by Eric Martin
Michael Savage: "a lot of guys become gay out of default" because "they're afraid" of women…
To which I reply: Well, duh.
Who wouldn't be afraid? I mean, there's balrogs in them thar hills bacon and play doh labyrinths.
Or so I've heard.
Shouldn’t he have asked Dan Savage about this first?
Lots of guys became macho blowhards because they’re afraid of women. Gay? Not so much.
(It’s true about the balrogs, though. With nasty sharp pointy teeth.)
Lots of guys became macho blowhards because they’re afraid of women.
Some of them even get radio shows on which they make bizarre claims about what the fear of women drives men to.
(It’s true about the balrogs, though. With nasty sharp pointy teeth.)
Straight guys just don’t know how to be sweet to the balrogs. No wonder they get bit.
Anyone who thinks guys become gay for fear of balrogs has obviously never been on a blind date in Chelsea.
I would, however, rather slow dance with a balrog than listen to Michael Savage hold forth on any topic. At all.
Days like this I scratches my head and asks myself: why would anyone waste perfectly good time that could otherwise be used to play Penguin Toss, or something, listening to Michael Savage?
Straight guys just don’t know how to be sweet to the balrogs.
And we hate asking for directions. Catch-22.
Penguin Toss!! Excellent suggestion, Slarti, now that you mention it……..
Meanwhile, Gay Bishop Is Asked to Say Prayer at Inaugural Event.
I’d like a second opinion on this subject.
What does Joe the Plumber think? Somebody call him home from the Middle East and send him on assignment in the delta of PLay-Doh and Bacon, if he can handle it, being a selfish sort of guy.
What are Sarah Palin’s views from her house on the subject?
I’d say if Sarah Plain and Joe the Mr.Goodwrench and Michael Ceviche had a threesome, Sarah would end up alone in the corner watching the video feed, Michael being afraid of one thing but a little transfixed by the other.
A safe two days distance from the official event, of course.
Obama’s BFF thinks it’s OK to be condescendingly nice to your gay “friends”, even eat meals with them, just so long as they know their place as scum not entitled to the same basic civil rights as straight people.
Two days separation and a non-official event is exactly what I’d expect from Obama right now: oops, better do something, *flail*.
And lord save us from “Right Thinking Americans”.
Yes, Jes, flail away.
Not that I can say anything. I’m absolutely TERRIFIED of you.
Weird, I like women. Just not… you know, that way…
just so long as they know their place as scum not entitled to the same basic civil rights as straight people
what, exactly, do you think your constant overwrought hyperbole does for your cause ?
But I thought constant overwrought hyperbole was her cause.
Since publius likes to discuss telecom issues, perhaps he might offer a view on the new FCC chair?
cleek: what, exactly, do you think your constant overwrought hyperbole does for your cause ?
Coming from someone who thinks homophobia is a tenet of Christianity and that LGBT Americans ought to STFU about Rick Warren? Please, critique away, cleek. I’m so interested.
Gee, for a second there, I thought cleek was OCSteve. Better talk nicer to the straights, Jes, or they won’t support your causes any more.
I’m just glad to hear that, between the evangelicals and the Episcopals, we’ve ensured that the transition of power in our secular government will be made sufficiently religious. Any atheists invited to do anything of prominence at any of this? No? Yeah, I thought so.
Coming from someone who thinks homophobia is a tenet of Christianity and
taking Christians word for it seems like a good basis for believing something about them. what’s your excuse ?
Please, critique away, cleek. I’m so interested.
i have.
now, feel free to answer my question. i meant it.
Phil:
Better talk nicer to the straights, Jes, or they won’t support your causes any more.
that’d be more funny if it wasn’t actually true.
Better talk nicer to the straights, Jes, or they won’t support your causes any more.
Pbbbbbbbbbt. *nicely*
I’m just glad to hear that, between the evangelicals and the Episcopals, we’ve ensured that the transition of power in our secular government will be made sufficiently religious. Any atheists invited to do anything of prominence at any of this? No? Yeah, I thought so.
Now that would be really radical….
Though Gene Robinson has said he will make his prayer at the safely-two-days-away event not tied to any specific religion. Which is something. I suppose given the wingnut meme that Obama is really a Muslim, it would be too much to ask for Obama to give a nod to people of other faiths besides Christianity.
Now what I want is a Parliament of Dreams:
Delenn: Exactly what sort of demonstration does he have planned?
Ivanova: He just said it’d showcase Earth’s dominant belief system.
Sinclair: All right, we’re all set. If you’ll come this way. …. This is Mr. Harris. He’s an atheist. Father Cresanti, a Roman Catholic. Mr. Hayakawa, a Zen Buddhist. Mr. Rashid, a Moslem. Mr. Rosenthal, an Orthodox Jew. Running Elk, of the Oglala Sioux faith. Father Papapoulous, a Greek Orthodox. Ogigi-ko, of the Ebo tribe. Machukiak, y Yupik Eskimo. Sawa, of the Jivaro tribe. Isnakuma, a Bantu. Ms. Chang, a Taoist. Mr. Blacksmith, an aborigine. Ms. Yamamoto, a Shinto. Ms. Naijo, a Maori. Mr. Gold, a Hindu. Ms….
Well then let’s turn things around, cleek: What, exactly, do you think you are going to accomplish by criticizing gays and lesbians for their rhetoric?
cleek: taking Christians word for it seems like a good basis for believing something about them. what’s your excuse ?
Told you on the last thread, but I guess you weren’t paying attention to what I was saying to you: extensive study and reading, plain statements made against the idea that homophobia is a tenet of Christianity by, you know, actual Christians. Ranging from Archbishop Tutu to Bishop Robinson, several Catholic priests, any number of Quakers, and an elder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland who rang me up once to lecture me at considerable length of the wickedness (in his opinion) of opposition to civil partnership masquerading as religious.
What, exactly, do you think you are going to accomplish by criticizing gays and lesbians for their rhetoric?
i’m not criticizing “gays and lesbians”. i’m criticizing some gays and lesbians. there’s a big distinction there.
this idea that criticizing a member of the group means i’m criticizing the whole group is interesting, though: a kind of reverse strawman stereotyping.
extensive study and reading, plain statements made against the idea that homophobia is a tenet of Christianity by, you know, actual Christians
here’s a helpful List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality. the vast majority of them consider it to be a sin.
and again, you haven’t answered my question.
i’m not criticizing “gays and lesbians”. i’m criticizing some gays and lesbians. there’s a big distinction there.
OK, what do you hope to accomplish by criticizing some gays and lesbians for their rhetoric?
and again, you haven’t answered my question.
Yes, I did: twice. At least, I answered the question I understood you to be asking: why do I believe Christians do not regard homophobia as a tenet of Christianity?
I refer you to both my previous answers, but the shortest summary is “Taking Christians word for it seems like a good basis for believing something about them.”
Funny, Jesurgislac never applies the “taking his word for it” to Obama.
OK, what do you hope to accomplish by criticizing some gays and lesbians for their rhetoric?
as i said in the last thread: i want to win this fight, too. and i think some reactions are counter-productive.
Yes, I did: twice.
not that question. this one.
“Taking Christians word for it seems like a good basis for believing something about them.”
again… Warren is not a lay person, he is a member of the clergy and will be acting as one for the invocation. if we’re asking whether or not Warren is typical or radical, we have to compare his beliefs to the beliefs of other clergy. and we can get a broad measure of those beliefs by looking at the official doctrine of the churches the clergy choose to work for. the beliefs of lay-people aren’t really relevant. by this measure, Warren is absolutely typical.
what, exactly, do you think your constant overwrought hyperbole does for your cause ?
Then I refer you to the answer I made when you asked it. No change there.
if we’re asking whether or not Warren is typical or radical, we have to compare his beliefs to the beliefs of other clergy.
So you have to be able to show that other clergy in the US mostly consider same-sex marriage to be the equivalent of paedophilia. Which, so far, you have entirely failed to do.
Officially, Roman Catholic priests are required to believe that a same-sex couple who adopt a child are the equivalent of child abusers. Many priests disagree, but that is what the Inquisition has declared to be doctrine, when the present Pope was running the Holy Office. Same-sex marriage is not in itself regarded by the Catholic Church as a sin equivalent to paedophilia, so that’s one set of clergy who wouldn’t agree with Rick Warren, though I admit that’s about as close as you’re likely to get outside the wingnut coterie he listens to.
and we can get a broad measure of those beliefs by looking at the official doctrine of the churches the clergy choose to work for.
Exactly. So you have to show that it is official doctrine in the majority of churches that two adult gay men or women marrying each other is like paedophilia, which is what Rick Warren says he believes. Go, run, do your research, get back to me…
Sapient: Funny, Jesurgislac never applies the “taking his word for it” to Obama.
No.
So you have to show that it is official doctrine in the majority of churches that two adult gay men or women marrying each other is like paedophilia, which is what Rick Warren says he believes.
since he never said that, i don’t think i have to show any such thing.
It’s clear what the Christian religion ‘thinks’ about same-sex sex: resist the urge! I think that if I had those urges, which I don’t, I would be able to resist them – so why can’t all of you? Of course that’s if I *did*. Which I don’t. And never have.
Ever.
I think a more than cursory study of Christianity would lead you to the conclusion that the Dogma is perfectly aware (as it were) that whatever has been deemed by the church to be ‘illicit’ sex is the product of completely natural urges, and not some blithe ‘choice’. And that includes same-sex sex. The point is not that such proscribed sex is unnatural, but rather the opposite: it is utterly natural to the human being, and human beings and their lives on this earth are fundamentally bad, and therefore humanity needs the Church to save their wretched, stinking souls.
This whole ‘homosexuality is a choice’ stuff is really irrelevant.
as i said in the last thread: i want to win this fight, too. and i think some reactions are counter-productive.
And I think that after several centuries of the crap up with which they’ve put, neither you nor I are in a position to lecture gays and lesbians on how they should behave and what things will ultimately prove productive.
since he never said that, i don’t think i have to show any such thing.
Yeah, pretty hard to believe till you hear him, isn’t it? But I think you have to take Rick Warren’s word for it that this is what he believes.
Now show me that a majority of clergy in the US also believe that.
And I think that after several centuries of the crap up with which they’ve put, neither you nor I are in a position to lecture gays and lesbians on how they should behave and what things will ultimately prove productive.
we’ve already been through this: i want a better country, too.
Yeah, pretty hard to believe till you hear him,
except, that’s not what he said. he said the things in his list all change the “5,000-year definition of marriage”. he didn’t say they were morally equivalent. his “Oh I do…” response has to be taken in context of his whole point.
he didn’t say they were morally equivalent.
No. And Bush never exactly and precisely said that Iraq was an “imminent threat”, either. So, that’s okay, then. I’d give Rick Warren a big squishy hug and some cookies, except that I need to go vomit hearing you repeat back his own yucky rhetoric as if you believed it.
In a nutshell, cleek, the problem is this: you’ve been reduced to arguing that if enough people hold a particular belief, the President-elect is somehow obligated not just to acknowledge that belief’s existence, but to accord it a place of honor. Whatever his own feelings might be.
As has been pointed out numerous times on previous threads, by this logic, LBJ should have given a prominent place to a segregationist at his Inauguration in 1964. Would you agree? If not, how is this different?
What I’d like to know is, where do you establish the cutoff point? There’s a sizable chunk of Americans that didn’t vote for Obama because they wouldn’t vote for a colored guy if their life depended on it. Will they be recognized at the Inauguration, and if so, how?
I need to go vomit hearing you repeat back his own yucky rhetoric as if you believed it.
charming.
have yourself a pleasant life.
What I’d like to know is, where do you establish the cutoff point? There’s a sizable chunk of Americans that didn’t vote for Obama because they wouldn’t vote for a colored guy if their life depended on it. Will they be recognized at the Inauguration, and if so, how?
I think we can assume that Obama feels differently about bigots whose bigotry affects him personally. So, no problem supporting a man who thinks his daughters ought to put up with being abused by their future husbands (or not to be able to marry their wives legally). No problem supporting a man who thinks his Chief of Staff is going to hell for being Jewish. But Obama seems to draw the line at showing conciliation to bigots who think he himself ought not to be able to vote, let alone become President.
we’ve already been through this: i want a better country, too.
So do I. Now let’s all go lecture some other minority groups on how they should behave, too. You up for it?
you’ve been reduced to arguing that if enough people hold a particular belief, the President-elect is somehow obligated not just to acknowledge that belief’s existence, but to accord it a place of honor
huh ? i’m arguing that Warren is perfectly typical of a Christian preacher, and not uniquely bigoted.
i don’t think Obama is “obligated” to do anything here, but i can see why it makes good political sense to try to make as many people as he can feel welcome. and he did run on a platform of trying to work across divisions, after all.
and again, again, again, again: Lowrey.
by this logic, LBJ should have given a prominent place to a segregationist at his Inauguration in 1964. Would you agree? If not, how is this different?
i disagree with “should”. but otherwise: no, of course not.
how are the situations different?
given the events of the mid 60s (marches, riots, lynchings, charismatic leaders like MLK, etc), the sense of urgency about the two situations is much different. IMO, LBJ was, politically, hugely courageous in passing the laws he did – and he knew it. i’m not sure a lesser president wouldn’t have taken an easier route and featured a segregationist at his inauguration.
but most importantly, LBJ didn’t agree with the segregationists, but both Obama and Warren say they’re opposed to gay marriage (but supportive of civil unions). Obama isn’t asking someone to speak who has the opposite view – he’s asking someone who has the same view on this issue. someday hopefully, we’ll get a president who’s willing to stand up for gay marriage, but Obama ain’t the guy. so, i’m not sure your analogy is quite as tight as it could be.
Now let’s all go lecture some other minority groups on how they should behave, too. You up for it?
we’ve been through that, too.
A safe two days distance from the official event,
Damn. I really did think he’d asked Gene Robinson to lead prayer at the main event. (More fool me.)
Obama isn’t asking someone to speak who has the opposite view – he’s asking someone who has the same view on this issue.
“The same view”?
You honestly think all this objection to Warren stems from the simple fact that he’s “against gay marriage”? Really?
Compare and contrast:
Obama has not compared (either directly or obliquely) same-sex relationships to pedophilia, rape, and incest. Warren has.
Obama does not run a church that “ministers” to gay people by promising to turn them straight, and refuses membership to gay people who don’t take him up on the offer. Warren does.
Obama did not actively campaign in favor Proposition 8. Warren did, and he happily propagated baldfaced lies in the process (i.e., the canard about churches being “forced” to marry gay couples by the state).
The notion that all of the controversy surrounding Warren begins and ends with the fact that he “opposes gay marriage” just won’t die. But it’s a gross misreading of what this is about. If that’s where you’re coming from, cleek, there’s no point in discussing this any further–we might as well be arguing about the color of the sky or the sum of 2 plus 2. I’m done.
i’m arguing that Warren is perfectly typical of a Christian preacher, and not uniquely bigoted.
*bzzt* Yes, and you’re wrong. True, he’s not “uniquely bigoted” – sad to say, there are quite a number of wingnuts who agree with him that same-sex relationships are like bestiality, paedophilia, and incest. But he is not “perfectly typical” of a Christian preacher in holding those views.
but both Obama and Warren say they’re opposed to gay marriage (but supportive of civil unions).
Obama used to say he supported gay marriage. Then, it seems, he decided if he wanted to run for President, he’d better STFU about that.
Warren… where, exactly, has Warren supported civil unions? Apparently he founded Saddleback Church in 1980. At the state level, there were four legislative attempts to get same-sex civil unions recognized in law before Assembly Bill 26 became law on September 22, 1999. So, where, exactly, is your evidence that between 1980 and 1999 Rick Warren/Saddleback Church was supportive of the attempts of same-sex couples in California to get civil union legislation passed?
I know of none, but presumably you’re speaking from some kind of evidence? Not just making stuff up off the top of your head?
jayann: Damn. I really did think he’d asked Gene Robinson to lead prayer at the main event. (More fool me.)
So did I, briefly. Then I read the actual news stories. 🙁
by this logic, LBJ should have given a prominent place to a segregationist at his Inauguration in 1964. Would you agree? If not, how is this different?
Yes. If that’s what he thought it would take, he would have.
After all, LBJ did many favors and made many gestures to court segregationists and fence sitters alike. He invited them to the White House for official visits, gave them congenial photo opps, offered them public support on a number of their pet projects, etc.
It was his belief that he had to win them over and/or soften their resistance – with the same for the constituents that these segregationist figures represented – in order to bring about the change sought.
The hope is that Obama is doing the same type of thing here.
If only the people of the People’s Front of Judea would stop bickering with the Judean People’s Front and take it out on the Romans instead.
given the events of the mid 60s (marches, riots, lynchings, charismatic leaders like MLK, etc), the sense of urgency about the two situations is much different.
Given that you apparently faint from overheated rhetoric from SOME gays and lesbians, I can’t imagine how you’d react if they decide to start marching and/or rioting on any kind of widespread basis. (Lynchings, they’ve got covered, essentially.) Would you still be all with the STFU?
Still, lol at you being all “I want a better country, too” juxtaposed with “the sense of urgency is different.” Not if you’re actually, GLBT, I’d guess. It’s still the same old “wait your fucking turn” for them, huh?
It was [LBJ’s] belief that he had to win them over and/or soften their resistance – with the same for the constituents that these segregationist figures represented – in order to bring about the change sought.
And how’d that work out?
Obama has not compared (either directly or obliquely) same-sex relationships to pedophilia, rape, and incest. Warren has.
the “oblique” comparison (which is the one i believe he intended, based on listening to the conversation and reading the transcript) is so oblique that it’s disingenuous to even accuse him of making it.
Obama does not run a church that “ministers” to gay people by promising to turn them straight, and refuses membership to gay people who don’t take him up on the offer. Warren does.
well, you couldn’t be a “member” (whatever that means) if you refused to repent of your gay ways, but you could still attend the church. i’m no Christian, but isn’t repenting of your sins pretty fundamental to the whole thing ? i mean, you can’t just go around sinning without some kind of condemnation from the church, right? and that’s all tied to the idea that homosexuality is a sin – an utterly common view in Christian churches. wrongheaded and cruel, but not unusual.
Obama did not actively campaign in favor Proposition 8.
nor did he lift a finger to oppose it, much to the dismay of people everywhere.
If that’s where you’re coming from, cleek, there’s no point in discussing this any further-
sorry i focused on that. it’s simply the most interesting part of the debate, to me, since it’s the one that really gets beyond religion and bigotry and into matters of policy and law and justice – there’s something solid to talk about there. traditional Christianity thinks homosexuality is a sin? ok, it’s #273 on my list of other 4523 things i think Christianity gets wrong. too many people are ignorant bigots? big shock!
but, maybe let’s stop anyway.
Rick Warren only “compared” homosexuality to other “sins” in the sense that he believes that all of those activities are “sins” and none of those “sins” should be included in the definition of marriage. In his view, as in the view of most Christian church teachings (not necessarily the view of Christian laypeople, who seem to believe whatever they want and still affiliate themselves with Christian churches), “marriage” is a religious magic trick that turns sexual activity into a non-sin.
Rick Warren never placed relative values on the extent to which each of things he mentioned were sins. I don’t know what’s so difficult about the understanding the concept of this. In fact, in the same video, he “compared” other sins (like drug use and “being overweight”) again without ranking them. The crux of his view is that he thinks that God thinks that certain sex can be legitimized by the magic trick or marriage, and that certain sex can’t. It’s not the same as wanting to put Jews in a concentration camp, or not wanting white blood to be sullied by black blood through interracial marriage. It’s what he thinks God thinks people should do with their private parts.
Is it crazy? Seems crazy to me. Just like a lot of the other stuff that religious people believe.
After all, LBJ did many favors and made many gestures to court segregationists and fence sitters alike. He invited them to the White House for official visits, gave them congenial photo opps, offered them public support on a number of their pet projects, etc.
While it’s still unclear to me just what kind of “change” Ric Warren is supposed to help advance, I’ll concede this point, Eric.
cleek: Warren is perfectly typical of a Christian preacher
He’s perfectly typical of a right-wing non-mainline Protestant preacher, which is sadly what too many Americans have come to understand by the word ‘Christian’. On display in this thread and previous ones is the damage done by the appropriation starting in the 1970s of the term ‘Christian’ by fundamentalist, right-wing Protestants. (As in the 700 Club’s “Christian position on the captial gains tax”, the “Christian coalition”, all-white “Christian schools” that sprang up throughout the south as public schools were integrated, etc.)
There is a vast theological, social, cultural, and political spectrum covered by Christian denominations. To pretend that Rick Warren speaks for a majority of U.S. Christians (in the original, not politically appropriated sense of the world) is not correct, is offensive to the huge number of liberal Christians if it were, and in no way would justify his being given the honor he’s been given even if it were.
UK:
I hope (hope) that Obama is trying to soften the resistance amongst people like Warren and his followers for changes that he is going to be making to current state of the rights of LGBT Americans.
Actually, I’m hoping that he gets past civil unions and goes for gay marriage – or at least establishes civil unions for all in terms of how the government treats such arrangements, and then let the various religions consecrate “marriages.” Or not.
If LBJ had had a segregationist preacher deliver the invocation at his inauguration, would there be the same kind of criticism of outraged response from African-Americans and pro-civil-rights Americans?
Would supposed liberals have defended the choice on the grounds that “well, most people (or most Christians or most Christian denominations) don’t support civil rights”?
Or, alternatively, would liberals have shrugged it off with “LBJ doesn’t really support civil rights anyway. We’ll just have to wait until we get a president who does.”
To pretend that Rick Warren speaks for a majority of U.S. Christians (in the original, not politically appropriated sense of the world) is not correct,
i never said that he did. i said Warren is a typical preacher and preaches typical doctrinaire Christianity. it’s easy to verify this: go look at the official doctrine for the largest Christian churches in the US (just Catholic, Baptist and Methodist will get you over 50% of them). you’ll see that his views are perfectly typical for a preacher.
that lay-people disagree with their churches is fantastic. i hope they continue finding ways to disagree with them! but people still go to those churches and support that doctrine, even if they do it under protest.
Nell: Liberals presumably had to react to LBJ’s courtship of segregationsists, so it shouldn’t be a mystery.
Sapient: Rick Warren never placed relative values on the extent to which each of things he mentioned were sins. I don’t know what’s so difficult about the understanding the concept of this.
I guess us queers are just dumb compared with you straight folks.
@cleek: Lumping Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists together because they collectively account for more than 50% of U.S. Christians does not exactly lay the groundwork for keen analysis of the social-political roles of the various Christian denominations.
And it is completely irrelevant to the main question, which is who Rick Warren is and what he represents. He is a leader of the religious right who has managed to pass himself off as a moderate. He has done this by putting his name (with no further action) on documents opposing torture and global warming and by passing off typically right-wing evangelical missionary work as “AIDS activism”. His one claim to genuine moderation is his significant personal contributions to anti-poverty charity.
Slowly, but inevitably, the mainline Protestant denominations are ordaining lesbian and gay ministers (Presbyterian took the step this year, at their most recent national meeting).
Baptists, not so much. Rick Warren is a conservative Baptist preacher, and a typical one except for his fame, wealth, and flimsy reputation as a “moderate”, “new” evangelical. The only difference between him and the religious right is his canny decision to jump off the Republican ship as it began to sink, in 2005-6, and play both sides for the maximum benefit of Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church.
or at least establishes civil unions for all in terms of how the government treats such arrangements, and then let the various religions consecrate “marriages.”
Thank you, Eric Martin. Bless you.
In the spirit of hoping to unify the People’s Front of Judea and the People’s Judean Front, and as someone raised in the
Episcopalian Church, I was very heartened at the invitation to Rev. Gene Robinson.
I can understand the Warren decision as a political move, however strongly I disagree with it (substantively and politically). What I found most disturbing in the initial reaction of Obama and his advisers was the lack of acknowledgment of just what a political (and personal) kick in the teeth to equality supporters it was to honor Warren in that way. The Robinson invitation shows that they do grasp the political damage done enough to make an effort at repair. Calculating is way better than oblivious.
And in the spirit of the original theme of this thread, let me thank Hogan for a huge, healing laugh for his wins-the-thread comment (on page one):
Lumping Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists together because they collectively account for more than 50% of U.S. Christians does not exactly lay the groundwork for keen analysis of the social-political roles of the various Christian denominations.
mm k.
for the record: i hereby throw up my hands and walk away from this topic. there’s nothing left for me to say.
slowly, but inevitably, Christian churches are coming around. I don’t think anyone has argued with that. The issue is why Rick Warren is a particularly insulting choice since most of them, by a longshot, still haven’t.
For example, it’s true that Presbyterians are ordaining gay and lesbian ministers. But although the General Assembly of the Presbyterians have approved ordination, “[t]wo previous attempts by the General Assembly to overturn or soften the ban on homosexual clergy – in 1997 and 2001 – both failed to win majority support among the 173 presbyteries.” So it’s not really true that Presbyterians have entirely come around. And no one has challenged Rick Warren on how he feels about ordination.
I’m not a fan of Rick Warren, or of Obama’s decision to invite him, but stating that he represents the right-wing fringe of Christianity is just wishful thinking. (And, sure, I know dissenting Christians, some of whom are clergy.)
I could see the ghosts of Ed Gein or Jeffrey Dahmer throwing up your hands, but I’m not seeing how you can throw up your own hands.
Unless you’re into pain, and very hungry.
but I’m not seeing how you can throw up your own hands.
it’s a yoga pose i’ve been working on. the goal is to stick your finger down your esophagus far enough so that you can gently massage your own duodenum. it’s really good for your shoulder, too. coming out of the pose is similar to throwing up your own hand.
it’s pretty advanced stuff, though. i don’t recommend trying it without an instructor.
At least you’re not attempting that maneuver from the other end. Could be messy. -er.
that’s the next stage, to shake your own hand inside your colon. it’s called the Escher Dragon, and it takes many years of practice.
that’s the next stage, to shake your own hand inside your colon
Following Nell, and in the spirit of the original post, I offer my appreciation to cleek for this effort at bringing the discussion…er…full circle, as it were.
Yeah, I think I do too. *tosses cleek a cookie*
Nell: You’re very welcome.
Presbyterians took the step this year, at their most recent national meeting
Well, the General Assembly passed it, but it would need to be approved by 50% of the presbyteries to be enacted, and that’s still pretty unlikely.