more on the rick warren selection

[solarbird]

A survivor of Rick Warren's ex-gay ministry comments on the Rev. Warren's selection to deliver the invocation. There's delight and hope from the Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, who stresses Rev. Warren's involvement in Proposition 8 and his firm and unwavering opposition to faggots on every front. Rev. Warren is of course thrilled to have been invited. Some fundamentalists are pretty cranky that Rev. Warren accepted, because of Mr. Obama's support for abortion rights.

For the record; I'm not against "engaging" with people like Rev. Warren; not doing so is not an option. I object to honouring them. I object even more to boosting their position and helping them with one of their major immediate and vital goals: keeping anti-queer hate-politics "respectable," and "polite," which is to say, in the game, which is what this does.

Allow me to explain.

A few years ago when I posted about a big theoconservative confab where people from Concerned Women for America and Focus on the Family were doing things like quoting Stalin without irony, I also posted how they were talking about how they were in danger of becoming like the racists, and had to avoid that same fate. Some people saw that as kind of an awareness that they didn't have any ground to stand upon. That's part of it, but they don't care; they're anti-rationalists anyway.

This is what they actually meant: the overt racists, the segregationists, and so on, were put out of the game because it it stopped being a respectable position. Having those positions alienated you from polite political society. After that happened, nobody would defend the selection of a segregationist with the inevitable argument, "He can be engaged. He does good work in many areas." It became a disqualifying attribute in many circles. Not all, of course, but many. The fundamentalist leadership saw this happening to them, and it scared them good. It should've; you don't easily climb back out of that hole.

Mr. Obama's selection of Reverend Rick Warren helps preserve and further their respectability. It arguably adds to it, within the Democratic party. It supports and elevates the idea that you can support work to have queer people be illegal, you can argue that we're paedophiles and that our relationships will destroy free speech, and even if someone else in the political class doesn't agree, or even finds it distasteful, they won't really hold it against you. It's not important enough for that. It's still reasonable. It's still respectable. It's still accepted in polite politics. You're still in the game.

The worst part is, continuing this is exactly the point. Mr. Obama wants some of that fundamentalist evangelical segment in the Democratic party. He's trying to wedge off some of the GOP's largest remaining base group, the theoconservatives; the "inclusiveness" he wants is to include them, knowing he doesn't have to give a rat's ass about us. He wants them to know that just because they hate queers, that doesn't mean they aren't welcome in today's Democratic party. He knows they haven't gotten what they want out of the GOP, and he's telling them, "it's okay; you can have a big hate-on for the fags, and we're just fine with that. C'mon over."

Chris Crain thinks this is all bullshit; he dismisses the anger as a "unity call" falling on "PC ears." He also thinks Mr. Obama will deliver on his campaign promises, talking about his campaign positions being "the most supportive ever on LGBT civil rights." I do not share this particular faith; I remember the last time that sentiment was expressed, and I remember what actually happened. I rather suspect we're being offered as the chip in this little exchange, and I assure you, I do object.

Comments

[mundivagant.livejournal.com]

I'm not against "engaging" with people like Rev. Warren; not doing so is not an option.

I am, actually, and I'm almost surprised to read this from you, unless you mean it as a matter of political expediency (1). I do not believe people people like Rick Warren should be engaged with, or even acknowledged as legitimate authorities of any kind. I think that doing so gives the false impression that fundamentalism (2) is a thriving or socially acceptable movement; in reality, (I think) fundamentalism is in its death throes, largely because the internet is eroding the geographic isolation that gave rise to fundamentalism in the early 20th century.

Sure, dying or not, it's a dangerous beast, and not one that will expire easily; but when anyone who Googles "creationism" finds that 3 of the first 8 links include Internet Infidels, the old talk.origins FAQs, and the Geocities page of some atheist essayist (wts [Googlebomb]x1 pst), it stands to reason that a movement based entirely on NEVER questioning ANYTHING from an authority is -- at best -- destined for extreme "niche" status.

(1) Like Obama does with Rick Warren, I'm sure, though I suspect it's only in some as-yet-undiscovered parallel universe that inviting bigoted assholes to dinner is a good political idea.
(2) Suppose I mean specifically Christian fundamentalism for purposes of this reply. Islamic fundamentalism is another matter that most of my reading suggests is Saudi oil dollars promulgating Wahhabist fuckstickerry, which finds a natural home in reactionism to imperialist influences from the west.

[solarbird]

I'm also in favour of engaging Iran. I don't like their state, or their laws, or their theocracy. But they're a reality. So is Rick Warren.

[mundivagant.livejournal.com]

I must disagree with you there. Rick Warren has neither an army nor a means to develop nuclear weapons (not sure Iran has the latter either, tbh, but let's pretend). He's a modern Jim Bakker who's about halfway to defining a socially responsible Christianity, and fully aware that doing so means creating a mainstream evangelism that is fundamentally, well, non-fundamentalist. (Damn I'm good at turning gibberish phrases today)

This is comparing apples to oranges stuffed with C-4.

[solarbird]

More generally, so is the theoconservative movement.

"Engage with" does not mean "surrender to." And politically, the fundamentalists are an army, just one of politics, and they're pretty good at doing the evil they like to do. So.

[avram]

I'm all for engaging Iran too, but they're hardly Wahhabist.

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

I keep bouncing around, trying to understand this.

And what I'm thinking now is the simplest thing and it's from what he said in one of his books regarding gays. That he has no question that it's NOT a 'lifestyle', that it's not a 'choice'. And that he fully supports gay rights.

But his fucking Baptist background has him struggling to come to terms with gay marriage. I got the sense that it was like this theoretical concept to him, some abstract thing he could press against science and faith and see what he gets eventually.

In short: He. Does. Not. Get. It.

sigh... Maybe his daughter will end up in a Joan Jett tribute band. Some people need it to get personal before they can find their way out of their asses.

[solarbird]

And that he fully supports gay rights.
No, he doesn't.

You've fallen for a fundamentalist linguistic trick. He says he supports "equal rights for all Americans." Concerned Women for America and Focus on the Family say the same thing, and will then say that homosexuality isn't a "right," it's a "perversion." And every gay man can marry a woman, and any lesbian can marry a man, just like any straight man or woman, and that's equal rights. Or, as CWA used to put it in the 90s when working to add anti-gay law to state Constitutions, "there is no right to sodomy."

This is bog-standard fundamentalist rhetoric and a longstanding fundamentalist rhetorical trick. Trust me, Tony Perkins would not be vouching for his anti-gay bona-fides if he wasn't sure Rick was onboard. I mean, the man supports people working to keep queers brutalised and illegal in other countries. How's that compatible with "fully suppor[ing] gay rights?"

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

I said *he* says he supports gay rights. Not that *I* buy it.

[solarbird]

If you accept their language, you accept their framing. In politics, control of the framing is 80% of winning the battle. They want the language to be "equal rights for all Americans" to include profoundly unequal treatment (and in some cases outright recriminalisation) of GBLT people; it's the same as accepting "equal rights for all Americans" includes banning the Star of David because everyone can wear whatever kind of crucifix they want. The lie has to be called out all the time.

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

I'm not accepting the framing, either. I was trying to see his process of delusion.

[bryant]

Heh. I suddenly had the most ironic flashback to the campaign: "Obama is in favor of talking to Iran without preconditions!" But that was probably your point.

[solarbird]

Spot on.

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I really disagree that evangelifundies are on their way out; they're one of the few sects of Christianity that are growing, and dramatically so. 8%+/year, by some counts.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm - and I think that's just in the West.

[solarbird]

emrecom replied to this but accidentally hit the wrong "reply" link; his reply is further down, here.

[avram]

I'm pretty sure that's not just in the west. The Pentecostal movement in particular has its strongest growth in Africa, South America, and Asia.