Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Thursday, December 18, 2008

No Prominent Pastors Who Aren't Reactionary Bigots? Honestly?

An Anonymous commenter stamps his foot in the Moot: "Is there any prominent churchman who would have been acceptable on the gay right's issue and yet not far too controversial in other respects?"

Oh, us pesky gays! So sensitive! Always whomping up controversy over nothing!

Look, Anonymous, Warren doesn't believe in evolution! Warren thinks forcing women into lethal back alley abortions is non-negotiable for any right thinking Christian! Warren thinks gay marriage is equivalent to child rape! Warren literally lied in public on multiple occasions to get his way on Prop 8! Warren has called for the assassination of the current Iranian President!

You're telling me there isn't a prominent churchman (your word -- tho' guess what, there are also women who are pastors, but let's not even go there, I guess) who is less controversial "in other respects"? Gosh, even a grumpy crusty life-long atheist like me doesn't think that things are remotely that bad.

I daresay Obama's choice of a pastor who didn't hold such lunatic views would be regarded as "controversial" to the wingnuts across the Socially Conservative to Fundamentalist to Christianist Militarist Theocrat axis of America to whom Obama imagines he is "building a bridge" here... talk about a bridge to nowhere! Those who are talking about "neutralizing enemies by including them" need to ask why David Duke isn't speaking at the Inauguration and also take another look at Lucy and her football. This choice legitimizes hate and reaction, where what is wanted is the provision of congenial alternatives. You know... change?

This isn't something I follow at all, but I'm sure there are plenty of prominent figures available for this role -- The Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance? I understand Jim Wallace is a name getting bandied about, hell they probably could have chosen former President Carter. I doubt I would be thrilled with any of these folks in every respect, but this isn't perfectionism or political correctness or oversensitivity.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't stomping my feet at anybody but that bigot Warren. I didn't ask that question, someone else did and I quoted him verbatim. I don't agree with the guy but I thought he had a point.

Merely proteesting against Warren without offering a candidate of our own isn't really going anywhere either. And that canduidate should be someone un-spinnable for the purposes of RR. (It would be different if Obama truly was a radical but he isn't.)

That said, I think that the whole procedure is a breach of the separation of church and state, that no one like Warren should be granted even a shadow of government endorsement, centrism or no, and Obama makes huge mistake doing so.

Dale Carrico said...

That said, I think that the whole procedure is a breach of the separation of church and state, that no one like Warren should be granted even a shadow of government endorsement, centrism or no[.]

Ain't that the truth, tho'.