Inaugural committee: 'We were not aware' of Giglio's anti-gay speech

[Newsjock]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/inaugural-committee-denounces-pastors-anti-gay-comments

The Presidential Inaugural Committee on Thursday issued a statement flatly denouncing anti-gay comments made by Rev. Louie Giglio, the pastor chosen to give the benediction at President Obama's second inauguration.

“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," said spokesperson Addie Whisenant. "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."

[GeorgeGist]

1. Maybe that could ask Obama ...

how to use Google.

[MADem]

6. I'm betting he's delegated most of the detail work to the inaugural committee.

Good thing they caught this slip in time.

[Jenoch]

30. In time? If they caught it 'in time' it never would have been a news story.

[MADem]

32. In the future, everything that public figures say will be instantly accessible via the internet.

It'll be out there, obvious, available with two clicks. Or maybe one click.

We live in an age where some stuff isn't readily available--it has to be dug out, researched, found within the paragraphs of pages. They obviously missed this guy's shit.

My definition of "In Time" is before the guy mounted the stairs to take his place on the dais.

They made a mistake. They admitted it. They fixed it. I'm happy that they did this, I initially thought they knew and were pragmatically (and painfully) tossing some slop to the hogs on the right. The fact that they didn't know makes me feel better about them, actually.

What more do you want them to do? Don't say "Go back in time and not make the mistake in the first place" because that is not possible. We cannot unring the bell.

What more would satisfy you? Should they drag the youngest member of the committee out to where the stage is being constructed, and sacrifice him or her to the God of Don't Ever Fuck Up Not Even Once OR ELSE?

What more should be done? What more can be done, save put the Lesson Learned in the turnover file for the next Inaugural Committee?

[Jenoch]

33. The preacher should have been thoroughly

vetted prior to any announcement of being part of the inaugaration. Will some stuff fall through the cracks? Sure it will. I don't know enough about the specifics of this situation to say anymore.

[MADem]

36. He wasn't, though, unfortunately. That much is clear.

So, where to? Do we continue to beat a dead horse, or do we move forward and perhaps make a few suggestions to the Inaugural Committee as to what speaker might be an inspiring example for all of America?

How about this minister?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_G._Kibben

She'd be a visible, high ranking woman on a dais that might be a bit more crowded with men this time around, AND a nod to the military, who will be coming home in huge numbers and being demobbed in the next year.

Others here have come up with a few ideas; who knows, maybe the Inaugural Committee will take one of our suggestions?

[SpartanDem]

11. I highly doubt he was personally invited.

[WilliamPitt]

14. Yeah, cuz he's not busy or anything.

[Scuba]

2. "We were not aware of the concept of 'vetting' until ..."

Dumbasses.

[MADem]

4. Well, they made "the leap." I honestly wouldn't figure that someone who was on the forefront of

the fight against human trafficking would be a homophobic bigot.

That's an unfortunate assumption on my part, that someone who cared about human rights on one level would care about them across the board. But doesn't it seem logical?

People err. What's important is that errors are corrected and acknowledged--in a timely (like, before the ceremony) manner.

Or, we can harrumph, point fingers and lay blame till the cows decide they don't want to come home to such a dysfunctional and carping environment. Never mind that a mistake was rectified--we must continue to excoriate, because we never make mistakes!

[Scuba]

7. I applaud them for correcting their error, but they shouldn't be immune from criticism ....

... for that error, which was either incredibly stupid or lazy or both.

[MADem]

10. Like I said, I would have made the assumption too. How many people do you know who give a shit

about the suffering of humans who are also homophobic bigots?

I don't know any. I might have "ass"umed the guy had a more liberal worldview, seeing as he concerned himself with the rights of people who were exploited and enslaved.

I think forgiveness is a good quality to possess.

It is a thankless, shitty--and in many cases, VOLUNTEER--job to grind away on the Inaugural Committee. There's a template, sure, but it is a LOAD of work nonetheless. One detail after another, relentlessly. Check and double check. Rehearse and re-rehearse.

People make mistakes. This one got fixed. Forgive, be happy, move on.

[sabrina 1]

15. If you can't properly vet people who are going to represent the views of the POTUS

then you are at the very least, incompetent. Bloggers had no problem finding those hateful words. But as we all know, Liberals are not particularly represented in this administration. At least for now.

However, a very exciting new and long overdue event has occurred and it is very likely that from now on, Liberals will no longer be willing not to use the power they have always had but chose to stay quiet over the past number of years and not use it. They now see where that got us and a huge coalition has formed to stop this party from its rightward direction.

Even more exciting is that they have had no problem so far being funded. It's amazing what can happen when people have finally had enough. And when they are constantly told to 'just suck it up'. After a while, we stop trying to work with those who disrespect us and tqke charge of our own destinies, IF we have the power and the will to do so. And yes, we do.

It's about time and it's very likely they will now finally have the influence they deserve being that they represent the views of most of the country.

[MADem]

17. ...

Yeah, yeah...Obama bad, Democrats suck, no forgiveness.

Whatever.

[sabrina 1]

18. Really? Well, if that's what you think. You said it, not I.

[MADem]

21. It expresses my opinion of your POV quite clearly.

You don't have to say it--you exude it.

[sabrina 1]

43. I am pretty clear always about what I have to say. It appears to me, based on what you

actually say, not on what I think is in your mind, that you assume everything centers around Obama. To many people Obama, or any other president, is not that important anymore. People's thinking has gone way beyond any single individual. And it is sad to see any Democrat blinding themselves to other possibilities, other issues, by focusing on one individual who may or may not have all that much power in this country. I would say that broadening your thinking might prevent you from making false assumptions in the future. We have moved on from the old politics. Seems to me you have not done so.

[MADem]

45. Well, keep on moving if that makes you happy.

If you don't want to lead or follow, it's probably best that you get out of the way.

I'm a Democrat and I support the POTUS. The alternative got sent packing last November with his wife and horse and kids and millions, and that worked for me.

And my thinking is plenty broadened, thanks anyway.

[sabrina 1]

46. Don't worry, I am very excited about joining the millions of Progressives

who are finally realizing the power they have and are now going to use it to get what THEY want, iow, a far more progressive country.

We are all very excited after being taken for granted for so long, that the people who actually get people elected, that would be US, end up being aside aside once the election is over. Well, not anymore.

I don't agree that your thinking is broad. Even in this post, you again are focused on one individual. There has been far too much focus on the presidency which many people knew, but not enough. NOW things are going to change and the focus shifted to where the power really is and to see all these organizations joining forces now to achieve OUR goals and to wield the power we have always but didn't use, trusting the party to choose good candidates. Well they've proven their idea of good candidates is not always the people's.

Lead or follow?? Is that all you can think of? How about join people who have the same Democratic principles and increase the power of the people by cooperating with each other.

We don't have to lead OR follow. That as I said, is the old politics and they have not worked for us.

[MADem]

50. Well you go on with your bad self then--let us know what kind of a difference you make. nt

[rhett o rick]

53. You are wasting your time. Blind adoration trumps all. I am surprised she ventured out of the

"I love Obama most" group (the Barack Obama Group).

[Fumesucker]

47. I think I was the first to post on DU that Medgar Evers' widow was speaking at the inauguration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022153670

If you look at the link I posted you'll see Giglio was also mentioned, I didn't post him in my OP because I feared something like this might come out and I really didn't want to spoil a moment that could draw us together with more divisive nastiness.

I didn't trust the inaugural team to have thoroughly vetted this guy and wham bam thank you maam I was right.

[qazplm]

26. it was an error

incredibly stupid or lazy? No.

[phleshdef]

13. It should be no newsflash that a Christian minister believes that homosexuality is a sin.

Most Christian ministers believe that. I don't know why people act so surprised by this. Christianity has only been the dominate religion in America, since, I dunno, day 1? "Homosexuality as a sin" is a dominate concept of the religion. Most churches teach this.

[MADem]

16. Really? I'll alert the gentleman at the National Cathedral, then--he'll want to adjust his POV. nt

[phleshdef]

19. I'm sorry, but is there some part of the word "most" thats difficult for you to understand?

[MADem]

20. I'll invite your attention to your broad-brushed subject line.

Here it is again, for your examination:

13. It should be no newsflash that a Christian minister believes that homosexuality is a sin.


No "most" up in there--and qualifiers after the fact don't count.

[phleshdef]

22. Are you dense or just pretending?

My post clearly stated, the very first line, MOST CHRISTIAN MINISTERS BELIEVE THAT. That wasn't an edit. That wasn't a qualifier after the fact. That was exactly what I posted. It doesn't need to be in the subject line to "count". Perhaps your attention span is challenged and that renders you unable to read beyond a subject line of a post. I don't know. That's between you and your psychiatrist. Regardless, I'm right. And you know it.

[MADem]

23. Your subject line does not match your message body, and YOU know that.

Further, your uncivil tone and personal insults reflect poorly on you.

Do you always resort to name calling when challenged? You might want to work on that.

[phleshdef]

24. Yes it does. Work on your reading comprehension.

Saying that you shouldn't be surprised that a Christian minister believes homosexuality is a sin and then going on to say that most believe that are 2 ideas that in NO WAY conflict which each other whatsoever. You are just making shit up at this point because you jumped the gun, barely read my post and then embarrassed yourself with an irrelevant, poorly conceived response. Anyone else reading this silly exchange can see that and you are completely unable to cover up your mistake. And you just keep digging the hole deeper.

[MADem]

25. OK, here's an example that is similar to your little post.

(Insert racial or ethnic group) do (insert insulting stereotype).

That's the subject line.

Then the message reads "Oh, I mean only MOST or SOME do that."

See--there IS a conflict there. Your subject line indicates ALL, your message, SOME.

But hey, whatever--go on and double down. You're the one who should be embarrassed. That does take self awareness, though, which you apparently have in short supply.

If you don't like this "silly exchange," then end it. You have the power--and the shovel, because you're digging the hole, not me.

[phleshdef]

27. Wow, that might the stupidest, most painfully desperate false equivalency ever.

Its not a stereotype to state a complete and total fact regarding the common teachings of a particular religion. You might as well have said that I'd be stereotyping Christians by claiming that most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin birth. Do you realize how monumentally dumb that argument is or are you really just that clueless?

To put that into context, I could easily and rightfully say:

"It should be no newsflash that a Christian minister believes that Jesus was born of a virgin birth. Most Christian ministers believe that."

Anyhow...

IT IS A FACT - Most Christian churches teach that homosexuality is a sin.
This is undebateable. You are entirely unable to refute that. Because its true.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise when a Christian minister has taught something that is WELL KNOWN to be a doctrine or belief of his or her said church for CENTURIES.

There is no conflict there. None whatsoever. And I'm sure you wish that I would drop it because I'm sure you don't want to continue to try and defend what you know is indefensible response on your part.

[MADem]

29. You really do have a good grip on that shovel, don't you?

We aren't talking History of Christianity, here. We're talking you, trying to walk back from a broad brushed subject line that you blame ME for noticing.

There is conflict, and I demonstrated how it works. The fact that you continue to double down and insist that what you said is not what you meant is your "cross to bear" to use one of those Christian references.

Subject: All (fill in blank) are bastards.

Message: I mean MOST (fill in blank) are bastards.

But hey, that's your story and you're sticking to it. You should have put the "most" in your subject line, if you really wanted to be clear on the matter rather than trying to fire for effect.

[phleshdef]

31. I never tried to walk back anything. Thats a complete and utter lie and you know it.

And I never used the word "all". Don't invent posts I never wrote to make yourself feel better.

I said what I said. I stand by it 100%. There was no walkback. And what I said was completely accurate. You completely lack the ability to refute it. Period.

A post is more than the subject line. And there was nothing wrong with my subject line in either case, even without the rest of my post. Your just being obnoxious. I hope you fair better in your real life communications.

[MADem]

34. If your subject line was 100% accurate, and you stand by it, then we have nothing to discuss.

Your problem was that your comments were not said with any clarity.

"All X are Y" and "Most X are Y" are two different thoughts. You headlined one thought. Your thesis title and your thesis didn't line up.

I'm not being obnoxious--though I suspect you're familiar with that condition--I am being accurate. Words do have meanings, and you can't make two distinct declarations and then insist that you only "meant" one of them--in future, you'll remember to put your qualifying remarks front and center, and leave the broad brush at home.

I 'fare' just fine in real life communications--though you might want to work on that insult flinging and broad brushing in your internet ones.

[phleshdef]

35. You continue to be completely full of shit.

There was plenty of clarity. It was painfully obvious what I was saying to any sober person who can read at an 8th grade level. You are the only person that complained about it. Its not me. Its you.

[MADem]

37. And you continue to be rude and personally insulting!

"It's not me, it's you" -- did you get that line from a film?

[phleshdef]

38. You have been rude by personally insulting the intelligence of anyone reading this exchange.

And no, I wouldn't need to get something like that from a film. Theres nothing creative about it.

[MADem]

39. You just can't help yourself, can you? By your words we shall know you! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Want some irony? Here's some irony- the Bible condones and codifies human trafficking.

Here is a verse out of world famous Leviticus, the very book the hate preachers quote against gay people:
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 ruthlessly.

So the Bible he waves condones the human trafficking he condemns. Yes indeed.

[MADem]

42. Well, plainly, this guy doesn't have any trouble being contradictory.

It surprises me that he'd parse human rights in that fashion--look at Limbaugh, for example; he is anti-gay AND anti-women. I don't think he'd shed a tear at human trafficking--he more than likely benefits from it when he goes on his Costa Rican "golf trips" with a bottle of Viagra.

As for this minister, though, if he's all about the word of Jesus, Jesus didn't say a word on the topic of gay marriage or relationships, either way. The popular source to quote is Leviticus. And isn't Leviticus the one that encourages men who lie with men to be stoned? That's with the rocks, not the weed--though who knows, they get so much wrong, maybe they got that wrong, too.

That bible is full of contradictions, certainly--I especially like that old joke that has gone around for years, about the mixing of fabrics, and burning a bull upon the altar, and human sacrifice--it's constructed as a set of sincere religious questions, and it is rather hilarious. It does anger those who hew to a fundamentalist bent if these contradictions are commented upon, though.

[yardwork]

3. This is a great improvement over the 2008-09 debacle.

It sounds like the president and his team now recognize the importance of not alienating a key constituency who votes Democratic in overwhelming numbers. That key constituency is not just the LGBTQ voters themselves, but straight allies for equal rights. Together, we represent the base of the Democratic Party.

[DCBob]

5. they screwed up.

how about uninvite him?

[DonViejo]

9. It's been done...

check out the LBN forum

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. At least they can admit and fix a mistake. (this time)

Although it would be better not to make one, and making the same mistake as in '08 isn't too cool. The statement issued is well done I think, too.

[bigtree]

12. kick

[ancianita]

28. If you're "not aware," then what are you doing on the damned inaugural committee. Just askin'.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. LMAO!!! Suuuure!

I think I peed my pants a little!

[Cha]

44. He was invited because of his work in combating human trafficking and then his

gay bigotry was exposed and now he's gone. Boom. Over. Done.

Thank Goodness! I'm so glad to be having this conversation.

[rhett o rick]

52. I completely agree. And the incompetence should be forgiven because they are Democrats. nm

[stultusporcos]

48. Note to Inaugural Committee

Here is something novel how about NO Prayers or Blessing or other religious mumbo jumbo at all!

It serves no purpose at all and is not required to swear in a President or VP.

No matter who is chosen it alienates and pisses off a large number of Americans.

BTW there is this AMAZING thing called the Internet where you can simply type in the name of a public figure and obtain all kinds of information on them. If would like me to show you how give me a call and I will come over and show you how easy it is to use.

[forestpath]

49. Really? So then what exactly did he and Obama "disagree" about?

How could they not be aware of it - but more to the point obviously Obama was aware of it since Giglio stated they didn't agree on everything. And Obama could not have been unaware who had been chosen.

[catbyte]

51. Come on, guys. Ever heard of "The Google?"