Giglio, Anti-gay Hate, and DUers that defend it

[dbackjon]

Pretty shocking to see DU'ers defend the selection of Giglio (or refuse to criticize the selection), even after his anti-gay TERRORIST speeches were brought to light.


It is good to see that the percentage of DUer's defending this action is much less than in 2009, when the anit-gay terrorist Rick Warren was honored by Obama.

[MADem]

1. I don't look at it as "defending," I look at it as throwing the wingnut dogs a bone.

They're the ones that get frantic when it comes to religion.

And if they seat the guy next to the poet, well...that's a way to school someone without saying a word.

In any event, it's all moot--the guy is off the program.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2167119

[GeorgeGist]

4. In any event ...

their cancellation converts your 'reasoning' skills to nonsense.

[MADem]

12. Not nonsense--they were looking for someone who appealed to the conservative evangelical crowd, and

that IS why they picked the guy--to throw the right a bone.

They were unaware of his homophobic views, certainly, but they didn't pick him because he was a enthused, hard-core liberal that appealed to the base. They were trying to "include" the wingers with this choice. It happened to be an unfortunate one, but I wouldn't be surprised if a poster boy or girl for the right is on that platform in some capacity on Inauguration Day--and I'm not talking about the Chief Justice, either.

[dbackjon]

9. Why do they need to be thrown a bone?

That only gives legitimacy to their bigotry.

[MADem]

10. Clearly, they didn't realize he was a homophobic bigot--they just thought he was a right leaning

evangelical who concerned himself with human rights (trafficking) issues--someone who would appeal to those dogs who need a bone.

That's why they corrected their error. They did the right thing. I'm glad for that.

[dbackjon]

11. Rigth leaning evangelical should have been the first clue he was a bigot.

[MADem]

13. Who has a record of positive human rights activity?

That's probably what threw them, his interest in opposing human trafficking.

[dbackjon]

14. For straight people

Us gays can go to hell

[MADem]

16. I think sometimes people make mistakes. The Inaugural Commission erred, and they fixed the mistake

that they made.

If that's "Go to hell" to you, you have apparently forgotten the Bush years. IIRC, they gave all of us a little something to cry about.

[dbackjon]

19. Giglio certainly says I am going to hell

Why is the default always "Well, it is better than the Bush years"?

Why can't it be judged on HOW IT SHOULD be as Progressives?

[MADem]

21. Why you put this fired pastor above you is a question only you can answer.

He says you're going to hell?

You say he's a fucking ignorant bigot.

Why do YOU--not me, YOU--give his words more "authority?" He's the guy that lost a gig owing to his words, after all. His actions earned him a consequence.

Yet you seem unable to take "yes" for an answer?

Progressives have a capacity for forgiveness, particularly when remorse is expressed, you know. The entire construct of progressivism is progress--moving forward, hope, change, and yeah, forgiveness.

Try it sometime--you've definitely got a lot of agita going on about this, well after the mistake has been corrected, judging by your hectoring posts on this topic.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Where was the remorse? How was he fired?

No, MADem, progressivism would have PREVENTED his even being on the speaker's list; something you and others seem to be missing.

Now, I am going to step outside of my role of participant, and into that of host. This is the LGBT group. It is a safe haven. It is a place for GBLT people and their allies to discuss issues important to us. With that in mind, should you repeat something along the lines of the following:

Try it sometime--you've definitely got a lot of agita going on about this, well after the mistake has been corrected, judging by your hectoring posts on this topic.

You will no longer be welcomed to post in this group. Consider this consequences for actions taken (or not taken).

[MADem]

23. I invite you to review the poster's comments about this subject in a variety of forums.

At least one was hidden for racist language. Others, equally angry and uncivil, liberally using the "idiot" and "fuck" words, were not--and no, I have not alerted on any of them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2167410

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2167738

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2167380

This is not "civil" conversation.

If you want to boot me out, go right ahead. I think you'd be advised to do a little research before you do, though--I'm not "the enemy" here.

Obama didn't pick that guy--some jerk on the Inaugural Committee did--and they picked him because he had a great human rights record on the surface. He was opposed to human trafficking/slavery. When they were advised of his past, they gave him a shove.

I don't know about you, but my first thought is that people who are pro-human rights on one level tend to take those views with them on all issues of human rights. This guy is apparently an exception. I can forgive the Inaugural Committee their mistake, because they corrected it. I can forgive a person for calling people names, too--but if I get the shove for noticing it, and mentioning it, so be it. I'll take a Groucho Marx attitude towards the whole misadventure.

[dbackjon]

24. I use those words because they are the unvarnished truth

Playing nice got us nowhere.


People need to learn to deal with the reality of life. Not a sugarcoated version.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Again, this is the LGBT forum, not DU-at-large.

Respect the sanctity of this group, or see yourself out.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. You keep claiming Giglio is all anti slavery, but he claims to believe every word of a Pro Slavery

Book. The Bible condones and codifies slavery in the same Leviticus that Giglio invokes against gay people. Giglio says that passage is God's opinion and that means gay people are bad stuff. The same text says :
Leviticus 25:44-46

New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites"

So if Giglio actually takes Leviticus as he says it does, he also has to believe that the above is the will of and word of God. Buy, sell, import slaves. Trafficking. Human trafficking.
The irony is deep, but the fact is that the core belief is that superior humans are permitted to control those they deem as inferior, that means slavery is fine and so is punishing differences you don't care for in others with death.
When a person says 'Leviticus is God's opinion' as Giglio has said, it means they are Pro Slavery. Thus, a guy like him claiming to be involved in international doings to oppose slavery should not be taken at face value, as his religion and his specifically claimed texts say he is allowed to be. His God's opinion is that Louie can traffick in humans, this is according to Louie, who says Leviticus is the Law o' God.
They need to get real about that Book, their relationship to it and their immense hypocrisy in the careful selection of bits of text to use as weaponized dogma. The actual fact of the teachings of Jesus is that He forbade the making of any oath of any kind for any reason and he forbade the practice of public prayer. Yet again we are discussing a public prayer at an oath taking ritual and the use of ministers to pray in pubic at that oath to honor Jesus, who forbade both things.
It is not acceptable that anyone should create a religion, play cut up and select what harms others games with old texts, paste up the bits against their enemies, edit out the parts that support chattel slavery, that forbid women a place as equals in society, that forbid women from speaking in public or wearing nice clothing, cut the parts about treating others as you want to be treated, cut the parts that tell you to judge yourself not others, remove the part that says only hypocrites pray in public, forget all of that and just do as you please with some montage collage religion that is created to say 'You are perfect, go fuck with those gay people'.
These are people-think about this- who say they oppose equality for gay people because of Jesus, who said not such thing. Jesus did say never pray in public, these ministers pray in public for a living. They do not follow the texts they beat others with. They do not even respect those texts, they do not allude to them, adhere to them, refer to nor obey them. But they will put on a pretty suit and demand that LGBT people obey.
It is not a faith they have, it is a farce they are playing out. If they actually followed their texts, at least they'd make some sort of sense.
Louie Giglio says he is against slavery when his Bible condones it. Because he knows that slavery is wrong. But he still wants to claim that Bible's next bit is written as God's wish list. It is just idiotic crapola, it is not faith, it is not religion, it is improvisational hate mongering and self service from professional merchants in ethics replacement systems.

[MADem]

37. He's worked against human trafficking. That is a matter of public record.

I don't share the guy's faith--plainly you know more than I do about this topic and his beliefs. I don't approve of his conduct or his behavior. I am pleased that the IC dumped the guy.

That said, do most xtians you know keep slaves? Do most of them follow that book to the letter? I know plenty of muslims who don't follow all the teachings of the Qu'ran--I believe that most people who say they are religious are less inclined to be rigorous about following, to the letter, what their instruction manuals say. That's why that Mormon legislator got bagged for a DUI a week ago.

They use the books they follow as an excuse to discriminate, not as a guide for living.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Rev. Giglio has been dumped by the White House. See below...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449097-pastor-nixed-from-obama-inaugural-over-anti-gay-remarks?lite

The pastor President Obama chose to deliver the benediction at the inauguration later this month has withdrawn amid controversy over anti-gay remarks he made more than a decade ago.

In a mid-1990s sermon, Rev. Louie Giglio, an Atlanta minister and founder of the Passion Conferences, a group dedicated to uniting students in worship and prayer, advocated for "ex-gay" therapy and urged listeners to prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee issued a statement in response to Giglio's withdrawal.

“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural,” Addie Whisenant, a spokesperson for the committee said.

“Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part for his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

[dbackjon]

8. He never should have been picked in the first place

Poor pick.

[The Philosopher]

15. The WH said they were unaware?

The people in charge of running a country? The ones who tout a pro-LGBT record? They weren't a little curious about how he felt?

Was I just imagining religion's problem with homosexuality until yesterday? That must be it.

Regarding this, I think a multitude of people are full of crap.

[Maven]

17. Exactly - after the Rick Warren affair if they didn't know already, they should have looked into it

[GeorgeGist]

3. Thinking skills not required.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. With Hagel on the line, they found themselves with too many homophobic plates spinning.

Had to let one fall. Too many hate mongers to defend at once can exhaust anyone!

[CalFresh]

6. terrorist? Please......................

Anti-gay terrorist. Wow! Can you please post a link to some of Rick Warrens terrorist acts against gays.

[dbackjon]

7. You don't think that calling people sub human is not a terrorist act?

Advocating for gay conversion therapy?

Calling to deny equality to all Americans?


TERRORISM takes many forms.


Any one that doesn't advocate full equality is guilty of terrorism.

[CalFresh]

27. People need to back up their information. IMO.

I asked for a link from a news site that has a quote from Warren said anything like that. People need to back up what they post.

And no. Hateful speech is not terrorism.

[FreeState]

29. Google is your friend

“The Church of England is wrong and I support the Church of Uganda(CoU) on the boycott,”Dr Warren said on Thursday shortly after arriving in Uganda.

The Bishops are protesting the Church of England’s tolerance a homosexuality. Announcing the boycott in February, Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi said that Uganda’s action had been prompted by the invitation of bishops of The US Episcopal Church (TEC) who in 2003 elected as bishop, Gene Robinson, a divorced man living in an active homosexual relationship.

Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. “We shall not tolerate this aspect at all,” Dr Warren said.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/22/7590

[CalFresh]

31. Thank you.

On all my other boards it's required to have a link to back up any information you post. If it's your opinion you need to add IMO.

[HangOnKids]

32. Missing The Point Dude

The other poster meant YOU should use Goggle. Keep going though, it is amusing.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Since you are new to DU....

...The LGBT group

Statement of Purpose: A group for LGBT DUers and allies. All topics of interest to the LGBT community are welcome.

What is the difference between a forum and a group?

Forums:
•Forums are created by the DU Administrators only.
•Forums are general interest, and permit a broad range of viewpoints. Disagreement is the norm in forums.
•Members may not subscribe to forums.
• Members may be blocked from a forum by the DU Administrators, but not by the forum hosts.
•Blocked members may not post in a forum -- but they are able to alert abuse in that forum. Only members who have posted in a particular forum may be blocked from that forum.

Groups:
•Groups can be created by either the DU Administrators, or by regular DU members.
•Groups sometimes serve as safe havens for members who share similar viewpoints or interests.
•Members may subscribe to groups, and have them listed on their "My Subscriptions" page.
•Members may be blocked from a group by its hosts, or by the DU Administrators if no hosts are assigned.
•Blocked members may not post in a group or subscribe to that group -- but they are able to alert abuse in that group. Only members who have posted in a particular group may be blocked from that group.

This information can be found in our "About this group" tab. It is the same all over the board, and you should peek at it each time you enter a new group, as many have different guidelines. So you also know, this group is considered a "safe haven."

[joeybee12]

38. So according to you, everything Osama bin laden said about killing the infidels

wasn't terrorism either, right? I mean, it's only speech, right?

[FreeState]

25. I would say the stance that the gay community should be eliminated

be it via "God" making ex-gays or some other method is anti-gay hate speech that if carried out would be terrorism.

[Capt. Obvious]

18. The line for you all to get in to apolozize

is right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2167781

[Behind the Aegis]

20. As it was, so shall it be.

It was nice to see some more people not falling back on the "oh, you think Romney would have been better?" line of crap, but it never amazes me how many will bend over backwards, and in ways I haven't yet been able to discern, to defend and/or excuse this type of shit. As far as I am concerned, the White House gets no 'kudos' from me because this was the decision of the bigot to withdraw. Were I to invite a Klucker to my party, should I get accolades because he didn't show?!

[MNBrewer]

34. Louie Giglio pulls out of inaugural

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/10/louie-giglio-pulls-out-of-inaugural-over-anti-gay-comments/?hpid=z3

[Creideiki]

35. I don't think Giglio should have had to turn down the selection, PROVIDED

he came out immediately and said that those were views he held over a decade ago and he has now become more enlightened and a better Christian.

Of course, it would be more believable if his "ministry" involved outreach to all people at risk due to worldly societal prejudice, but yeah--that's just crazy talk, I know.