Pandering to Bigots is Wrong

Rick Warren is a bigot. It doesn't matter how many best-selling books he's written. It doesn't matter how many times he has prayed. It doesn't matter how big his church is or how many followers he has. Rick Warren is a bigot.

Barack Obama has endorsed a bigot. It doesn't matter how he paints it. It doesn't matter if he calls it a team of rivals. It doesn't matter if he calls it being inclusive or engaging in "diversity of thought." Barack Obama has endorsed a bigot.

To think that a bigot like Rick Warren is representative of all Evangelical Christians is an insult to those Christians who find it possible to live their lives through Christ without engaging in hate speech and bigotry. Giving Evangelical Christians a seat at the table is one thing, but celebrating a bigot is unacceptable.

I never expected Barack Obama to be perfect. I'm not giving up on him. I knew he was going to make mistakes. I just didn't think he would pander to bigotry.

Has Obama included an open racist on his "team of rivals?" How about a misogynist? Is he balancing out his team of rivals with all types of bigotry, or is bigotry against the LGBT community something Barack Obama is willing to overlook?

Obama campaigned on change. Pandering to bigots isn't much of a change from the politics of the past eight years. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from Bush.

This issue has been out there a while and I've been waiting to see how it would play out before speaking up. I kept waiting for some indication that this move had significance beyond simple pandering. I was willing to give Obama a pass on this one....that is until Rick Warren appeared to confuse himself with Jesus Christ.

According to Rick Warren, those who oppose him are "Christophobes." Seriously. Warren is delusional enough to think that those who oppose his bigotry actually oppose Jesus Christ. Here's Rachel Maddow on this latest delusion of Warren's. As an added bonus, Maddow catches Warren bearing false witness.

Maddow's right. This isn't going away. Warren's ego just won't let that happen.


I'm not hearing the same thing you do

I'm having trouble hearing Warren's quotes - the ones played by Maddow - the way that Maddow and you do. What he said was that marriage between brother and sister, marriage between adult and child or marriage between more than two people are equivalent to marriage between two people of the same sex. I've listened to that clip pretty carefully.

Do you seriously believe that Warren is saying that marriage between a brother and sister is the same as "gay marriage"? Or that marriage between one man and multiple women is the same as pedophilia? I'm sorry. I don't think that he's using the word "equivalent" to mean "the same" (in fact, the questionner, not Warren, used the term). I think he's using the term to mean that they are equally unacceptable to his god because they equally fail to match his definition of marriage. They are "equivalent" in the sense that they are not between one man and one woman, not in the sense that he does not distinguish among them.

Perhaps he intends to say something more hateful than that. I haven't heard enough to know, but if that's the best quote that Maddow can find, then I remain unconvinced.

Be that as it may, let me relate a story that a neighbor told me yesterday. He'd told me a couple of days before the election that his mother, who lives in rural Virginia, truely feared that Obama was the anti-Christ. After all, that's what she'd been hearing. Yesterday, he told me that because of Rick Warren, she is no longer so afraid of Obama.

Besta é tu se você não viver nesse mundo

I'm taking his words at face value

I listened to it several times very carefully as well. He said he was opposed to them. The interviewer asked if he thought they were equivalent. He didn't ask if he thought they were equivalent in the eyes of God. I chose to take Warren's words as he said them instead of reading meaning into them. He didn't even bring up God. Yes, I seriously believe that Warren is a bigot and he believes that marriage between gays is the same as paedophilia. Honestly, it is just as bad if not worse if he is preaching to his congregation that they are equivalent in the eyes of God. Mary was 13 when she was taken as a wife by Joseph. By today's standards that would be paedophilia. How does Warren explain that to his congregation? Changing social mores? (Of course, and if he can explain that away then what else can he explain away that actually was acceptable in biblical times?)

Sorry, Zabouti, but a man who responds to critics with lies and by accusing them of hate speech and of being "Christophobes" doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt in my book.

I don't agree that we should make a group of citizens feel any less equal in this country just so a few people feel more comfortable with Barack Obama. I'll counter your story with a published account by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. (It's about his gay sister and how this has made her feel.)

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.


Christian denominations make gay relationships the foundation of their faith?

I never quite understood why the LGBT community considered Obama more of a friend than Hilary Clinton?

Please leave the guy alone, he has many more important issues to deal with.

Do you want Rev. Wright there?

Well, since you're asking:

I don't want a clergy-person of any kind there.

The gay community was always split on the Obama v Clinton primary, just as all Democrats were. My support for Obama was based on many things, not just on his position on gay rights. The country doesn't have that many one issue voters.

I'm of several minds on this

First, I find people of any faith who say that their's is the only or best path to righteousness or an afterlife or whatever deplorable.

Second, I think that Warren holds that position and also holds the position that gay couples should be denied their civil rights. Both, in my opinion, make him a bigot.

That said, if we want to overcome this bigotry, we will have to reach out to the Warren's of the world. Is a spot at the inauguration best? Not for me. But..

At every time during the election that I second guessed Obama he turned out to be right and I turned out to be wrong. As a self-proclaimed politico, this is not an easy concession to make.

So I'm going to bite my tongue and give Obama a pass on this one. Now if in a year from now we still have DADT and there is no movement on federal recognition of civil unions...(going into Godfather mode)

I am a superstitious man, should some unlucky act befall [gay rights], should [gay rights] hang himself in his jail cell, should [gay rights] get shot in the head by a police officer or if [gay rights] gets struck by a bolt of lighting then I am going to blame some of the people in [the Obama adminsistration], and that I do not forgive.

Too many people bit their tongues

and gave George W. Bush a pass. I'm not giving Barack Obama a pass just because he's a Democrat. I'm not letting up. We elected him for a reason.....or several. I may change the order of priorities, but I won't let up.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.


Yeah...I, for one, admit to giving GW a pass, especially during his first four years and notably, for many months after 911. Many of "my kind" won't admit it was, indeed, a "pass", and will argue the reasons for supporting ill-advised and seemingly personal/political gain decisions made by him. I am a conservative republican and have admitted openly many, many times that I believe that GW will most likely go down (deservedly) as the worst president in our history.

Saying that, I feel obligated to give Obama a "grace" period on many of the things he must do in the face of an enormous amount of disasterous issues left him by his illustrious "republican"..and I use that designation lightly...predecesor. Betsy, he's gonna need your support and my support and just about EVERYONE'S support in tackling the challenges we're faced with as a nation now. I'll certainly defend my personal opinions and beliefs, anyone that knows me knows that about me. However, now isn't the time to "play politics". I have sometimes been less-than-honorable in my blog dealings, but that is behind me now and I'm going to take a very positive, new approach at everyone's opinions, including those I feel VERY hard left.

My point is, Betsy, our country more than ever needs to come at least a LITTLE closer together and we are just going to HAVE to trust our leadership. We should certainly question their motivations when decisions are made that aren't in the best interests of America/Americans...but leave out foolish rhetoric and "talking points" set up by the National Committees from both side.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

Pointing out mistakes

isn't the same thing as withdrawing support.

One of the many reasons Obama was elected was because he promised a change from the politics of old. Pandering to bigots is the politics of old. I'm simply reminding him of his promises. This is one promise the economic devastation shouldn't prevent him from keeping.

I'm not asking him to amend our Constitution, change laws, hearts or minds. We can wait a short time for a repeal of DADT and other legislation that affords the gay community equal treatment under the law, but we can't afford for Barack Obama to send messages in any way shape or form that say, indicate, infer or imply that members of the gay community are not due equal treatment under the law.

This should have been an easy one and Obama has made an amateurish, boneheaded blunder. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of Evangelical Christian ministers who could have delivered a beautiful invocation and helped bridge the divide between the religious right and the rest of the country.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I agree with most of that Betsy....but

I'm convinced that the vast majority of the people in our country believe that the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual etc. community should have 1). equal rights under the law and 2). equal protection with regard to the application of law.

I'm not unaware that this issue is of paramount importance to a great many posters on BlueNC. I think that many people here truly believe that the label "conservative" and/or "republican" designates someone as being a homophobe or a homosexual bigot in some way or form. In addition, it appears to me through reading many of the posts here since I've been a member that many of these same posters also believe that in general being christian also makes most that claim to believe in that belief just as bigoted toward the gay community.

The true issue to many, though (just my opinion so please don't ask for some site or poll or something to prove my point) is in the term "marriage". Certainly most "christians" believe that marriage means a bond between a man and a woman. They believe that because of biblical scripture, I guess...not sure as I'm not a christian. Others, and I'm pretty sure it's a majority in America, also believe that "marriage" should be defined as between a man and a woman in large part because of the procreation aspect involved in that union. Those people, in large part, have no problem with the states affording unions between same sex couples the exact same rights and priviliges afforded to "married" couples. I also believe that and have no problem saying it.

I'm confused why the gay community won't accept that. To them, it's all or compromise...trying to force their beliefs upon the masses which is what they say those against the "marriage" issue are trying to do.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

It doesn't take a Christian definition of marriage

For the government to allow two people of the same sex to wed. It only takes a government willing to allow equal rights to all of its citizens. Christians may continue to believe that two people of the same sex shouldn't wed. This isn't an attempt to change their minds. I'm sure there are still people who don't believe people with different shades of skin should wed.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

The issue is the word...not the act.

Look, Betsy, you and I are on the same page...even though I doubt you believe that. If the gay community would accept that the term "marriage" is between a man and a woman and that the states should sanction "unions" or any other term agreeable to that community giving all rights and priviliges to those "unions (or other term) as provided to "marriages" between men and women....this issue would be solved.

Personally? I believe that not allowing two gay men, two lesbians, two transexual people the same rights and priviliges as "married" couples is a violation of constitutional rights. The rift, to me, is in the "legal" definition of the word "marriage".

I'm open for discussion on this...correct me if I'm wrong here.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

The word...narriage

Yes. You read it right. Let's just call it "narriage" with an "n" as the first letter. Of course this is absurd, because it misses the point.

If it's truly just a word that's bothering the anti-equality crowd, why haven't they proposed such bills, legislation and so on?

Because it's not the word at all. It's aversion to change. The anti-equality crowd railed against marriage in Hawaii in the 90's, civil unions in Vermont, marraige in Massachussetts, civil unions in New Jersey, and marriage again in Connecticut. They don't care if it's called civil unions or marriage or narriage, they are against equality under any name.

To further prove this point, take a look at what happens after a anti-equality amendment passes in a state. The bigots immediately file lawsuits to strip the most basic rights already gained in that state. It happened in Michigan years ago, and it just happened in Florida this year.

Look at the text of the "Defense of Marriage" Amendment introduced every year in North Carolina. The NC Family Policy Council doesn't care about marriage; they only care about pushing LGBT folks back into the closet. If they cared about marriage, they would be pushing for mandatory divorce counseling.

Did you know North Carolina has a higher divorce rate than Massachussetts? Maybe we need some gay marriage down here to get the divorce rate down!


Probably a good point

Oh, you're definately right. The Christian Right has worked very hard to block legislation with regard to equal rights for gay couples. But they haven't always been successful.

I might be all washed up here, but in talking to many of these folks, the real issue with them is "marriage". So many say they have no problem with gays, lesbians, transexuals etc. having a legal union and being afforded equal rights/protection. I know that hasn't been shown in all cases through the fundamentalist far right initiatives against all forms of gay rights, but as a majority, I believe it is true. The issue to them, again, is in identifying the union between two gay people as "marriage".

I believe if that can be solved some way, the problem with all these radical right-wing groups fighting against equality will gradually go away....especially with the new administration/leadership in the coming year.

Now, the efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the military may have a very tough hill to climb, however. The dynamics there are extremely complicated.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

It's not just the word

It *is* the word. Separate but equal is not equal. LGBT Americans should not have to play word games in order to have the same protections and rights under the law that Hetero-Americans have.


Can't argue it. It's a funny society we live it, isn't it? Time may end up being your friend here, Linda.

The best thinking is independent thinking.


I'm not inclined to wait.

My sister and her partner, Laura, raised her children together for nearly 6 years. When my sister was sick and in the hospital, Laura needed special permission -- from my parents -- in order to visit her. When she needed emergency surgery, the doctor would not do it until I signed off on it - as "next of kin", even though Laura had medical power of attorney both on file and with her as we sat in the waiting room.

When my sister died, her children's father, a man who was and is psychologically and physically abusive to any female in his life, automatically got custody of the kids, even though he spent little to no time raising them. The day Donna died, my niece and nephew lost two parents, and have lived for the past six years with an abusive son of a bitch. Even though they are now 21 and 18, respectively, they are so beaten down that they cannot bring themselves to escape him, even though both of them have indicated they would rather be with Laura. Laura hasn't seen or spoken with them since 2002, because she hasn't been permitted to.

The visitation and decision-making in the hospital would not have been an issue if Donna and Laura had been allowed to marry, legally. Laura might have had a case against the asshole who has abused those kids for almost 7 years now.

I'm not willing to wait for another family to go through that kind of agony. It isn't right. It just isn't.

Children should have equal protection under the law. Children in families led by same-gender couples don't have that. It's un-American.

I do understand

Linda, I help with getting donations and setting up and running a large golf tournament in my county for an organization called HELP, Inc. of Rockingham County. This organization offers help for abused women and children even to the point of having establishing a secret "safe house" the abused are taken to by the police that not even those of us that help the organization know where it is. I say that because I know first hand what you've just said. I've heard these girls/women tell so many horrible tales about what happens to the children in an abusive relationship. I do understand, Linda, and I truly believe that the majority of the people in the U.S. do also understand that the Gay community NEEDS equal right for reasons like you've mentioned here and for others such as adoption...which is near and dear to my heart.

I'm not saying this just to be "Mr. agreeable", I'm serious in my beliefs here. But, I do have a dark side on one part of this issue, of course, and I think you already know, Linda, that I oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the least currently. My reasons can certainly be argued and it would take far too much space here to discuss this thoroughly.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

Smitty, thanks for doing what

Smitty, thanks for doing what you do.

I understand that we don't see eye to eye on many issues. Gays in the military will probably always be one of them.

I'll just leave you with one question: did it cause a problem for straight men in the military when women began serving in large numbers?

My pleasure, Linda

Trust me, Linda...working with the center for abused women and children is my pleasure...actually, a very great pleasure for a large number of the people in our golf club that have kind of taken them on as "our charity". I wouldn't want it to sound like it was just something I was's not. I'm just a part of it. We're the only men's organization that does anything at all for this group (as you can imagine).

Linda, I'd rather not get into this issue with regard to gays serving openly in the military. Think of this: men and women don't shower together or bunk together in the military. There is very little chance currently for a guy troop to walk into his barracks cubicle/room/assigned quarters and find two other guy troops making love or spooning or just being "together". Also, if you know anyone that is, in fact, gay or if you, yourself, are gay, you know how absolutely heartless and mean and cruel those that disagree with that lifestyle can be. The implications are great. Morale could (not saying it would be right or even if it would happen) be severely affected. It's difficult enough to maintain discipline and focus for the troops in the military now.

But again, Linda, I'm on your side on this issue with that exception.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

Warren's e-mail to followers:

"For 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called 'gay marriage.' Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC oppose watering down the definition of marriage.

"Of course, my longtime opposition is well known. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue."

Warren concluded: "This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to VOTE YES on Proposition 8 -- to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don't forget to vote!"

Two things about this statement are (maybe purposely) misleading. The first, about every religion being a contract between "men and women" (notice he didn't say "one man and one woman") is quite possibly a clever turn of phrase, especially considering that Mormons donated half of the 38 million dollars spent by the "Yes On Prop 8" crowd.

Joseph Smith was an unabashed polygamist with several "child brides", and polygamy is very much a contentious issue within the ranks of those who call themselves Mormons. Were it not for Federal pressures, polygamy would probably be practiced by much more than the 60,000 (5% of Mormons) in Utah and smaller groups in other states. I have a feeling the LDS's staunch support of Prop 8 had more to do with keeping their own skeletons in the closet than fighting same-sex marriage.

and if he really believes, "this is not a political issue, it is a moral issue", he would not have condoned the idea of amending the state Constitution, and he damned sure wouldn't have e-mailed thousands of his followers so he could tell them how to vote.

and that sums it up.

and if he really believes, "this is not a political issue, it is a moral issue", he would not have condoned the idea of amending the state Constitution, and he damned sure wouldn't have e-mailed thousands of his followers so he could tell them how to vote

Constitutions - be they state or federal - should never be amended to take away rights or forbid citizens from partaking of rights allowed to others. Constitutions were created to preserve or protect rights - and should only be amended to add to the rights of citizens, not take them away or forbid them.

I think Rick Warren is a big fat idiot, but he has a right to his opinion, as do his followers. (Yes, I think they're his followers, not Jesus', and I have a right to have that opinion.) I am extremely disappointed in Obama's decision to have Warren read an invocation at the Inauguration. I agree with Betsy; it was a mistake. In the grand scheme of things, this is not an "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" mistake.

Personally, I'd be a lot happier if our leaders and/or politicians kept the invoking and preaching and praying within the confines of a church, temple, mosque, or sacred circle. But that's not going to happen any time soon.

and another thing

Joseph Smith was an unabashed polygamist with several "child brides", and polygamy is very much a contentious issue within the ranks of those who call themselves Mormons. Were it not for Federal pressures, polygamy would probably be practiced by much more than the 60,000 (5% of Mormons) in Utah and smaller groups in other states. I have a feeling the LDS's staunch support of Prop 8 had more to do with keeping their own skeletons in the closet than fighting same-sex marriage.

I don't think polyamory is a bad thing, as long as everyone involved is an adult. I don't think it's something that I could do, but I do know folks who are involved in such relationships. It would be great for their families if they could legalize their spiritual commitment to each other.

People need to worry less about what happens in other people's lives, and concentrate on their own. No one else's marriage threatens the marriage between "one man and one woman", unless there are already problems between that one man and one woman.

I agree, Linda

"People need to worry less about what happens in other people's lives, and concentrate on their own."

That would be great, wouldn't it? :)

Also a little misleading in that for the first ~4500

of those past 5000 cultural years he's talking about, marriage contracts were never between men and women.

The contracts were between men and the male relatives of women. Remember your history. Actual history.

Women were not asked about them, nor was it necessary for the women or woman involved to sign a contract of marriage (at any age) for that marriage to be legal and religiously sanctioned.

Where there is progress, cultural change is inevitable. Rick Warren is fighting a losing battle. I think he knows that in his heart. He is not a stupid man, but he is a "Traditionalist" and so, change scares him. As long as he is in this world he wants it to look the way it has always looked to him ... no changes.

The truth is, had these sorts of "no change" Traditionalists continuously had their way for the last 5000 years, women would still be nothing more than property .. traded and bartered for dowry, truce, alliance and/or power ... and all sorts of peoples with all shades of skin color across the globe would still be enslaved, indentured, owned, whatever you want to call it. William Wallace would have failed, as would William Wilberforce, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr. and a whole host of other change agents through the centuries.

Progress very often requires a change in centuries old beliefs and understandings. That is just the way it is. People like Warren are not horrible stupid or mean people, they are afraid. People like Warren simply fear changing their belief systems. It will cause them tribulation. They will have to go back and re-asess everything. These beliefs are not just opinions. For some, like Warren, their beleif system is literally the purpose on which they have built their entire lives. It is no small thing.

But, you and I know, people like Warren fail to stop progress. They fail. Every time. They will fail this time, too. Keep that in mind.

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Warren is a "Muslinbuddhindumormangaybrokenbackophobes"?

According to Rick Warren, those who oppose him are "Christophobes." * Betsy

According to Muslins, Buddhists, Hindu's, Church of Latter Day of Devils, Knight's Templars 13 century division, Reform Church of Brokenback Mountain [a missionary branch of the Rick's Saddleback Mountain Church that fail in reaching out to Gay Cowboys in Montana during the tourist season due to a lack of Gay Cowboys.

Will somebody take that fat bastard preacher out into the woods in North Georgia and teach him the true meaning of "Deliverance" without Sara Palin?


MaxTheDog2.....that's SOOOO wrong on SOOOO many levels! I'm betting that your best performance when getting your first driver's license was when the examiner said, "at the next stop light, take a hard left".

Truly comical, mi amigo.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

Beep! Beep! Don't hit that Goat Son?

I'm betting that your best performance when getting your first driver's license was when the examiner said, "at the next stop light, take a hard left". * Smitty

Not really! My Dad bribed the State Trooper examiner since I was 13 at the time, when one could get a driver license for work on the farm.......That is about hard core right one can get with southern redneck politics......By the Smitty, How do you like the new driver license that is mirochip up one ass to let Big Brother know that you are a good little Nazi Neo-Con Republican Limo driver?

Haven't heard about that one

Elaborate on this "new drivers license that is a microchip up one ass to let Big Brother....."

The best thinking is independent thinking.

WTF! You mean my face is on a terrorist Governement ID Card

"Gee! I have not heard of that one mirochip up my neighbor butt!" * paraphasing Smitty

Get with the program and stop acting like a Generic Sara Palin Republican or a Stupid Joe the Plumber buying a DVD player on sale at Radio Shack thinking he is helping the economics of the Imperial Republic...

Gee! That Starwars holgram was for real in the 21 st century?

Looks like the state drop the holgram ID thing......

Sounds like it, but with the budget cuts and other assorted demands on State government, it will be around again possibly under federal funding.........Never count out those Big Brothers and Sisters in government.........

Below another story on Fat bastard Rick and his SaddleBack Mountain Church.......Inviting Rick to Obama party is sorted like the Devil having open house in the Temple for Jesus with the Roman cops policing the event..........

The only time I heard Rick Warren speak

besides the McCain/Obama forum was this weekend on C-span. He was speaking to a group of Muslim Americans.

I have to say, in every other way beside this issue, he seems logical, contemplative, and determined to make a positive difference in the world.

I'm not defending him, I'm just musing over the disconnect.

Racing for Jesus and Rick Warren?

I heard that fat white preacher speak once and besides the McCain/Obama forum was this weekend on C-span. He was speaking to a group of Muslim Americans.* paraphasing loftT

Yes and Brother Rick has agree to enter the 1 st annual Camel Peace and Goat Race in Iran. He will be riding without the famous Saddleback Saddle from his church on a Camel name " Rear Boy". His race team is being funded by the Haliburton Corporation and other former has beens of the Bush 2 agenda. The race will be from Teran to Waskina Alaska [ Governor Sara Palin hometown] with her infamous husband Todd riding a goat name Bush that is being pull by a dog sled of Chenney neo-con work dogs. Las Vegas is giving odds that brother Warren will be attack by the Todd Palin dogs and be eaten alive thinking he was a overweigh Moose......A group of Muslims had decided to goatcott C-Span for letting a overweight fat ass American Peacher spread his message of Camel BBQ delites at any old Hickory BBQ eaters.

Don't just pimp your diaries, Justin

You know better than that. Rick Warren is the bigot and nobody voted for him, so your diary doesn't even apply to this post.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

This is about blog whoring

I will disable your links if you continue.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Justin, stop acting stupid.

Of course, I wasn't too lazy to follow the link. That's how I knew that the story you linked to was written by you and had nothing to do with the blog post you were whoring it on.

Of course I followed the second link. That's how I knew it linked to the post about Easley using the term "pansy."

Read much?

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own. aren't making sense

First, using the word "pansy" was ugly and wrong, but I just don't think it is in the same league as likening gay marriage to paedophilia.

Second, we took Easley to task at BlueNC for using the word "pansy". I think calling him a bigot went a bit too far, but he was wrong to use it. Easley hasn't spent a lot of time preaching against gay marriage or the gay community in general, so it doesn't look like he's waging a campaign against the gay community the way Warren is.

Do you think Easley's one-time use of the word "pansy" is equivalent to Rick Warren's all-out campaign against the gay community?

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

As for Easley...

...I wasn't in the bunch that was conflating it. I would link to it; but your aforementioned aversion to HTML references makes me a little nervous to attempt it.

But if Easley's use of the word "pansy" (which has a number of definitions) is ugly and wrong - how is your use of "fundie" justified?

What the hell are you talking about?

This thread is about Rick Warren's bigotry toward the gay community.

Did you not pay attention to the thread you were linking to? You linked to the Easley/pansy discussion. That's why I referenced your link.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Two things, Justin:

First, it is very disingenuous for you to keep bringing up that long and combative pansy thread (yes, I read your blog) as evidence that we're hypocritical in our view of language.

The reason for so much fighting over Easley's use of the word "pansy" was not due to any ambiguity of the word's bigoted connotations, it was part of the Primary battle between Clinton and Obama supporters. To defend Clinton they had to defend Easley; to defend Easley they had to act like they had "no idea" that pansy was a common homosexual slur. Right.

Which kind of reminds me of George Costanza getting fired for having sex with the cleaning lady: "Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time."

And the second thing is, you can stop being offended from our occasional use of the word, "fundie". Just because you are a Christian and are involved with your church, it doesn't mean you've been rolled into that category.

Most fundamentalists of every religion have one thing in common: they wear their religion as a cloak to justify their prejudices, and quite often they take "action steps" based upon a few words of scripture. Whether they're blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv or pushing hard to get "sexual preference" removed from an anti-bullying bill, they use centuries-old writings to justify sociological battles of today. Take away their scriptural references and they would still be attacking others, they just wouldn't have a damned excuse.

:::standing and cheering::: for sch

Realizing it adds nothing to the discussion, nonetheless, that last sentence deserves around of ...

::: loud applause :::

Too many people the world over use "but but but but this says God is on MY side" to excuse all manner of behavior whether they are aimless kids or adults in the state legislature ... from ignoring the bullying of a boyish girl in class to throwing a punch at a goth boy passing on the street ... because they themselves dislike, disapprove, disdain, don't respect or just plain old hate the other guys.

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

I'm not offended by the use of the word...

...even though I wouldn't be a hard fit into the word "Fundie". The word "Christian" has roots as a pejorative and - as a Christan - I'm told to rejoice in being mocked, etc. (I'd link to the scriptural reference, but I'm afraid of losing HTML capabilities for linking to one of St. Paul's "diaries"). Given that etymological history would be disingenuous for me to be offended.

As to your first point, if it was wrong for Easley to use the word "pansy" - why is it OK for Betsy and others to use the word "fundie"? Is their some scale for bigotry when using invectives or is it just impossible for people you agree with to be bigoted?

Of course there's a scale, Justin

And that scale is not necessarily fair or unchangeable. And yes, I am less likely to hold James' or Betsy's feet to the fire when they use an invective as opposed to someone who holds a differing belief set than me. So there's my admission of guilt if you want it.

So...what about you, Justin? Do you hold all your commenters to the same standard that you hold...what did you call them? Obamaites? :)


Well dang -- One is never too old to learn. I was rading down through here and wondering what in the world the fuss over "pansy" was all about. I never knew it was a "common homosexual slur." I swear I didn't.

Sweet Union Dem

I agree. It has always meant

I agree. It has always meant a weak person to me. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

Dare I?

Now that you've found out that it's a pejorative, would you still use it?