Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Keynote Speaker for Ebenezer Baptist’s MLK Day. Guess Who?

By

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”  –MLK, Jr.

cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. This, from the sainted John Lewis,may help, Laurel et al., at least temporarily. Also see Coretta Scott King and others on the same web page.

    <

    p>

    This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.

    • Ebenezer’s choices are their own.   I know there are plenty of true civil rights advocates of all races, classes, etc., who live what they espouse.   The decision-makers at Ebenezer?  Well, they just don’t get it when it comes to LGBTs I guess.   Very disappointing, especially since there are many LGBTs who are Ebenezer church members.  I wouldn’t care if they weren’t besmirching King’s name and insulting those of us dedicated to civil rights by inviting Warren.  But they are, so I take note.

  3. From Ed Brayton:

    <

    p>

    And a few months before that, Bartholomew noted Warren’s support of Martin Ssempa, a virulently anti-gay Ugandan preacher. Warren invited Ssempa to speak at a conference he hosted, while Ssempa himself has done everything he can to keep homosexuality a crime in his country.

    As Michelle Goldberg notes in the Guardian last week, much of Warren’s famed support for AIDS prevention in Africa has really been support for Ssempa and his barbaric views:

    Warren is sometimes credited with broadening evangelical activism to transcend religious right preoccupations, but that’s a bit deceptive. Much has been made of his work on HIV/Aids in Africa. In fact, though, Warren has taken the standard Christian conservative approach to the epidemic, which favours abstinence and prayer over condoms and sex education. I once attended Sunday services at the church of Martin Ssempa, one of Warren’s protégés in Uganda and a major force in that country’s devastating move away from safe-sex campaigns. It is a heartbreaking thing to watch a tongue-speaking faith-healer promise a room full of sobbing people – many of them poor, many infected with HIV – that Jesus can cure them, if only they believe in him unconditionally (belief demonstrated, of course, in part by tithing generously).

    It’s even more heartbreaking when those people are still advocating for the imprisonment, if not outright murder, of gays and lesbians and for the outright censorship of anyone who advocates equal rights.

    <

    p>More at the link.  Worth a gander.

    • (link).  Archbishop Akinola, if you will recall, is the guy who is using the ordination of Bishop V. Gene Robinson to grab power from the Anglican Union in Africa and N. America.  Akinola is the one who pushed the anti-gay laws that are so strict, that two people eating dinner together can be thrown into prison for 5 years on suspicion that they are gay.  Box Turtle Bulletin has a summary of Warren’s anti-gay economic empire building activities in Africa.

      <

      p>Warren, like Akinola, is an empire-building thug.  I can only hope that the people of Ebenezer are wise enough to see past any homophobia they may harbor and understand that Warren is happy to treat them as ignorant natives too.

  4. I was willing to let the inauguration thing slide, but this?!  Let me get this straight.  They are honoring a man (their own former Pastor no less) whose name is synonomous with the civil rights movement by inviting someone who clearly doesn’t favor civil rights for everyone?!  What were they thinking?  At very least it will be interesting to hear what Warren has to say on this matter.

    • LGBT people are not part of civil rights as this country defines it.  Seriously, we are the big “exception” to the American Dream.  We choose to be LGBT as far as the greater voting population goes and because of our “choice” many feel that they can side one way or the other regarding our choice.

      <

      p>In my opinion until LGBT people work together to fight for passage of an “LGBT Civil Rights Bill” we will continue to be stuck in the quagmire of debate surrounding each and every one of the sub-bills that would add up to full equality.  We are LGBT, we are part of the natural human condition, we must be recognized as such and be afforded all the same rights as any other American Citizen.  We have to stop “playing their game” by engaging in the battles and go for an all encompassing inclusion in the Constitution.

      <

      p>Seriously, just think about how much time we waste debating and arguing and validating our existence with fellow Americans.  Enough is enough, you are either with us or not.  We need to database each and every person who is against us and work hard on our allies to get them to understand the shame in these people’s standing in the way of equality for fellow human beings.      

      • my real vocation is science, but i am forced to waste my time begging for something that i am promised by the constitution but denied by a hateful public.  it is difficult not to be bitter at the senseless waste of my brain and abilities on bigots.

      • I agree that there needs to be an LGBT Civil Rights Bill.  Enough of this piecemeal crap that gets nowhere.  I’m done with playing cat ‘n mouse.  I want my rights recognized and my real life back, and I want it now.  Withholding constitutional rights from citizens is anti-American and morally wrong.

        • Those who oppose LGBT Rights and recognition, aka “the bigots” know perfectly well that the longer we are kept in the arena of “the piecemeal crap” (to steal that from Laurel) the longer LGBT will go without equal rights.

          <

          p>I know many will say “one step at a time” but I say to them, the reason LGBT cannot adopt, are not allowed to marry, are kept from being out in the military, are not protected in the workplace, etc. is exactly the same…because people don’t like us and are allowed to decide on whether or not they will grant us rights.

          <

          p>And I really hate to add this but I am getting to know human character better with old age…the longer we fight in the “piecemeal” forum, the more money generated on both sides of the equation.  Just look at Prop 8, do you all really think the LGBT community and our allies should have to raise more tens of millions to combat the bigots if there is another ballot initiative there?  The “fight” for Equality is big business.    

        • Blacks didn’t.  Catholic immigrants didn’t.  Women didn’t.  The disabled didn’t.  Gays won’t either.

          <

          p>People in aggregate are slow to change.  You should “want it now” — but know that you simply won’t get it all at once, and that for every Prop 8 setback in California there’s a Massachusetts and Connecticut and, to a lesser extent, NY, RI, and NM, and to an even lesser extent OR, WA, CA, ME, NH, VT, NJ, MD, and HI.  Piecemeal certainly hasn’t gotten nowhere.  We’ve got to add to that list.  We’ve got to remove DADT.  We’ve got to add sexuality to the list of protections for employment.

          <

          p>It simply isn’t going to happen all at once.  But, it will happen.  Let’s try to accomplish each and every one of those things, each as soon as possible because each individual step will result in direct improvement in the lives of GLBT people, and help the rest of us learn that affording rights to GLBTs does nothing to hinder the rights of heteros.

          <

          p>Personally, I think the GBLT political machine should focus on VT and RI.  They’d both be relatively cheap to campaign in, are states which tend to be less then embracing of firebrand preachers, and have legislatures which are better than 2:1 Dem/lib:GOP.  They already honor foreign gay marriage, why not just allow it in-state too?  Of course, focus on CA and on federal military and labor issues too.

      • Do most people really still see homosexuality as a simple choice?  It makes no sense and the notion sounds so 1980s.  I’m never completely comfortable with the you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us mentality.  It reminds me too much of our current President and I know too many good people who don’t completely agree with us on these matters.  I would support an omnibus bill, however, or a SCOTUS decision that would force the states’ hands as well.

        • seriously, just go to any catholic or evangelical church and ask people at random.  it is a VERY common belief.

          <

          p>what i find astounding is that anyone cares whether or not it is a choice.  so what if it is?

          • It’s been a long time since I’ve heard that opinion, at least from anyone I would consider respectible or authoritative in this regard.

            <

            p>As to choice, it would very much change the debate.  I personally would probably come down on the side of private choices aren’t the government’s business, but the LGBT folks could no longer be considered for legal protections if it just comes down to “lifestyle” or “behavior”.  In other words, the equal protection of the law argument would be out and the only argument left would be a libertarian philosophy.  More people would also feel free to rail against the supposed immorality of such activity.

            • if being gay was a choice or a mandate, because they already have decided that it’s ok to be a gay person so long as you remain celibate and never live a full human life.  so living a normal gay life will never be acceptable to the homobigot.  only the heterosexual lifestyle is allowed.  why do you think “love the sinner, hate the sin” is so popular a refrain?  it allows the homobigot to feel all good and tolerant about themselves, castrates the gay person and sets them up to be self-loathing if they transgress.

              <

              p>with all due respect, yes i think you have been sheltered.  talk to someone who is considered respectable and authoritative in the bigot camp and you’ll hear a very different tune.  even bill richardson, someone truly on our side, thinks being gay is a choice.

              <

              p>I’m not sure I understand why the equal protections argument should fall away of being gay was a choice.  Equal protection has limits?  If so, then don’t we need to stop heavily protecting people from discrimination because of their choice of religion?

              • I have always understood this to refer to who you are as opposed to what you choose to do.  Thus race, gender, disability, things that everyone knows cannot be helped fall under its purview.  If being gay were a choice (and it amazes me that some say this anyway) then the argument would be that you have every right to, for example, marry someone of the opposite gender IF that is what you choose to do, thus no violation of equal protection.  If being gay is a natural trait, however, then you need to be protected against discrimination for something that is not your choice.  Religion is an interesting element.  While technically not a naturally-occuring trait it has been elevated to protected status, though via the 1st amendment rather than the 14th.  Like I say, I personally would favor letting people make their own choices, but if the research concluded that homosexuality is simply a choice I’m sure that same-sex marriage would be a tougher sell than it already is.

                <

                p>I would advise you work on these people who hate the sin, but love the sinner.  There was a time when I was growing up when I believed this myself.  However, I have always been open to studying the evidence and now I see no other conclusion than it can’t be a sin because its not a choice.  At least BEING homosexual is not a choice; I do think there are certain standards of behavior we can reasonably expect from both gays and straights.  Needless to say, I stopped hating the sin and loving the sinner when I stopped believing homosexuality is a sin.  The younger generation is more open to this, so society’s views are changing in our favor and I wouldn’t give up completely on individuals changing their minds either.

                • I’ll just link you to a Google Search on it.  From that first source:

                  He [Pelagious] took exception to some tendencies he saw in Augustine’s writing, especially the saying in the Confessions, “Give what you command, and command what you choose.” This sounded like fatalistic teaching to him. He denied that God would command something that was not in the ability of man to do. He blamed the lax moral climate of the Roman Christians on teachings of grace such as this.

                  You might also want to check out the Wikipedia entry on the History of Calvinist-Arminian Debate.

                • a timely link in another blog led me to this breakdown of the question.  see the source page for the links.

                  Whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant. Arguments over whether or not is is a choice, valid or not, serve only to muddy the issue; the only relevant question, as for any activity which some people do and others don’t, is whether it is good or bad.

                  * If it is bad:
                       o If it is bad and involuntary, then there should be research to help overcome it (e.g. alcoholism, smoking) – as indeed was tried for many years with homosexuality, with much harm done to those supposedly “cured” (see Homosexuality and psychology) and as is still being practiced in a much less scientific rational, and humane way by the fundamentalist Christian ex-gay movement.
                       o If it is bad and voluntary (i.e. “a choice” — e.g. drinking alcohol or smoking for the first time), then we need to both have a clear understanding of (a) why it is bad and (b) why individuals nonetheless desire it. (Until you understand the latter, you haven’t conclusively answered the former.)
                            + It would also be advisable to compare with how the law handles other “harmful but popular” activities; smoking and drinking, for example, are heavily restricted but not illegal. Smokers are not prevented from obtaining medical insurance, or prevented from being included on a spouse’s insurance policy; the cost of that insurance is simply raised in direct correspondence with their increased likelihood of needing medical attention due to smoking.

                  * If it is good, then it should be encouraged, regardless of whether it is a “choice”.

                  * If it is not clearly good or bad overall, then it should fall within the bounds of the “pursuit of happiness”, which is stated as an “unalienable right” by the United States Declaration of Independence and general freedom of choice.

          • What you’ll hear is a distinction with [a very small / out] difference:

            <

            p>Having homosexual feelings: not a choice
            Acting on those feelings: certainly a choice

            <

            p>Essentially, they’re doing two things:
            1.  Putting any homosexual activity in the same category as heterosexual unmarried sex or theft or violence — something a person might want to do in his or her mind, but can decide not to do and ought to decide not to do and ought to pray not to get thoughts like that again.
            2.  Denying homosexuals the opportunity to marry, and thereby legitimize their human sexuality and sexual behavior in the eyes of the Catholics or Evangelicals.

            <

            p>Each is asinine, but it’s the combination that leads to this apparent misunderstanding of Laurel’s.  The choice is not to be gay; it the choice to behave gay.

            <

            p>I’m not justifying or defending, just clarifying.

        • I really think that people in general understand what it does when you oppress another human being.  So, they look for any excuse that might make them feel better about doing it–the “choice” excuse is one.  Unfortunately, most do not articulate the excuses in open public, so unless we have those conversations every day not just when we are attempting to get legislation passed or defeat some amendment, then we will never begin to know.

          <

          p>Placing yourself higher than a fellow human being is a very tempting drug.  We have all been guilty of embibing in that drug at some point in our lives.  The biggest problem LGBT (and other groups that have come before us) face is that in the name of Democracy, Americans are given the option to decide on the fate of another human being.  We are led to believe from childhood that our Constitution protects us all–something LGBT have smelled the harsh reality as being false.

          <

          p>Omnibus is what it needs to be.  We are hated or oppressed or denied rights or ridiculed or made political fodder of or subjected to religious judgement because we are LGBT, plain and simple.  We need to fight back as LGBT American Citizens straight to Constitutional inclusion.      

      • … presents an interesting strategic dilemma.  Harris as pointed out that in discourse about atheism, the term atheist itself is counterproductive.  There shouldn’t be a need to define a class of people as ‘anti-deist’ any more than a class of people should be defined as ‘anti-astrology’.  The burden is on the religious ideas that the atheist doesn’t adhere to, not on the atheist to disprove them.

        <

        p>I find in thinking about an omnibus civil rights bill, this might present a similar problem.  The constitution already defines it’s citizens.  LGBT are included in that definition.  Singling them out in legislation could produce desirable legal outcomes at the expense of reinforcing the notion that they are a special case where rights need to be considered specially.  In some way it cedes ground to those who base their whole set of religious arguments on the notion that, as people and citizens deserving of all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges therein, GLBTs are a special case and the ‘default’ rights of people and citizens should be ‘specially’ considered in their case.

        <

        p>I don’t think people often consciously think in those terms, but I think the framing can put this in play in the background thought of unstated premises.  It seems to clearly operate that way in the case of atheism.  It reverses the burdens, legitimizing the religious position though a bit of reason legerdemain.

        <

        p>I don’t think anyone can safely accuse me of being for anything other than equal rights.  I’m just wondering about the potential intellectual trade-off, having seen it work too well for the other side in other cases.  It’s just a worry I have.

        • not matter whether racial, sexual or any other category.  the minority will always be defined in how it contrasts with the majority.

          <

          p>but i don’t agree that the religionists can fairly make the “special rights” claim about lgbt rights, since choice of religion is itself given special protection under the law.  religionists do of course get away with making that false claim because in our society, challenging anyone about anything religious is largely deemed unacceptable.

          <

          p>but even if you’re right and i’m wrong, i;d gladly cede the frame for real, tangible civil equality.  and sure we do have our rights already guaranteed by the constitution, but we have no access to them because few citizens, executives, legislatures or courts are honest or courageous enough to act like real Americnas.

          • … in the language of any framing should be carefully tread upon.  It is worth noting that the 13th amendment doesn’t mention a specific class of people by their color but by their status as slaves.

            • but in my opinion, not to the exclusion of the pursuit of the immediate redress of grievances.  my thinking is that the only possibility of getting people to understand the heinousness of the current frame is for them to look back and realize that we had to pass laws that never should have been needed in the first place.  short of civil rights legislation, the only way for the frame to change sooner rather than later is for the supreme court to spank the nation with a scathing, admonitory ruling.  and that will happen when?  right.  i rest my case.

              <

              p>and actually, i don’t see why your efforts at reframing and mine at getting immediate civil equality can’t be pursued simultaneously and be mutually beneficial.  it’s a great argument to say to the whiners who say “there are more important things to think about” that if they made sure the constitution was honored, we wouldn’t be putting them through all this extra legislating.  the hundreds of pages of legislation needed will be a nice illustration of the lengths people are willing to go to to deny the u.s. constitution.  they should be reminded of this fact until their heads hurt.

            • The 13th amendment simply says that slavery (involuntary servitude) is illegal unless part of a duly promulgated criminal sentence.

              <

              p>The 14th amendment entitles all persons to the equal protection of the law.

              <

              p>The 15th amendment prohibits denial of suffrage on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.

        • By your logic we shouldn’t have needed the various Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts.  I wish it were so, but even the drafters of various amendments realized that pieces of parchment don’t enforce themselves.  Several amendments dealing with expansion of rights end with the words: “Congress shall have the authority to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”  We need to keep beating down the phony and offensive “special rights” argument.  Last I looked it is generally the case that heterosexuals have “special rights” to marry, serve in the military, etc.  At very least, an omnibus bill needs to ban discrimination against LGBTs using language similar to laws already on the books banning racial discrimination.

          • … ‘special rights’ argument is phony.  I’m just saying, be careful not to feed it inadvertently in the language of any legal redress.  Its just a concern I have.  I’m not married to it.

            • we’ll have to provide you some extra super special rights! “Man weds Concern, News at 11”  😀

              • We must not allow people to conceive with their Concerns, the children would be unbelievably burdened, especially if the Concern proves later to have been foolish or embarrassing.  Maybe some kids will be proud to be the child of Global Warming, but can you imagine being the child of Legal Redress if it never came to pass?  There’d be no end of it from the other kids.

            • It’s more important that Barney Frank have the same rights as every other man than that every man have the right to do X or Y action.  But what is being demanded is the right for every man to do X or Y, not equal rights for Barney Frank.  And in fact, the equal rights of Barney Frank are threatened by the demand for the “special” rights to do X and Y.

              • I didn’t understand this comment at all.  Barney Frank and every other gay man should have the same rights and legal protections as the rest of us.  Pretty simple concept.

                • It’s more important that everyone have the same right to do the same things than that people have a right to do various things with someone of the same sex.  (And by various, I mean various, many, anything).  That’s the difference between equal rights and special rights.  You’re talking about things, activities.

                • Christopher seems to understand the point I’m making, I just read his comment up above that gets at the same point I’m making.

                  <

                  p>What do you think Laurel, does Barney have the same rights everyone else does or not?

                • he has more rights than most of us.

                  <

                  p>As a gay American adult, he does not have the same rights as other American adults.  He can’t join the military if he’s already “told”, and in some states he’s explicitly banned from adopting a child.

                  <

                  p>There’s two.  I’m sure there are more.

                • and marries a member of the same sex in a state like Massachusetts in which it’s legal…Barney would be forced to leave the military.

                  <

                  p>What a fair and kind country we live in…

                • How are his rights different from anybody else that did the same things?  Do “speeders” not have equal rights, when they lose their license for doing what they want to do?  Or do none of us have a right to speed?

                • … giving a ticket to a speeder is analogous to marriage of the same sex variety is if you prohibited the marriage or thought it should be prohibited.  A case for the prohibition needs to precede any use of the analogy, otherwise it’s a cart before horse situation.  Invoking that we can be breaking rules for ‘doing what we want’ is a trivial data point that goes nowhere.  Of course there are rules that prohibit ‘doing what we want’.  There are also ‘non-prohibitions’ for doing ‘other’ ‘things that we want’.  This isn’t illustrative of anything in particular.  Either case means that you have to go back and explain why to prohibit.  ‘Doing what you want’ isn’t a factor that supports or suppresses such an assertion.  It’s orthogonal toward any such assertion.  

                • …but very much right to be treated fairly in the eyes of the law if accused of wrongdoing.  Your comparison makes no sense.  Nobody is “a speeder” as if that’s a label; almost everybody has broken the limit at certain times.  The right is for the penalty to be the same regardless of race, gender, etc.

                • as long as the discussion remains in debate of the trivial, even for pure fun, the longer lbgt people go without rights.

                  <

                  p>I suppose the argument and debate went like this back in 1922…”but if women are allowed to vote then we really can’t say that their vote should really count because we all know that women lack the mental aptitude and ability to truly understand politics and therefore even if we were give them the vote then how could it really count, you know after the fact and after they frist are able to legally vote?  I mean, should babies be allowed to vote or brain dead people?  They also have less mental ability than men, so blah blah blah…”

                  <

                  p>I am sick of all this.  Don’t even give these people the ackowledgement of debate.  It si utter foolishness and they know it.  

                • I’ve tried to resist, but “they” just gets under my skin.  Maybe it’s just me, but I have a distinct bias in favor of logical arguments.

                • “Baffle ’em with bullshit”

                  <

                  p>Whether the “theys” of the world know it or not, this is exactly what is happening.  I fall for it too alot of the time when I have to debate known bigots, I get right into it and at the end of the day I am exhausted and find I get myself prepared for the same old shit coming tomorrow.

                  <

                  p>I have developed a “take no prisoners” attitude.  Even if it isn’t true, I tell myself that they know exactly what they are doing and are very calculated.  Keep up engaging and they (the theys) keep their control over us.  

                • Barney Frank and I should have the same rights, and, lo and behold, we do.  What is at issue is the rights for either of us to do things that currently neither of us are allowed to do.  It is about activities, not identities.   Stomv brought up the interesting counter-examples where prior behaviors and self-professed beliefs and desires are cast as Identities or Labels and then used to restrict someone’s ‘right’ (really, ‘privilege’) to adopt or join the military, but those are really about behavior, even if the laws or regulations are written with a Label, like “Speeders are ineligible to join the military” instead of “People that have a tendency to drive too fast as demonstrated by their history or their stated beliefs are ineligible”.

                  <

                  p>We shouldn’t let people believe that Barney Frank and I have different rights, and that we have to allow things that aren’t allowed in order give Barney the same rights as me.

                • Only in MA – everyplace else (and even here for the purpose of federal law) does he have the same right as everybody else to marry.  He is denied the right to serve in the armed forces, cannot adopt children in many states, and isn’t even protected from employment discrimination.  I’m sorry, but if your implication is just that he should pretend to be something he isn’t I say to you that the “right” to live a lie is no right at all.

                • I am denied the same things he is denied, he’s allowed to do the same things i’m allowed to do.  We have the same rights.  It is so wrong to imply that he doesn’t have a right to marry a woman but I do, that is inequality and injustice and just terribly hurtful propaganda.  

                  <

                  p>If he is allowed to marry a man, I should be too, right?  The question is should men be allowed to marry other men, not should gay people be allowed to marry.  All people should have the same rights.  That doesn’t mean all people are going to exercise every right they have, or be allowed to do everything they want.

Archives