Oh. NOES!!!!

On Noes!!!!!! He’s now a homophobic bigot now.Damn that Obama. /sarcasm

And here’s the difference you miss, Lee:Lowery is an old man who, due to his age and tradition, etc., can’t seem to get his mind around “marriage.” But he’s trying, and his record reflects that, and he certainly doesn’t seem to want to deny people rights or dignity.Contrast that with Rick Warren, who teaches his congregation that homosexuality is a “sin to be repented of,” disallows gays from membership into his church, and works in the political realm against gay people, at home and even more severely abroad.So to say “oh lookit they have the same position!” is shitty journalism and a poor judgment of character, at best.One has to learn to read between the lines for the whole story.

Yeah… Evan, I have to take your side on this one (I took Lee’s side on the other thread). Rev. Warren really is much more conservative than Rev. Lowry. It’s not really fair or true to claim that they hold “more or less” the same position. They may one day, but that day hasn’t come yet.QT

Don’t cynically dismiss other peoples beliefs just because you differ from them.

Evan,I think they do have more or less the same position – both Warren and Lowery seem opposed to the use of the term ‘marriage’ but both are on the record as being for equal rights.Of course, they are from differently political positions – which makes their closeness on this issue more compelling, not less.Cesca and I were talking about this issue on the phone today and he said something I agree with – if Warren is in favor of equal rights for gays, he should work for that.I agree and it’s a good point. But the way to get Warren to do that isn’t to misstate or falsely demonize his position. It’s not to make him a pariah. It’s to INCLUDE him, as Obama has done…

Yes be inclusive. Let’s get some nazis and Kluxers into the inauguration. Just because we have differences with that doesn’t mean they should be considered pariahs.

jm – there’s a difference between being ignorant/wrong and being hatefulIgnorance and wrongfulness can be helped. Hate is intentional

jm – the fact you’re going to nazis and the kkk as a comparison to Rick Warren is indicative me of the nature of the problem.

Unless I missed it elsewhere, I’m surprised Reductio ad Hitlerum took as long as it did to make an appearance in this discussion….

Okay Lee. I concede. Next time I get screamed at by a frothing redneck on the street weho threatens to beat the shit out of me because I’m queer, I’ll invite him home for coffee to discuss our differences. Would that make you happy?

This isn’t the first time lee has been disingenuous. Get used to it.

Did Joseph Lowery work actively for the passage of Prop. 8? Did Joseph Lowery call homosexuality a sin? Did Joseph Lowery compare gay-marriage to incest, or alcoholism, or pedophilia?Lee, there is a big difference between their beliefs and while I’ve mostly agreed with your perspective lately and the way you desire to approach problems, your evidence and the backup to your claims has been very lacking.I agree with what you’re trying to illustrate, just now how you’re doing it.

I’m pretty sure Lowery would agree it’s a sin because the Bible is fairly clear in that regard. Again, that’s not an idea that started with Rick Warren – every major religion considers homosexuality a sin or whatever they call things they don’t like.There’s nothing disingenuous on my part, either – It’s clear that Lowery and Warren have the same basic position on the issue – no marriage / equal legal rights. I didn’t say their approach is the same, just the position.

Lee,Way to tell those queers!-Fred

So, it’s not enough to demonize our political opponents and to lie about their positions..We have to do that with people we agree with, too?

I don’t think those would be what Fred Phelps would be saying if given the opportunity. So I wouldn’t take it personally, Lee.I’ve been frustrated with this decision, and angry at times (not to mention in furious disagreement with you, Lee), but I’ve decided to just let it go and focus on what happens AFTER the inauguration.

A typographical error is much easier to see once it becomes irreversible.”I don’t think those words would be what…”

I’m pretty sure Lowery would agree it’s a sin because the Bible is fairly clear in that regard. Again, that’s not an idea that started with Rick Warren – every major religion considers homosexuality a sin or whatever they call things they don’t like.Then you may as well say Obama is no different than Rick Warren.I think it’s a little unfair to compare “Since he’s a Christian, he must…” with someone who has a history of going on record to affirm his beliefs on homosexuality. I’m not saying Lowery doesn’t believe the same way, I’m just saying that I have yet to hear him make remarks illustrating the same level of condemnation.

Congrats. You continue to prove that religious figures all more or less subscribe to an ugly, intellectually indefensible philosophy of a series of irrational phobias and taboos.Lowry is quite literally the lesser of two evils. Make no mistake; the underlying point that must be pussyfooted around in any and all of these discussions about living harmoniously with people “of faith” is that the organized tenets of these faiths are actual crazy-talk, and if applied in earnest, leads to foul shit like hating or opressing gay people on one part of the continuum or flying planes into buildings on the more extreme end of the continuum. But they’re on the same continuum.But that said, if you can’t tell the difference between the tenor of Lowry, who is seemingly well intentioned DESPITE his poisonous religious programming, and Warren, who is adamant (even if smiling during it) about upholding the poison in his religion as articles of immutable goodness, then there is little to be said.You’re “exposing” the fact that institutionalized christianity is incompatible with rationality and decency toward people when their taboos are violated, since many easily disproved “givens” are taken as sacrosanct matters of faith, and therefore seen as holy.Welcome to the 1700s.

Josh,There’s no question there’s a difference between Lowery and Warren – but it’s not as big as you say.Also – as I said in a post a bit ago, MLK was Christian. And Stalin and Mao were atheists who killed millions – that’s also clear from the istorical record. Sorry, no special bleeding – people with all sorts of beliefs can be bad.

Lee:That’s disingenuous. Stalin and Mao were both believes in an -ism that was just as fierce and dogmatic in their interpretation of it as a function of destiny as any religion.They were adherents to both a sense of personal ego/greatness AND a belief system which facilitated the idea that the Beliefs were of greater import and consequence than any given person, or groups of people.I don’t deify King; he was a brave and strong man, but he also had flaws and faults. And believed in a crazy-story about a zombie from the past, an improbable blood-ransom for invisible souls and all manner of other lunacy as an article of faith.Was he a very good man? Yes. Despite his religion and its teaching, he was. I would argue that he found a sort of lawyerly way to bend the teachings to suit a more just and kind view (I think Warren and Dobson are probably more textually pure about their tone. But then, purity like that is, again, on a continuum with flying planes into buildings)But to just say “Stalin” and “Mao” and associate them with “Atheism” the same way Dobson/Falwell/Robertson/Warren/That-Guy-With-The-Shellac-Hair-Who-talks-in-Tounges are associated with “Christianity” is a false comparison.I would FURTHER argue that dogmatic atheism is, while not AS problematic as dogmatic adherence to outdated and un-updatable texts, is still dogmatic about an essentially unknowable assertion.Me? Of all the gods that ever were, I’m a fan of Hermes. He was cool.