Our Latest Stories:

Five years ago, ultraconservative David Horowitz created a web site mistitled “Students for Academic Freedom.” The whole “students” bit was added to make it appear that Horowitz wasn’t the driving force of the effort, and the whole effort was about “Academic Freedom” to the extent that George W. Bush’s “Clear Skies Initiative” was really about clear skies. No, the page was really set up to discourage the academic freedom of professors, making a place where students could report their professors for the offense of differing with them. All over this land, Horowitz claimed, we’d have students coming out of the woodwork to rat their undergraduate instructors out for exposing them to new and disagreeable ideas. Ideas! At a University! Horror!

Well, folks, there hasn’t been a new report to the “Students for Academic Freedom” web page for eighteen months. Over five years, only 440 students posted complaints, a great number of which contain sentence fragments of misspelled anger at professors grading down their perfect, perfect essays.

Upset at the number of secular stories that end up on the consensus news site Digg.com, some Christians have set up a similar news ranking website called DiggChrist. The irreverent satire website Paliban Daily has submitted its articles to DiggChrist… which currently ranks 7 of them in its top 10.

Is this a hilarious trend to be aided and abetted by your own votes on the website? Is it an indication that when it comes to Christian reconstructionism, satire and sincerity are indistinguishable? Is it a tacky invasion of a website from the outside? What’s your reaction?

It’s not racist at all. No, really, it’s not! When the phrase “Whip A Nigger Today” appears on the $3 Bill, it is not intended to endorse racism or the re-establishment of slavery, but instead to acknowledge the nation’s heritage of slavery dating to the days of America’s founding fathers. Really. That’s all the phrase means: an acknowledgment of this nation’s history! Why would anyone want to remove the phrase? What do they have against history? Why do they hate heritage? Why do they hate America?

Oh, and while I’m on the subject, here’s a thought from Phil Gianfricaro:

…phrases like “One nation under God,” “In God We Trust,” and “So Help Me God” aren’t intended to endorse or establish religion, but instead acknowledge the nation’s religious heritage that dates to the days of American’s founding fathers.

As the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist opined on the issue of God and the Pledge of Allegiance: “It is a secular act rather than an act of indoctrination in religion or expression or religious devotion.”

Gianfricaro is so right. Historical phrases like “In God We Trust” have nothing to do with the endorsement of religion or the expression of religious devotion. They just happen to pop up everywhere because they’re part of this nation’s historically historic history of heritage! Just like the heritage of slavery, hence “Whip a Nigger Today” on the $3 bill. Heritage! Just like “Women: Insufficient Non-Voting Chattel” on the $6 bill. By putting the declaration on the nation’s money, it’s not like our government is insulting women. No, no, no. It’s just a statement of this nation’s heritage.

What a disappointing reaction to the Rick Warren controversy we’re seeing from so many Democrats: They roll their eyes and ask, So what if gays are unhappy with Rick Warren? Can’t they just let us have our moment in the sun? Why do they always have to make a mountain out a molehill?

These same Democrats then turn around and tell us how important it is for the Democratic Party to be inclusive, and show respect to fundamentalist Christians. Why can’t we just agree to disagree, and come together in spite of our differences?

These are questions that deserve answers - not because they’re good questions, but rather, because they’re dismissive, arrogant, insulting questions. Those of us who believe that the Constitution means what it says when it dictates that there must be equality under the law for all Americans cannot just agree to disagree with people who insist that the Constitution does not guarantee equality under the law. We believe that if the President of the United States embrace those who seek to perpetuate inequality in the system of law, that it’s… shock… gasp… a betrayal of trust and the violation of the Oath of Office.

It’s easy to discount this issue as just a molehill - if it’s not your legal rights on the line. If you’re not one of the thousands of married couples that Rick Warren has fought to break apart, and if you don’t belong to their social group, then it’s an easy matter to dismiss. Oh, equality for gays, you may say, is just a fringe issue.

Well, the truth is that I’m not homosexual. I’m hetero. Still, I don’t think that equality for homosexual Americans is a fringe issue at all. I think that it goes to the heart of what we should expect a President to do. The way I see it, Barack Obama’s decision to grant anti-gay bigot Rick Warren a place of special honor at the Inauguration is a fundamental moral issue.

The best way to judge the character of powerful people is to see the way that they treat people who don’t have power. The best way to judge the character of popular people is to see the way that they treat unpopular people.

Christians are an extremely popular group in the United States. Christian fundamentalists in particular are a very politically powerful group. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are neither popular nor powerful.

Barack Obama, right now, is about as popular and powerful as any human being could hope to be. So, how has Obama chosen to use his power and popularity? Who has he decided to stand with? Well, Obama’s in with the in crowd now, and so he’s chosen to stand with them. He’s gone to stand with the popular and powerful. He’s gone to stand with Rick Warren and his Christian fundamentalist ilk. Obama has chosen not to stand with homosexual Americans.

Barack Obama’s slap in the face to homosexual couples in America is an indicator of the way we can expect the Obama White House to treat unpopular minorities who don’t have political power. Instead of protecting them, he will join with those who persecute them.

It’s a disappointing lesson: Unless your group is popular or politically powerful, you shouldn’t expect anything from the Obama presidency. Real change isn’t going to come just by giving favors to the popular and powerful.

If you’re one of those Democrats who follows along with the popular and powerful groups in American culture, this may not seem like a big deal to you. If, on the other hand, you’re one of those Democrats who still believes that the Constitution should apply to all people, regardless of popularity or power, you’ll understand that the special honoring of Rick Warren by Barack Obama is a very big deal, even if you’re not homosexual yourself.

The shame of it is that the latter kind of Democrat appears to be suddenly growing very rare indeed. Far too many Democrats, rank and file as well as D.C. insiders, have become so flushed with the thrill of being popular and powerful again that they, like Barack Obama, have cast aside their allegiance to the Constitution and its vision of equality for all. Now that they’re feeling on top of the heap, they are excusing the very kind of arrogance they would have castigated, if it had come from a Republican politician.

These Democrats treat politics like a team sport, rather than the system for upholding freedom that it is. They are superficial and vain, and they have no cause to be proud of the change they are bringing to America.

Gloating laughter and naked schadenfreude, the unabashed declaration of joy at others’ misfortune, makes me a bit uncomfortable. That said, the idea of misfortune is applied inappropriately when people talk about professional sports teams. Professional football players make at least several hundred thousand and on average millions of dollars a year, sometimes for sitting on a bench all season long. Even the players on the teams with the worst records come out of their games with quite a fortune every year. NFL franchises typically make much more. And then there are the fans. Oh, the misfortune… when a city’s team wins a game? This kind of misfortune is the same kind of misfortune suffered when a movie doesn’t turn out the way viewers like. It’s not substantial.

So when I see people write about “a cruel season for Lions fans who have suffered enough” over previous losses, I can’t help but roll my eyes. Don’t get me wrong: Lions fans have suffered. The people of Detroit have suffered cold winters without health care or sufficient infrastructure. They’ve suffered through a joke of a mayor who left office in legal disgrace. They’ve suffered rounds of layoffs. All that, and people are calling the fact that some well-paid guys in tights can’t hold a ball cruel suffering?

All this suffering, all this joy, all this drama is in our heads. It’s cultural, and we can choose to be the buffeted flotsam of culture or we can surf it. Let’s stop taking sports so seriously and surf its waves instead. Let’s recognize that a perfect storm like the Detroit Lions’ impending 0-16 record can be awesome to behold. Perfect ugliness on the field has its own beauty. A perfect mess can inspire merry laughter after an initial gasp. Let’s recognize the absolutely winless season of the Detroit Lions, to be accomplished come Sunday, as the exceptional achievement of perfection that it is. Let’s have fun with it.

Roll around in it with these shirts, buttons and stickers. And if some sports fan can’t see the good humor in it all, then that’s their problem, not yours. Glee out!

Christmas Day is a fitting time to note that Rick Warren isn’t just a religious, sexual and gender bigot; he’s also got a bad gambling habit. I’m talking about Pascal’s Wager, which Warren invokes as his closing argument against atheism in Newsweek. This is why Rick Warren says he is a Christian:

We’re both betting. He’s betting his life that he’s right. I’m betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he’s right, I’ve lost nothing. If I’m right, he’s lost everything. I’m not willing to make that gamble.

Actually, if Rick Warren is wrong and there is no Christian God, then when he dies, then he has lost a great deal: the content of the only life he has, all spent following a series of fictional dictates dreamed up by a religious bureaucracy.

Rick Warren is right in a superficial sense when he says he’s not “willing to make that gamble” that “Jesus was not a liar.” But Rick Warren is more fundamentally wrong, since he has been making just the sort of gamble he mocks atheists for making over and over and over again throughout his life. Rick Warren is willing to gamble that Vishnu is a liar. Rick Warren is willing to gamble that Odin is a liar. Rick Warren is willing to gamble that the gods and goddesses of Olympus are liars. Rick Warren is willing to gamble that Zoroaster was a liar. Rick Warren is willing to gamble that animism is a pack of lies. Rick Warren is willing to shove all sorts of religions down the crapper. He’s willing to make the bet that hundreds of religious authorities and supposed deities with their rules and systems are complete bullshit. Christianity is the only religion exempt from his scorn.

What kind of moral exemplar is Rick Warren at the inauguration of the next president? He’s the kind of man who would for reasons of self-interest reasons pick one out of hundreds of evidence-less religious dogmas, then seek to impose the terms of his wild and arbitrary gamble on an entire country. Is that kind of reckless gambling habit the sort of moral example Barack Obama really wants to promote?

Intolerant position: Rick Warren does not have the right to speak at the Inauguration of Barack Obama, and his name must be withdrawn. Fie! Withdraw in shame, Rick Warren! Go live in a hole!

Liberal position: Rick Warren has the right to say whatever he wants, and if Barack Obama wants to invite him to speak at the presidential Inauguration, I can’t stop him. But when Barack Obama — known for his thorough vetting — invites a man he’s had multiple contacts with to speak at his inauguration, and when that man has repeatedly expressed support for policies of bigotry along lines of gender, sexual orientation and religion — plus the whopper of God-Sanctioned Holy War — and when Barack Obama explains his choice with a reasonable-people-can-agree-to-disagree-reasonably argument, then such a choice sends a message that these bigotries are reasonable. It communicates to Americans that even if he does not exactly agree with Rick Warren’s positions, Barack Obama finds them to be within the realm of the reasonable. Americans like myself who believe religious discrimination, sex discrimination and anti-gay discrimination are unreasonable therefore find themselves distraught and dismayed, not just with the behavior of Rick Warren but with what Barack Obama’s choices reveal about his political compass. Considering Obama’s ever-lengthening list of concessions to political forces aligned against freedom in America, Barack Obama should not be surprised that he is losing the benefit of liberals’ doubt.

What kind of moral values does this Inaugural Pastor Rick Warren invoke when he’s not invocating? December 4, 2008:

Sean Hannity: Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.

Rick Warren: Yes.

Sean Hannity: I think we need to take him out.

Rick Warren: Yes.

Sean Hannity: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?

Rick Warren: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…

Sean Hannity: By force?

Rick Warren: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

You know, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard this before, somewhere. Where was that?

I hereby declare that this sinister regime of Israel is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the Great Satan. All it does is to implement the orders of the criminal America and England…. Today the people have awoken. The Iranian people is the standard-bearer of this awakening for all the peoples. As we can see, from the southernmost point in South America to the easternmost point in Asia, all the peoples are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout: Death to Israel!

Oh, right! Death to the Great Satan! God put government on Earth to punish evildoers. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a government, and they’ve identified their evidoers.

What a very unhelpful idea in foreign policy: find the evildoers, grab the hand of your god, and yank him into the pursuit of assassination, war and death. Is it a coincidence that the two proponents of this policy are religious fundamentalists?

Barack Obama is a thorough politician. This is a recent statement. What does it reveal about Barack Obama’s political compass that he would bringing one of the adherents of this fundamentalist warrior philosophy to Washington, DC to invoke his god as the foundation of a new American presidency?

In a packed news conference on Thursday, December 18, President-Elect Barack Obama was asked by a reporter to explain his decision to have Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad deliver God’s invocation at his Inauguration — despite Ahmadinejad’s declarations that the Holocaust is a myth and public chants of “Death to Israel.” A transcript follows:

Reporter: Good morning, sir. I have a question about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He holds a number of social views that are at odds with your own views and with those of some of your very strong supporters. I’m wondering what went into your decision to choose him for this prominent role as you embark upon your own presidency, at a time when you’re dotting every i and crossing every t to send some important signals?

Barack Obama: Well. Uh. Uh. Let me, let me start by talking about my own views. Uh, uh. I think it is no secret that, uh, I am a fierce advocate for, uh, uh, historical accuracy on the extermination of millions of Jews and on the right of the state of Israel to continue to exist. Uh. It is something that, uh, I have been consistent on. Uh. And something that I contend, I intend to be consistent on, uh, during my presidency. Uh, what I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. Uh, and I would note that, uh, a couple of years ago I was invited to Iran to speak, uh, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to, uh, Israel, when it came to, uh, issues like the existence of the Holocaust. Uh. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak and that dialogue, uh, is part of what my campaign’s been all about. That we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is create an atmosphere when we, where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common. So, uh, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been invited to speak at my Inauguration.

Members of President-elect Obama’s transition team afterwards spoke on condition of anonymity to explain that the new President would be trying to govern from the center, reaching out to groups such as Holocaust deniers and “Death to Israel” chanters to find common ground. “These are good, reasonable people with whom we happen to disagree,” explained one staffer in an off-the-record comment. “That’s why we want to give Ahmedinejad a chance to set the stage for the Obama administration.”

=======
P.S. I may have had a bit too much coffee this morning; my fingers have been jittery, and I’ve already found a few typographical errors in this article. For instance, when I meant to write “we can disagree without being disagreeable,” I slipped and ended up typing “Rick Warren equates IUD-using women with Nazis.” A bit earlier in my error-prone typing, I found that I had misspelled “not going to agree on every issue” as “homophobic religious bigot“. Whoopsie!

If you could help me make any further corrections in this post, I’d sincerely appreciate it. Thanks.
=======

At a news conference yesterday, Barack Obama defended his decision to bring White Supremacist David Duke to invoke his presidency at the Inauguration. David Duke opposed the election of this Black man as president because “Obama is not a person who would defend the rights and heritage of the European-American people.” Regardless, Barack Obama reasserted that David Duke is an appropriate choice to deliver God’s blessing upon his presidency, noting:

That dialogue, uh, is part of what my campaign’s been all about. That we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is create an atmosphere when we, where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So, uh, David Duke has been invited to speak.

[Update with Correction: It has been brought to my attention that the information reported above is not entirely correct. Barack Obama has not invited David Duke to deliver the official invocation of God's blessing at the Inauguration. The name of the individual he has invited to deliver the official invocation the Inauguration is Rick Warren, who organizes against equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, equates women on birth control pills with Nazis, and says a person should have to believe in God to be president. I sincerely regret this error.]

Evangelical Christian Pastor Rick Warren has consistently agitated against equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. The mainstream news media has reported this.

Rick Warren has repeatedly referred to actions that prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs as a “Holocaust,” equating the hundreds of millions of women who have had abortions, who have IUDs and who have taken birth control pills with Nazis. A few mainstream news outlets have mentioned this.

Rick Warren not only has declared that “I could not vote for an atheist president” but has also affirmed that in his view “a person has to believe in God to be president.” Not one mainstream news media outlet has reported this.

ABC News has yanked video excerpts of it from YouTube, and they haven’t posted a transcript online either, so all I can provide you is a copy of my own transcription from August 2008 of Rick Warren’s conversation with Cynthia McFadden of ABC News:

Cynthia McFadden: I have heard you say you want to understand what their personal relationship with Jesus is…

Rick Warren: Yeah.

Cynthia McFadden: …Does that mean a Jew or a Muslim would be out as far as you were concerned as president?

Rick Warren: Not at all, not at all. I could vote for a Jewish president easily. The only kind of president I don’t think I could vote for would be an atheist. I could not vote for an atheist president because I just think that is pretty arrogant. I think that the presidency is too big for any human individual. And I think we do need God.

If that isn’t enough for you, consider this conversation between Larry King and Rick Warren on August 18, 2008:

Larry King: Does a person have to believe in God to be President?

Rick Warren: I would say so. I couldn’t vote for a person who was an atheist because I would think that, I think that the presidency is a job too big for one person, and I would think that there’s a little arrogance that says, “I don’t need anybody else.”

Video:

The mainstream media may not care about this particular endorsement of unconstitutional bigotry by the man Barack Obama picked to be the public face of his inauguration, but a fair number of Americans do. For those people, here’s the documentation of Rick Warren’s religious, anti-atheist test. Please do what you can to spread the word.

Rick Warren is an evangelical who refers to pro-choice women in America as Nazis.

Barack Obama just chose him to deliver a religious invocation at the inauguration of the President of the United States of America.

No, I’m not exaggerating. The following are remarks made by Pastor Rick Warren at his religious inquisition of the presidential candidates on August 16, 2008:

Rick Warren: 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people who, people who believe that life begins at conception, would say that’s a Holocaust for many people. At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?

John McCain: At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.

Rick Warren: Ha ha. Okay. We don’t have to go longer on that one. Ha ha.

You heard him. Abortion is a Holocaust. That makes women who have abortions Nazis.

“Ha ha. Okay. We don’t have to go longer on that one. Ha ha.”

Oh, yes we do. If fertilized eggs have human rights from the moment of conception, then there are implications, including making birth control pills and IUDs illegal instruments of murder and turning women’s wombs into zones controlled by the government. That makes Pastor Rick Warren’s vision a fervently radical one.

Barack Obama knows about Pastor Rick Warren calling pro-choice women Nazis. He knows about Rick Warren’s radical vision. Obama was there that night. Obama was even asked the same question. And Rick Warren has repeated the sentiment since.

Barack Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama just chose Rick Warren to speak for him on Inauguration Day.

Why is Caroline Kennedy as a U.S. Senator remotely possible and making such big news on the East Coast? I suspect the answer is the same as the answer to the questions:

Why is Andrew Cuomo the second-best shot for the Senate seat?
Why did Hillary Clinton win that Senate seat in the first place?
Why is Joe Biden’s Senate seat in Delaware being held for his son?
Why did Al Gore get elected to the same Senate seat his father held?

It’s about family continuity in politics. Some synonyms for “family continuity in politics”: aristocracy, dynasty, royalty. Some Americans have a strong desire for royalty in America. They tried to make George W. Bush a king, praising him to an embarrassing extent for far too long, far longer than they praised his father, George II. They refer to the original Kennedy administration as “Camelot,” if that isn’t a big enough hint. And what happens to old dynasties? Why, they have restorations, of course. The Clinton dynasty is clearly over, at least at the presidential level, and Joseph “Beau” Biden the Third is too young yet, so it’s time for the royalists to dust off the old Kennedy name.

Like George Lucas, these Americans long for the continuation of a story from one generation to another, one that revolves around the return of the rightful, good, kind and just rulers to power. Be they chosen for the right level of Mitichloreans or the right Hahvahd accent, for the aristocratic story to follow its full arc the families must return to power. For the royalists, Caroline Kennedy’s reassuring connections to the right private schools, the right Manhattan foundations and the right parents are good enough to start with. She’ll be headed to the Senate for one and a half terms, when don’t you know it the 2016 presidential elections will roll around. Then watch and wait for the words “President Kennedy” to be mouthed again.

Lord knows, a Williams or a Jablonsky or any of the other last names held by some 300 million other Americans just aren’t right. There are times, royal times, darling, when only a Kennedy will do.

As protests against the passage of Proposition 8 continue, broadening from rallies and demonstrations to boycotts of companies that opposed marriage equality, it is worth considering the argument of the opposition. Religious opponents of same-sex marriage rights (including the Catholic and Mormon churches heavily funding political opposition to marriage equality in California) assert that marriage for everyone should be defined according to their parochial religious standards. When leaders of religious organizations say they are “defending marriage“, they’re really talking about using their religious power to force people into the kinds of marriages they mandate:

Christian leaders coming together in future conference calls in order to activate (along with others) 8 million men and women to vote for marriage, as God ordained it.

Do we really want an America in which religions exploit their power to force people into marriages they like — and out of marriages they don’t like?

Consider the recent example of the Salvation Army. We already know that the Salvation Army takes your taxpayer funds to hire people, engaging in hiring discrimination against Gays, non-Christians and even Christians whose denomination it doesn’t like. And we already know that the Salvation Army, after taking taxpayer funds, has hired lobbyists to try to get laws passed that restrict the rights of gay and lesbian people to get married. All this behavior was supported by $332 million of your federal taxpayer dollars last year alone.

The Salvation Army is part of the fundamentalist proselytizing religious network that is already receiving your tax money and is simultaneously pushing to make its parochial marriage standards mandatory for everybody. But do you know what the marriage standards of the Salvation Army really are?

Take the case of Johnny Harsh, an officer in the Salvation Army who recently lost his spouse of many years. After his wife’s death, he fell in love with someone else and wanted to get married. The Salvation Army said no.

Why wouldn’t the Salvation Army let Johnny Harsh get married?

Is it because Johnny Harsh fell in love with another man? No, Johnny Harsh is heterosexual, and he fell in love with a woman.

Is it because Johnny Harsh fell in love with a woman under the legal age of marriage? No, Johnny Harsh is not a pedophile; he fell in love with a grown woman.

Is it because Johnny Harsh fell in love with a woman who was already married to someone else? No, Johnny Harsh fell in love with a single woman of legal age.

The Salvation Army wouldn’t let Johnny Harsh get married because his bride-to-be is not an officer of the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army requires its officers to marry only each other, to sleep only with each other, to have sex only with each other.

Because Johnny Harsh is following the dictates of love over the dictates of the Salvation Army, he is being kicked out. Fortunately, the Salvation Army does not have the power to dictate the legal standards of marriages in America… yet. But that’s just the power the Salvation Army has been trying to get. In some places such as California, the Salvation Army has partially succeeded.

You see, even if you’re not gay, even if you don’t care about the rights of gay and lesbian people, there’s still reason to be concerned. Fundamentalist religious organizations like the Salvation Army aren’t just interested in stopping gay marriage. They want to impose discrimination in straight marriages, too.