors, all available intelligence, and our allies, I have decided to bomb Iran."

But of course if it was Ahmadinejad "consulting God" ...

"Pastor" Rick Warren: Just not terribly bright.

WWJK?

The Lord's agent will get back to you on that.

[Rick] Warren's office called Duss back to say the pastor was, in fact, referring to Romans 13. When Duss noted the chapter and verse make no reference to killing foreign leaders, Warren's representative said she'd have to look into it.

Hannity! Submit!

Personhood also above Ratzinger's pay grade

The assumption of Obama's critics is that a president should always reduce complex issues to simple black and white truisms, unfounded in reality. That's why they supported Bush. And that's why they're supporting McCain.

Andrew Sullivan.

Recall that Rick Warren didn't ask Barack Obama 'When does life begin,' but rather, "At what point does a baby get human rights."

John McCain got, "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights." Those are two very different questions, in that one may not get what one is entitled to — and vice versa — and both are quite a bit different than 'When does life begin,' a separate inquiry to which McCain seems to have been responding.

Needless to say, the right-wingers are currently engrossed in a typical self-righteous snit, despite apparently not even having considered the meaning of the questions themselves. Much like John McCain.

Guy's got a lot of nerve

From the AP's schedule of events for tomorrow's inauguration:

— Invocation by the Rev. Rick Warren.

reverend, adj 1 : worthy of reverence : REVERED
reverence, n 1 : the state of being revered
revere, v tr 1 : hold in deep and usu. affectionate or religious respect; venerate

Yeah I don't think so.

Moulton fails to cast self out of Wisconsin Assembly

You may remember Rep. Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls), he was one of the leading caster-outers of demons* in the Wisconsin Assembly:

Addressing his colleagues in the chamber, Moulton pleaded to Jesus. "In your name, and by the power of your spirit, I come against the Evil One. And I ask that he be cast from this place, this day," he said as the Assembly opened a floor session.

Odd, then, that it turns out Rev. Moulton was caught lying to his constituents on the subject of voter photo ID, which if I'm not mistaken is one of the defining criteria for your average demon.

It seems to me this is why many folks get annoyed by so-called fundamentalist Christians: they are forever telling other people how to conduct their lives long before they get their own Acts together.

If they ever do. Oh well, they're all getting Raptured Saturday anyway.

And sorry, but I've got dibs on Rick Warren's Beverly Hills mansion.

* Among the earliest local sightings of reporter/percussionist/auteur Emily Mills, who has since become what they call a #wiunion rockstar.

Milwaukee North Shore Inaugural Ball

Hesitant as I am to convince anyone to peel off from the venerable Drinking Liberally festivities at the Sugar Maple in Bay View, there's at least one other sublime bacchanalia scheduled in town:

Bradley’s Nightclub — 4740 W. Bradley Rd.
Doors open at 6:00.
Music, food, and other surprises. Cash bar available.
$17 at the door, proceeds to the Second Harvest food bank.

With your gracious host, Mr. Keith R. Schmitz.

There will be a raucous set at roughly 8-ish p.m. performed by:

Mike Plaisted and The Change (We Can Believe In)

feat. Himself — guitar / vocals
Ron White — drums, percussion
Your humble scribe — bass guitar

"Trust us, we're professionals."

eta: Thank you, Aretha, for blowing Rick Warren off the stage.

Twenty years in the pew

Rick Warren: Who are the wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration?

John McCain: I think John Lewis. He can teach us all a lot about the meanings of courage and commitment.

John Lewis: I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division.

John McCain: I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments.

Right. It's all Obama's fault. McCain is off his rocker. Two days ago, John McCain actually got down and hugged a man who literally "begged" him to take his campaign further into the gutter.

There still is a myopia gene, also

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.

— Rick "I've eaten in gay homes" Warren

More things this gormless buffoon doesn't have a clue about.