Warren: A Good and Hopeful Choice

Warren is a "sign of hope" for Rev. Mouw and his intolerant evangelical ilk that the religious right will still have a role in injecting their Leviticus-cherry-picking theocracy in the new administration. This is not the change we voted for.

What nonsense.

I propose that, to understand the implications of Obama's invitation to Warren, imagine if Lyndon Johnson had given a prominent role in his 1964 inauguration to the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. I raise this theoretical idea specifically in response to the plethora of commentators who justify Warren's role under the "big tent" rubric: it's always a good thing, they argue, to reach out to people with differing viewpoints, even to those who might oppose your position. Let everybody have a voice. Unity is better than divisiveness. Unity, in fact, trumps everything.

I hope the idea of LBJ's inviting the KKK Grand Dragon to his inauguration shows the phoniness behind the "big tent" rationalization. It would have been seen as palpable nonsense for the KKK to be given a role in an inauguration in the midst of the Civil Rights battle, all in the name of unity. In fact, it still would. No American would be taken seriously if he argued that giving the KKK, or any extremist voice, a seat at the table in the name of unity trumped all other considerations. On the contrary. The right and moral thing to do would be to explicitly deny such voices a role in an inauguration.

But in addition to this general argument, I also have specific words of Warren in mind. Those are the ones in which Warren offered a list of partnerships that he believed would be wrong: "a brother and sister being together, an older guy marrying a child and a guy having multiple wives."

Comparing gay relationships to incest, child sexual exploitation, and bigamy, in my opinion, is the equivalent of referring to blacks with the "N" word. It bespeaks a bigoted mind and a bigoted outlook. It's bigotry, no less than the bigotry exhibited by those who openly call for discrimination against blacks. Neither viewpoint should be given legitimacy in America.

To those who argue that Warren is part of mainstream America, let me remind you of something I have a feeling that you and many other Americans have forgotten, or never knew: The KKK was once considered a respectable organization, and not just by flaming racist fanatics. The KKK had widespread support among "respectable" Americans. The KKK regularly marched in civic parades, and not just in the South.

And let me make my central point again: We decent Americans relegated the once respectable, mainstream KKK to the margins of this society, not by inviting them into the tent in the name of unity, but by kicking them out of the tent and telling them never to return. Rick Warren, with his hateful characterization of gays, has shown himself as just one more bigot. I could not care less that many "respectable" Americans worship at his feet, any more than I care that many Americans still consider the KKK respectable. It's time to put the Rick Warrens of the world on the dust bin of history, just like we did the other bigots, the KKK.

"But working on AIDS in Africa, where most victims are heterosexual christians, does not excuse bigotry. Yes bigotry is often bold, bold is a good word for it; but bigotry by it's nature is polarizing. Warren does not offer Hope to gay folks, he excludes, shames and demoralized them. Because that is what you believe Jesus would do, I am at a loss to grasp any kind of Hope out of this election, because this hope excludes the minority of Americans who need it the most."

Eh, a lot of Christians' ideas of 'Working on AIDS in Africa' is to blame it on homosexuality and tell people condoms make it worse, by the backwards logic that scaring people out of sex entirely makes them 'pure.'

Even if it obviously is counterproductive so to do. I guess they figure the survivors will think the Christian God favored them, especially when their land can't grow enough and conspicuously-Christian charities are advertising whenever it's *their* gruel that gets past the local warlords.

Yayaya.

As for *hope,* though, hope isn't a President who's gonna throw himself on the sword some Christian fundies beat out of idle plowshares.

Hope is hope.

If the likes of Warren could destroy hope just by trying, I assure you I would not be here.

Rich Warren has worked for HIV/AIDS in Africa, but working to abolish strife should be at the center of EVERY ministry. It's sad that it has taken this long for Evangelicals to finally realize that God wants them to help people, that should have been their mission all along.

But working on AIDS in Africa, where most victims are heterosexual christians, does not excuse bigotry. Yes bigotry is often bold, bold is a good word for it; but bigotry by it's nature is polarizing. Warren does not offer Hope to gay folks, he excludes, shames and demoralized them. Because that is what you believe Jesus would do, I am at a loss to grasp any kind of Hope out of this election, because this hope excludes the minority of Americans who need it the most.

Dear Rev Mouw

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2009!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia