All hail Mighty Favog for coining that phrase to describe the reaction gay activists are having to Obama's choosing Rick Warren to pray at his Inaugural. Says Favog:
But to believe what mankind has held fast for more than 5,000 years -- as does Pastor Warren, who backed California's constitutional ban on gay marriage -- is now to be labeled a bigot. Be seen as unfit to appear at the inauguration of an American president.
It is to be declared an ideological leper.
How utterly Stalinist -- both in its intolerance of dissent from an accepted party line and in its radical upheaval of tradition.
No longer is "tolerance" of gays and lesbians enough. No longer is it acceptable to treat homosexuals as brothers and sisters with whom we, as Christians, take issue on one area of their lives.
To treat those with whom we differ fairly and with charity is no longer sufficient. Now we must approve. Affirm. Or else.
No, it would appear that how, with whom and in what context they achieve orgasm is how gays and lesbians define themselves -- that sexuality is the be-all and end-all of their humanity. Apparently, everyone else must so define them as well.
Because, you know, it's all about them. It always is.
Except as Rick Warren would say (and did in the first line of his book): It's not about you. The narcissism of some gays really knows no bounds. If Obama, who has long worshiped in a liberal Christian church, had chosen a progressive pastor who supports gay marriage to pray at his Inaugural, what would have been the big deal? I certainly wouldn't have cared, and would have considered it small-minded and petty for anyone to complain. Do we now have a litmus test for who is allowed to pray in public with politicians without censure? Favog is right: for gay activists, this thing is not about tolerance, never was about tolerance, and never will be about tolerance. It will be about driving anyone who doesn't agree with them from public life. Better get that learned right now.
Anyway, Steve Waldman ably defends Rick Warren and Obama's choosing him to deliver the Inaugural Prayer. I especially liked this part of Steve's piece:
First, Warren has used his fame and fortune primarily to help the most destitute people in the world. He reverse tithes, giving away 90% and keeping 10%. Please contemplate all the religious figures who have gotten rich off their flock and pocketed the money. Who among you reverse tithe or would if you were rich? I know I don't, and every time I think about what Warren has done it makes me question whether I'm giving enough. That is a Christ-like example.
Read the whole thing. Rick Warren, as Steve points out elsewhere in his piece, has never been much of a culture warrior. He's not led the charge against gay marriage. He is about as uncontroversial and mainstream a popular American religious figure as we have. I don't agree with him on some things, but I recognize that he's as good a representation of the national civic religiosity as we're going to get. That gay activists are raising a big stink about this says far more about the spiteful little bubble they live in than it does about Rick Warren or Barack Obama.
Anybody remember that George W. Bush had the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a black Protestant pastor from Houston, deliver the invocations at both his inagurations -- and that Pastor Caldwell endorsed Obama? I applaud Bush for his outreach on religious diversity regarding his Inaugural prayer. I also applaud Obama.