Do we have to do this to Warren?
I mean really, who cares what Rick Warren said about the government of Syria. He's not being asked to become an adviser to President Obama's Middle East policy team. Nor, I might add, is he being asked to give a sermon on his views of homosexuality, Proposition 8 or gay marriage. He's being asked to give the invocation to Obama's Presidential inauguration. The invitation is no more an endorsement of his political views than sitting on a board with Bill Ayers was an endorsement of bombing the Pentagon or becoming a member of Trinity United was an endorsement of damning America.
It's become a formula for scandal in this country, and I hate it. You take every person who endorses, or works with, or is honored by, a politician and pour over every single public statement they have ever made. If you find something controversial, even if it has no connection to their relationship with the politician, you stick it to them and use it to characterize their entire worldview and personality - Rick Warren is the guy who compared homosexuality to pedophilia, just like Jeremiah Wright is the guy who said god damn America. God forbid that Rick Warren has ever said publicly that gays or Jews or Muslims are going to hell, a position that is more or less required by belief in the Bible. A juicy quote like that is exactly the kind of thing that would light up the liberal blogosphere, even if the quote is taken out of context or is the result of a bad-faith interpretation of his comments.
The result of this is that we end up with a media - including the non MSM internet media - that is obsessed with hot button, emotional issues that provoke reactions rather than engage conversations. This kind of reporting is a part of a political culture of outrage (outrage!!!!) that divides us as a nation. And it feeds into the institutional needs of interest group politics, who always have a fundraising incentive to demonize the opposition rather than constructively engage with them. This is one of the ways that the media is fueling the culture war.
The other thing this meme has done is discourage politicians from reaching out and listening to people across different segments of our society. Hysterics over issues like this cause politicians to censor who they talk to, and vet all people they interact with to cover anything that could create a commotion. It sucks. I don't want politicians to only interact with people who are sanitized for public consumption. The fact is, many of the most interesting people I know hold opinions on at least one issue that would be very controversial or out of the mainstream. I definitely hold at least a half dozen opinions that would infuriate at least one interest group out there. If anyone who holds such views is effectively removed from appropriate public consideration, we're going to end up with nothing but bland, inside the beltway politicians talking to bland, vetted, boring advisers and cultural and religious leaders.
I understand that many gay rights groups are upset and angry over the abomination that was Prop 8 in California. I myself am angry and upset with the passage of Prop 8. And I understand that the invocation is a position of honor. But this attack on Warren is incredibly counter-productive. Part of the problem that caused Prop 8 is the continued belief among many evangelicals and conservative Christians that legal equality for gay couples is an attack on Christian values or their own Christian lifestyle, an ignorance that was fed by Warren's absurd view that Prop 8 would lead to prosecution of anti-gay pastors. Lashing out at Warren and suggesting that he cannot give the invocation at the Presidential inauguration is actually confirming this position in the minds of millions of conservative Christians across the country. Warren represents tens of millions of people across the country, including unfortunately a majority of voters even in the blue state of California. We are never going to reach any of those people by declaring that their views are beyond the boundaries of acceptable public discourse. We might reach them, however, if we are able to move past the us versus them mentality that leads to persecution of gay couples and try to come together as a nation.
Rick Warren, for all his flaws, is an evangelical who sees that there is a major problem with the cultural divisions in America and wants to try to end those divisions. We should be doing what Obama is doing: welcoming his attempt at conciliation, trying to find areas of common ground, and showing respect for the man, and not demanding a set of concessions (or preconditions) before we engage with him. And we certainly be going out looking for more reasons to galvanize the left into hating him more.
It's become a formula for scandal in this country, and I hate it. You take every person who endorses, or works with, or is honored by, a politician and pour over every single public statement they have ever made. If you find something controversial, even if it has no connection to their relationship with the politician, you stick it to them and use it to characterize their entire worldview and personality - Rick Warren is the guy who compared homosexuality to pedophilia, just like Jeremiah Wright is the guy who said god damn America. God forbid that Rick Warren has ever said publicly that gays or Jews or Muslims are going to hell, a position that is more or less required by belief in the Bible. A juicy quote like that is exactly the kind of thing that would light up the liberal blogosphere, even if the quote is taken out of context or is the result of a bad-faith interpretation of his comments.
The result of this is that we end up with a media - including the non MSM internet media - that is obsessed with hot button, emotional issues that provoke reactions rather than engage conversations. This kind of reporting is a part of a political culture of outrage (outrage!!!!) that divides us as a nation. And it feeds into the institutional needs of interest group politics, who always have a fundraising incentive to demonize the opposition rather than constructively engage with them. This is one of the ways that the media is fueling the culture war.
The other thing this meme has done is discourage politicians from reaching out and listening to people across different segments of our society. Hysterics over issues like this cause politicians to censor who they talk to, and vet all people they interact with to cover anything that could create a commotion. It sucks. I don't want politicians to only interact with people who are sanitized for public consumption. The fact is, many of the most interesting people I know hold opinions on at least one issue that would be very controversial or out of the mainstream. I definitely hold at least a half dozen opinions that would infuriate at least one interest group out there. If anyone who holds such views is effectively removed from appropriate public consideration, we're going to end up with nothing but bland, inside the beltway politicians talking to bland, vetted, boring advisers and cultural and religious leaders.
I understand that many gay rights groups are upset and angry over the abomination that was Prop 8 in California. I myself am angry and upset with the passage of Prop 8. And I understand that the invocation is a position of honor. But this attack on Warren is incredibly counter-productive. Part of the problem that caused Prop 8 is the continued belief among many evangelicals and conservative Christians that legal equality for gay couples is an attack on Christian values or their own Christian lifestyle, an ignorance that was fed by Warren's absurd view that Prop 8 would lead to prosecution of anti-gay pastors. Lashing out at Warren and suggesting that he cannot give the invocation at the Presidential inauguration is actually confirming this position in the minds of millions of conservative Christians across the country. Warren represents tens of millions of people across the country, including unfortunately a majority of voters even in the blue state of California. We are never going to reach any of those people by declaring that their views are beyond the boundaries of acceptable public discourse. We might reach them, however, if we are able to move past the us versus them mentality that leads to persecution of gay couples and try to come together as a nation.
Rick Warren, for all his flaws, is an evangelical who sees that there is a major problem with the cultural divisions in America and wants to try to end those divisions. We should be doing what Obama is doing: welcoming his attempt at conciliation, trying to find areas of common ground, and showing respect for the man, and not demanding a set of concessions (or preconditions) before we engage with him. And we certainly be going out looking for more reasons to galvanize the left into hating him more.
Advertisement
What if we wait to hear what the pastor has to say before we judge him? From what I am reading around the blogs, Warren seems to be a work in progress, who is willing to question his beliefs. For me, if a person shows himself to have a dynamic intellect and inclination to grow, with signs that he actually has changed his oppinions on issues, then I am less interested about what they may have said 5 years ago. They may have moved on. Let's wait to see what he actually says is all I'm sayin'.
December 19, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can right now... do a google search.
December 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect "waiting to see" relates to what is said at the Inauguration.
If Warren says, "G-d Damn all homos!" (or something like that), you have everybody's permission to take him down. If he says, "May G-d Bless our new President and our republic," then I think you need to chill.
That being said, as Morning Mika would say, you are free as a separate rant to go after Rick Warren independently, as all of the things you are quoting have nothing to do with Barack Obama. Barack didn't make Rick say anything. Rick thought up those little gems all by himself. He has the First Amendment right to say it, and you have the First Amendment right enlarge his existing or rip him a new anus for saying it. The choice, dear reader, is not within the stars but ourselves.
December 19, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way to counter bigotry is to make bigotry unacceptable.
Warren deserves far harsher treatment than he's getting. The guy is in need of a big public shunning.
December 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As are those who insist he's "not so bad" and think we're the closed minded ones!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/loki_redux/2008/12/if-you-open-your-mind-too-much.php
December 19, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way to counter bigotry is to make bigotry unacceptable.
Ugh. That's just so wrong on so many levels. If you create a wall between the gay community and the evangelical community, you might think you're walling them in, but what you're really doing is ensuring the bigotry is unthinkable on one side but unchallenged on the other - and their side is bigger. I'm not a big fan of any idea being "unacceptable" either - that strikes me as Orwellian and tending towards groupthink; all ideas should be worthy of discussion and consideration, even in disagreement.
December 19, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, bigotry is acceptable? Good to know where you stand.
December 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I stand opposed to any attempt at thought police, and in favor of engagement with the ideas of anyone, even bigots, understanding that shunning people accomplishes nothing.
December 19, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for people thinking whatever they want. It's what they legislate that irks me. Be the biggest homophobe on Earth if it makes you happy. So long as you're live and let live about it, I'm fine. But when you deny some one else the rights you'd claim for yourself, you've crossed the line.
Using "you" in a general sense here, not referring to you specifically (we probably agree on same sex marriage rights).
December 19, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Used properly, shunning and shaming often have very positive effects for society.
December 19, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm...I think there is a religion that does that shunning stuff...are you one of them?
December 20, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shunning openly bigoted racists has had the wonderful effect of making life in America decent and normal for blacks. It is simply not acceptable to spout the kind of hate anymore that was the public face of segregation and the anti-interracial marriage groups. Shunning haters is EXACTLY what needs to happen to make this country take another step forward to a more perfect union.
December 20, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those changes were by way of legislation. They were made by way of passive resistance and by making the intolerant guilty for those views, not ashamed. There is a huge difference between shame and guilt.
December 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that by engaging bigots in a "reasonable" discussion you are legitimizing their position.
You are also guareenteed to lose because they will simply make up facts and create authorities.
So while the other sides propasition is that your very existence is an abonation ( or Treasonous, or Insane) you by even accepting discussion are giving that position some credence.
Do we accept debate with Flat Earthers? Or people who claim to be elves? No so why should we accept debate with a group that is equally delusional? Size ( like might) does not make right.
December 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that by engaging bigots in a "reasonable" discussion you are legitimizing their position.
This reminds me of the conservative argument that we can't talk to Iran because it will give their government legitimacy. Look, we might prefer to live in a country where denying gay couples the right to marry was an illegitimate position. But, in fact, we don't live in that world; we live in a world in which Prop 8 passed, as has almost every other effort to ban gay marriage by petition. There might be a point where fringe ideas like a flat earth or white supremacy are so outrageous and unimportant that we can ignore them. But when a majority of the population holds a view, opponents of that view have to take it seriously.
Opponents of gay rights aren't looking for Obama or anyone else to legitimize their position, and if we don't act like we're listening to them, they aren't going to pay any attention to our argument. Which is a shame, because I think there's plenty of hope for genuine dialog on this issue.
December 19, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between dealing with Iran and the delusional is that Obama is not inviting the Grand Mullah of Iran to speak at his inauguration.
He is inviting the great proponent of hate to do so.
Talk to them but not in a format or manner that enhances their stature and gives legitimacy to their position.
I am not listening to white supremacist either and that doesn't stop them from continuing to spew their trash. So it is for people who wish to deprive their fellow humans of their civil rights. They will never listen to their opponents until their ignorance and bigotry is completely marginalized.
You don't marginalize hate by giving it a greater forum and bestowing honor upon its proponents.
December 19, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a "liberal" use of the word hate given the fact that we are talking about words and legislation that a majority of California voters supported.
I can't begin to count the ways that I disagree with this sentiment. It sounds like the thing that every dictatorial power ever said when they took over the levers of power.
Not rational, rational. Not at all.
If the left actually listened to the right on this, they would realize it is all about the absurd word "marriage" and nothing else. It's not about equal rights under the law for committed relationships. Most "conservatives" accept the notion of a civil union recognized by the state that includes gay couples.
Starting at that point enables democrats to counter with: "Great! We will all have civil unions. Marriage is no longer a legal term, recognized by the state." My wife and I would get a brand new civil union certificate to legitimize our heterosexual marriage. Our gay friends would then enjoy the right in the entire country instead of state by state.
Problem solved. It took me about two seconds to come up with that solution once I listened to the other side.
I can't believe we have to talk liberals out of hating people who don't believe the same things as they do. I always thought that at a minimum the democrats had empathy on their side. Its issues like this that show how dogmatic the left can be when provoked. Maybe you can share hatred with the far right as a tactic, but I think joining with moderates of both parties to change things is the best way to get things done.
Namaste.
December 19, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine that. Jason is a proponent of "seperate but equal." Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
December 19, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read what I said? It is called being equal if we ALL have civil unions, gay and straight.
Churches can decide if they want to fire up the laser printer and crank out a marriage certificate, but it would have no more legal force than their monthly newsletter. I have gay friends who think this is a perfect solution and are surprised no one is talking about it on the left.
Perhaps you could leave off the ad hominem attacks and engage in a civil discussion for once.
December 19, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read what I said?
Yes, and apparently this gives me still another advantage over you.
I have gay friends
Und some of mine best freunds are Jewish.
December 19, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I speak specifically of friends of mine who are directly affected by the conversation at hand who agree with me. Perhaps you have friends who believe differently. You are simply an ass.
December 20, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am unsurprised to discover that you think of me as an ass, but even less surprised to find that your philosophy permits rights to be bestowed on certain groups but denied others. Even less surprising is your opinion that such discrimination is not an issue that affects each and every resident, let alone citizen, of the United States. No wonder you are such a big fan of Mr. Obama.
December 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the all knowing, all seeing Mr Wizard who can't help but misrepresent each and every position I state on these pages. The sad thing is you actually believe the smart people who come here are somehow fooled by your hyperbolic rants.
I'll say it one more time:
If we all have the same right to a Civil Union of two consenting adults, then no one is being denied anything. What is so difficult to understand about that position? I think we should end discrimination by changing the playbook.
If the progressive position of gay marriage is not doable in the current environment, make the argument about civil rights and equality under the law and then give it a new lexicon to describe the new state of affairs. You are playing a game of semantics, and losing, because you are speaking to people who take words very literally. A more liberal position would be as long as we all get the same set of rights by the same name then it doesn't matter what that name is.
I am not surprised you hold President Elect Obama in such low esteem. We'll get these things done despite folks like you on the left fighting against us.
December 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of points
I am total agreement that the state should get out of marriage and everyone gets a Civil union. If you wish to have some hollow ritual performed by a shaman, wizard, delusionist so be it but it has no legal standing what so ever.
To deny the majority has the right to oppress the minority is the whole point of the Bill of Rights and the philosophical underpinning of our system of government. I am confident that in the 1950's, 60's that any number of states would have voted to deny civil rights to any but the lily white. Hell I be willing to bet states like Texas and Alabama still think thats the law considering the behavior of their "law enforcement" personnel.
So should Obama invite a proponent of white supremacy to speak in the name of reaching out?
But
The point of the discussion is whether it is proper to give a place of honor and a noteworthy pulpit to an individual who would deny marriage, civil unions or any civil rights to a segment of the population?
Whether it disgraces the entire event to have a hypocrite who has repeatedly lied about facts to promote a narrow minded agenda of exclusion.
Is it proper in a ceremony to bring people together to give a podium to a spokesman of division.
Does it not sully the day by allowing a man who has lied in the pursuit of defining others as being 2nd class citizens to speak augment his reputation.
Mr warren has come out against civil unions.
Mr warren did lie about proposition 8
Mr warren has endorsed assassination.
Mr warren has promoted exclusivity for him and his sheep
Mr warren is unworthy to speak on a day when we seek to bring the country together and is an insult to all who believe in equal rights for all the members of humanity.
December 20, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point and from a purely philosophical standpoint would agree. But we live in a country that doesn't respond well to philosophical arguments.
At a certain point we need to realize that a good portion of America needs to convincing on this issue. The best person to do that is the one they already listen to. I agree with Obama's strategy on this because I have seen first hand the outcome of his speaking at Saddleback during the election. I think engaging evangelical America could pay huge dividends for reaching the progress we all agree is our country's next step.
If Obama doesn't follow through on his principles, I will be the first one lined up to force a different course.
December 20, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not believe you can constructively engage haters only marginalize them but go ahead and try.
Unfortunately by giving this spokesman of hate and discrimination a place of honor on such a symbolically important day Obama is raising the the positive profile of a spokesman for exclusion and discrimination while marginalizing the objects of those crimes.
Besides that he is alienating those who supported him and helped to make that day possible while courting those who are only waiting for the day to pull him down.
One cannot court haters.
December 20, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of Christians do not HATE gays, they fear them. This is because they still believe "gay" is a lifestyle choice, one prohibited by the Bible (a point on which I do not believe they are on solid ground.) They are afraid that if the gay lifestyle is normalized, it will make it acceptable for their children. That scares them.
You do not make people unafraid by screaming at them, bullying them, or ridiculing them. You make them unafraid through education, and getting familiar with the people they fear. If all they know about "gayness" is what they see on t.v. at the Gay Pride Day in San Francisco, that fear won't be going away anytime soon.
December 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
A great number of people did not hate African Americans they feared them and were afraid that if you legitimized them it would threaten their children by accepting that marriage was to one was acceptable or that one could even be their boss.
Now doesn't that sound stupid?
Or
Great number of men don't hate strong women they are just scared of them. All they see is those awful pictures of Dominatrixes and they are afraid that if you give women equal pay they will no longer recognize there subservient role to men as the bible dictates. ( another of Mr warrens views) so we just have to work with them.
Doesn't that sound idiotic?
So why is this particular assault on human rights acceptable?
Most hate is based upon fear of the "other" by legitimizing that fear you enable the hate.
As for what a fantasy book of dreams, delusions, fantasies and other fictions say is absolutely irrelevant in a secular society and is unworthy of consideration.
Granted the weak minded, the power hungry, the delusional and other pitiful being will always seek shelter in one delusion or another and for that they should be pitied and treated but not enabled and given a veto power over reason.
December 20, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reply is here since this is getting too narrow to have a readable debate.
December 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the far left wants to abandon Obama over tactical differences that is their choice, but it seems as unhinged a move as what might happen on the far right.
December 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The far right is still in power, Jason. Your folks.
December 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The far right is going down in flames. You fight yesterday's battles rather than working on tomorrow's opportunities. The irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
PS: The far right are not "my folks" no matter how many times you repeat this lie.
December 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inasmuch as I am an ass, I guess I am misinterpreting things. The way I see the situation, the president-elect favors several breaches of the Constitution, has selected a bigot to invoke the blessings of a murderous god at his inauguration, and has filled his cabinet with conservatives. He will be supported in his efforts by a record-breakingly conservative Democratic congress. The Supreme Court is lead by Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Thomas.
I guess I missed the news about all the liberals who will be running things.
December 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That you miss each and every subtly has nothing to do with being an ass.
December 22, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Come on . . .
Let that crap loose from your gizzard there, gasbag.
An ass, eh? What's next his mother?
You overly pompous loser . . .
~OGD~
December 24, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you should read the entire thread before commenting. A lack of comprehension goes double for you.
December 24, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Odd little Canadian sidebar: After some provincial Courts of Appeal ruled in favour of gay marriages, Prime Minister Chretien decided to pass legislation legalizing gay marriages federally (since it was inevitable that the Supreme Court of Canada would anyway). Some people suggested making everyone have civil unions instead. Unluckily, our constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over "marriage" but anything else would require amending the constitution or having all the provinces and territories pass identical legislation (both almost impossible). The feds decided to take the simple, straightforward, Occam's Razor route. We are all surviving just fine.
December 20, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Jason: As an evangelical myself, let me say that while this is an interesting idea, banning marriage for everyone clearly contradicts biblical teaching. The words "marriage", "husband" and "wife" are mentioned countlessly in the Bible. It is a God-given right for a man and a woman to "become one flesh", as it says in Genesis 2. So you'll get even less support for this idea among other evangelicals as you would the idea of legitimizing gay marriage.
The impasse is that homosexuality is essentially sodomy (when put into practice), which is a sin in Christianity. Fighting for gay equality, no matter what approach you take, is an attempt to legitimize a sin, from a Christian view. You might as well try to legitimize murder, and fight to get murderers released from prison.
December 20, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't a very Christian attitude and flies in the face of most Christians I know when it comes to the subject. The Bible also encourages patricide and matricide and slavery. Perhaps we should order society by those norms?
The Church and Christians are more than welcome to marriage ceremonies and to defining the state of being "married" in any way they want, but this country is founded on the separation of Church and State, which means our laws must not reflect any belief system but common sense and equality.
Not allowing gay couples to have the same legal rights as hetero ones is a sin against the Constitution. That is the only sin that means anything in America.
December 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Jason:
The Church and Christians are more than welcome to marriage ceremonies and to defining the state of being "married" in any way they want, but this country is founded on the separation of Church and State, which means our laws must not reflect any belief system but common sense and equality.
Not allowing gay couples to have the same legal rights as hetero ones is a sin against the Constitution. That is the only sin that means anything in America.
I totally agree with this viewpoint. I would also point out that marriage predates Christianity by quite a few hundred years, and is not the exclusive property of Christianity. So there's really no inherent right of Christianity or any religion to define how a marriage performed outside of their religion should be constituted. This, I think, is the correct way to go about arguing for gay equality.
However, your earlier argument that everyone should have civil unions, while novel, is wrongheaded. There are very few problems solved in this world by taking away the rights of a group of citizens.
December 20, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GLBT community won't accept straight marriage and gay civil unions, as well they shouldn't. Many Christians won't accept gay marriages. That is an impasse that will only be solved creatively.
The legal definition should be civil unions, gay and straight, while marriage can be a toss-up based on whatever church you belong to or whomever you get to "marry" you. We need to move away from the word marriage, insofar as legal definitions and rights are concerned, because it has become too bound up by religion.
We should not ask gay couples to go by a different name for the same set of rights. That really would be "separate but equal" and is no kind of solution at all. At least not one based on the Constitution, which is the only real bible we have for governing the country.
December 20, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Separate but equal. Works like a charm.
December 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are trying to characterize my solution as separate but equal, I would suggest you take a round turn on your reading comprehension skills.
December 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
First what your book of folk tales and fantasies says is irrelevant in a secular society. If you wish to live in a theocracy go to Iran.
Even after noting the inanity of basing an argument upon folklore gee its amazing how selective people are when they talk about the bible and sin.
The bible endorsed slavery. Do You? Didn't we legitimize sin by abolishing this?
The bible says that it is a sin to eat cloven footed animals and shellfish? So did we legitimize sin by allowing the trade in those foodstuffs?
The bible speaks of the requirement that you take your brothers widow as a 2nd wife? Are all those who do not sinners?
So either you are going to support all of the biblical prohibitions or your argument is even more meaningless and ridiculous then it is even for basing it upon a compilation of delusions and fantasies.
In the future I will use as an unassailable source the Pastafarian Bible or the Koran, or the Book of the Dead, or the The Dhammapada, or the Kama Sutra (well the last does have some use).
Either all of them are unquestionable which is impossible for the contradictions between them or all of them are nice quaint study's of past ignorance and delusions.
December 20, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Save your energy and don't bother with ad hominem attacks on a belief system you clearly don't understand.
December 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
IN FACT if you call yourself a "CHRISTian" you are claiming to be a follower of Jesus CHRIST, who had absolutely NOTHING to say about gay anything at all period!
Jesus was a JEW who never ever suggested anyone who followed him be anything other than a good JEW. If you want to follow Jesus then you have nothing to say about gays at all.
IN FACT Jesus instructed his followers NOT to judge others and to treat others as they wished to be treated themselves. It is an insult to Jesus for Rick Warren to call himself Christian and say the things he does about gays.
December 20, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we debate Flat Earthers because each time you do, those whose beliefs are not strongly held may be converted.
If Copernicus had not debated the idea of heliocentrism (the sun, not the earth is the center of our universe) some people, like US Americans who do not have maps, would still believe the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat.
December 19, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome comment. Debate leads to progress. Period.
December 19, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is happening in this debate is not about the opposition but about the audience. Let's talk about the GLBT community openly and the audience will be subjected to both ideas. I will assume that the Flat Earth people will not change their minds. But there will be thousands of independents that will now have to view the issue and determine which position they favor or see as more fair. I am optimistic that reason will prevail, especially when the Flat Earth people refer to authorities they respect that others may not find so authoritative. Warren is becoming a whipping boy for the Left right now. If we are reasonable and calm about our responses, he will not become a martyr. GLBT, you are winning as we speak. It would be tragic to see you all self-destruct with demands for extreme change. We will make one change now, then another, and another. Add them all up and we will have extreme change, but it will not come overnight.
December 20, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be tragic to see you all self-destruct with demands for extreme change.
Being treated as humans would indeed be an "extreme change" for the gay community. Being observant of the Constitution would indeed be an "extreme change" for an American administration, particularly the ones on their way out and in. Concerning ourselves with the concept of justice would indeed be an "extreme change" for the American populace.
But it is not us lefties making the demands. It is the voices of Jefferson and Madison. Shall we continue to ignore them as we have done thoughout my lifetime?
December 20, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The same Jefferson who owned slaves? I like the guy's words too, but he was hardly the saint this comment implies.
Neither was Madison or Franklin or Adams or Hamilton or any of the other flawed men who created a system of government that would immediately need fixing and tinkering to get it right some unknown time in the future.
In fact, they admitted the flaws and wondered aloud if we could deliver on the over-arching promise of America as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
December 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You inferred something that I did not imply. Neither Jefferson nor Madison was a saint, whatever that is. All they did was design the best system of government that has come along in 5000 years of civilization.
Our founders were wise enough to provide a codified way to "tinker" with the system, and I am always disheartened by those -- such as Mr. Obama and perhaps you -- who would ignore the inconveniences it intentionally imposes.
December 20, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The men who wrote it ignored the inconveniences it imposes. Every president since the ink was dry on the Constitutions signatures has broke those rules.
I find it amusing when "liberals" such as yourself maintain such a rigid and dogmatic belief in something that has never been. We have a system of government we have been perfecting for over 230 years.
December 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The men who wrote it ignored the inconveniences it imposes. Every president since the ink was dry on the Constitutions signatures has broke those rules.
So? That makes it OK?
December 21, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that makes it historically accurate.
December 22, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
That makes WHAT historically accurate? Mr. Obama's duplicity? Try to keep up, Jason.
December 22, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someday I'll figure out what "bigotry" is for sure. for now, here's my theory: "Bigots are people who disagree with me."
Clearly it involves being intolerant of certain things. This isn't a sufficient condition though, since I haven't seen intolerance of domestic violence or pedophilia referred to as "bigotry" recently.
Intolerance isn't bad. Intolerance (like "discrimination" before it) has become a loaded term when applied to political issues (generally "social issues") in public debate.
I have a discriminating taste in wines. I really just don't like anything too sweet. But that doesn't make me a bigot.
The only way to prevent bigotry is to stop using the word to advance a partisan political agenda. Then it will shortly go away.
December 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share your bigotry against too sweet wines (though you'll find, btw that Austrian rather than German Rieslings can be quite dry despite the Riesling rep) but I think you're absolutely wrong that bigotry means "disagreeing with me."
You're a bigot if you want to deny rights to certain members of our supposedly equal rights society because of their skin color, religion (assuming their religion doesn't harm unwilling innocents) or sexual practices (again, assuming those sexual practices don't harm unwilling participants.)
I believe in same sex marriage rights and yes, if you disagree with me on that, you're holding a bigoted position. Why the b word? Because this is a civil rights issue and to deny same sex marriage rights is to deny individuals their civil rights based on their sexual practices.
December 19, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Point:
Why just skin color, religion, and sexual orientation? There is no sign in the sky (not even a burning bush) providing us with that list. It's purely arbitrary; it reflects nothing but the values (or prejudices - it is the same thing) of the speaker.
After all, none of us would have put sexual orientation on the list in 1975 anyway. And in 1915, we wouldn't have included skin color. Some of us still don't include religion...
Like you, I'd add. I think it's hard to deny that it is intolerant of someone's religious views to attempt to coerce society into shunning the religious person for their beliefs.
My point is that if you don't like people trying to stop gay marriage, fine. And I personally am happy to see you (and them) use whatever language they like in pursuit of those political goals.
But I -am- going to point out that you're just playing politics.
December 19, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would an atheist have any hope of being elected President? No? I guess you would say that our country is religiously bigoted. And you would be right. Could a Muslim be President? No? So we are agreed that our country is religiously bigoted, right?
Could a single person who has a live-in partner (of the opposite sex) be elected President? No? How about a single person who is dating several people? No? How about a single person? No? I think our country is bigoted sexually without even looking at the gay issue.
Could a black guy who was as stupid as George Bush get elected President? No? So the only way we elected a black dude is because he is so damn much smarter than all the rest of us -- I'd say we have a bit of racial bigotry going for us...anyone see those emails circulating in Alaska about a black guy in the White House?
Bottom line: We need to get over these issues piece by piece. Focusing on name-calling: "You're a BIGOT!" doesn't get us anywhere. As I have written elsewhere, I was not on board with gay marriage and adoption several years ago. I changed my thinking by thinking.
The way to move forward is not by putting up walls; it is by having empathy even for those with whom we strongly disagree. That is how the conversation starts.
December 19, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love this comment. Would recommend if I could.
December 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good sweet German rieslings can be wonderful wines. One of my favorites is Maximin Grunhauser Abtsberg. It has a delightful delicate flowery flavor. I don't like it with food, but it's perfect for a light wine to drink on a late summer afternoon. It's pricey--upwards of $20 or $30 a bottle--but it's worth trying before you become too rigid in your wine bigotry. Karthauserhof is also pretty good and often easier to find and slightly less expensive.
On Warren--I don't like his position on gay marriage at all, but what really scares me about him is that, like most of these mega-church evangelical ministers, he strikes me as a shameless self-promoter. I think Obama is playing with fire with this guy. But maybe he's decided that throwing Warren a bone is the best way to reach out to the 20% or so of the population that clings to these evangelical scamers. They are a significant voting block and breaking even a few of them away from the Republicans will be helpful to Obama. Still, choosing Warren seems to me to be the first truly bone-headed thing Obama has done.
Nobody's perfect, I guess.
December 20, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your Warren and raise you a Wallis. Jim Wallis. He's the evangelical that would've made sense. He's the pragmatic one that offers true approaches to end our cultural divisions. Warren is Dobson in a Hawaiian shirt- preaching hate while making concessions to the poor. He's a Dobson in Wallis clothing, if you will.
December 19, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a huge fan of Jim Wallis but realistically, he's not someone that conservative Christians identify as one of their own. I think he would have been a good choice for invocation speaker - in fact, he probably would have been my choice - but he's not a guy who would have sent a message of reaching out to evangelicals.
December 19, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I'd wanted to reach out to evengelicals I would have voted for that funny Huckleberry fellow. But I have to admit they have a heck of thing going. They're the state religion and two parties are at their feet doing their bidding and if you don't believe as they do you better just shut up.
December 19, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must have missed the ten commandments being installed at the Capital. Or in front of the Supreme Court. Like every other special interest group in this country, Christians have influence because they are organized. They are only one among the chorus of voices in Washington though.
December 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on this though a lot of my gay friend are pissed beyond belief. For what it's worth, it would be better to just ignore him.
Meglomaniac preachers don't mind being ridiculed, heckled etc. They crave ANY attention. It's being ignored that really HURTS 'em.
Just look at the extremes Pastor Teddy (the gay meth-head) is going through in an attempt to capture ANY attention.
As an example, note that I didn't mention either of these asshats by name in this comment, so for purposes of Google and their legacy, this comment doesn't even exist.
Philosophical question:
If you Google something and it doesn't return a hit, does it even really exist?
Enjoy.
December 19, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you're getting at with this:
It's a decent point, and I'll grant that maybe Obama's idea of working with a guy like Warren stands a better chance of changing his and other anti-gay Evangelicals' minds on homosexuality than would outright, public shunning.
But you have to admit the timing is horrible. I mean, right after Prop 8 passes, and Obama gives one of its chief supporters a platform. I think Obama could have handled the controversy much better than he has.
December 19, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 19, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you the writer who penned that piece from the Huff Post? 'Cause that's where that quotation came from. If not, please cite it properly.
(sorry to be the citation police but it bugs me when people don't give credit where it's due)
Thanks.
December 19, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you the writer who penned that piece from the Huff Post? 'Cause that's where that quotation came from. If not, please cite it properly.
(sorry to be the citation police but it bugs me when people don't give credit where it's due)
Thanks.
December 19, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops my bad, you are absolutely right and I thought I had. Heading to corner dunce cap in hand.
Attribution: HuffPost
December 19, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rick Warren, for all his flaws, is an evangelical who sees that there is a major problem with the cultural divisions in America and wants to try to end those divisions. We should be doing what Obama is doing: welcoming his attempt at conciliation, trying to find areas of common ground, and showing respect for the man, and not demanding a set of concessions (or preconditions) before we engage with him. And we certainly be going out looking for more reasons to galvanize the left into hating him more."
What "conciliation" is Rick Warren seeking?
By his own words, gay marriage, abortion and even non-Christians in government are non-negotiable. Can't even be debated. So how on earth does this equate to trying "to end those divisions"?
Have you actually heard or read anything Warren has said?
December 20, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Satya...
Your analysis of Prop 8 and Rick Warren was well stated and rational. I read through it carefully 3 times and could find nothing in it to disagree with.
Good job! Rec'd
December 19, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree on all counts.
If we could simply see that this Obama's way of starting a long term strategy of getting evangelical Christians to stop standing in the way of the progressive change most of them believe in as being a reflection of Christ.
That Barack would reach out to his opposite extreme on an issue he wants to fix is hardly out of character. He can take their credibility and use it to promote his solution once he convinces them. I have not seen Obama once reverse positions on something because he hung out with a person who he disagreed with.
I have a little higher opinion in my choice for president that that.
December 19, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
My concern is simply a matter of the validation that such a platform will confer. The issue is actually NOT Rick Warren, but his position of Prop 8 and gay rights. Having him speak at the Inauguration is a way of validating his position.
I know that Obama does not intend that, but it is an unavoidable unintended consequence. Imagine if some one who held a position that everyone recognizes as deplorable were to be given an opportunity to speak from that platform-no one would object to challenges in that instance. Gay rights, separate from the religious aspect are simply a matter of human and civil rights. I am open to debating Rick Warren's position any time, but that does not mean I would allow him to speak at an Inauguration.
Many people will see that and conclude that what he said about gay marriage must be a legitimate position because, after all, the President-Elect invited him to speak. I simply do not want to legitimize homophobia.
Invite him for a tea discussion at the White House-not the main spiritual role at the Inauguration!
December 20, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that this confers any more legitimacy than Warren already holds.
Obama has been unequivocal in his opposition to Warren's thoughts on gay rights. I think the argument that he is actually using Warren to bring this discussion the federal level in a way that hasn't been done. I also think that if anyone has a chance of changing the hearts and minds of millions of Americans that it is Barack.
This step shows that he understands the American landscape in a way that no democratic president has since Johnson.
December 20, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a romantic sense, it is like Warren is annointing the new king. But Warren does not stand for everyone.
Perhaps the irony here is that, in effect, King Obama of The One, is bringing to bear the Right annointing the Left.
Taken this way, I could find Obama clever ... as opposed finding him insensitive to those who love him.
December 19, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that thought! Hope many will embrace it as a way of soothing their disappointment.
December 19, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I want to believe good things of Obama, but this ...ní thuigim (I don't understand.) It's struggling I am over Warren. This be the best I could kin.
December 19, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw this article over at The New Republic. A pov that I haven't read before: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=77a790f5-d349-4437-a322-6056770fb75f
December 20, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is how I thought about it the first time I heard the news. I expected a bigger fuss to come from the right than the left - One of their own is in essence endorsing the new liberal president!
December 20, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great article. Thanks for sharing.
December 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody is upset over the wrong question. The question isn't what religious figure is not an insult to involve in the installation of our new president but, why is there preacher(s) involved in a public governmental function in the first place? This whole argument is fundamentally silly and ignores the constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state.
Joe Lieberman stated that the constitution guarantees the freedom of religion not, the freedom from religion. Joe is wrong and you all are arguing over a question that is clearly out of constitutional context.
Religious operations as part of a governmental function are as out of place as is a public toilet without a privacy door.
December 20, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for shifting this off-topic, if even for a moment. I'm getting tired of the debate over Warren's inclusion in the inauguration ceremonies, though I understand the sentiments on both sides.
Regarding exclusion of clerics from the inauguration/constitutional separation of church and state: In our sound bite driven society, where atheists, agnostics, seculars, et al, make up only 16-20% of the population, it's gonna be a while before people start to rally behind that banner, mjeffn. They tried to pillory BHO for not wearing a flag pin. What would be the fallout from excluding the dudes with the direct connect to you-know-who? That said, I believe the President elect is constitutionally free to invite whoever he wants, to speak at the inauguration.
And Satya, in answer to your question, judging from the response of the blogosphere, apparently we do "have to do this to Warren".
December 20, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you know something about the Founding Fathers that I don't know, Joe is right. They never suggested that America should be free from religion. They just wanted to make sure everyone had the freedom to chose how they worship...no state sanctioned religion.
"We are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable rights..." I believe they were talking about God.
December 20, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe when a blue state like California passes a bill such as proposition 8, that the gay movement has to recognize that they are using the wrong tactics. If they want to receive tolerance and understanding, then they have to practice tolerance and understanding. A witch hunt against a respected Christian leader is not going to win any ground for the gay movement. Anger and accusations scare people away. The gay movement lacks recognized and respected leadership to represent their cause. This is a civil rights issue, they need a MLK who can speak with reason to the country. What the passing of proposition 8 makes clear is it's time to stop yelling and start talking without patronizing the religious. It's time to seek mutual understanding.
December 20, 2008 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well is that ever blame the victimology or what? To my mind, this had nothing whatever to do with the gay "movement". This is about whether you choose, out of of thousands of possible choices, a person who routinely speaks against the full humanity of some Americans. Warren does not speak for all Christians. Obama has already chosen a second Christian to give the benediction. This is about giving a certain sect the power to force their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else.
I reject Warren's beliefs. I do not want my family learning those beliefs. I do not accept him as a religious leader. He does not represent my faith tradition (even though he spouts some of the same tripe as the hierarchy in my own Church). He is not culturally compatible with me or my ethnic background.
I am appalled that he is going to represent Americans to the hundreds of millions around the world who will be watching the inauguration.
This isn't about patronizing the religious either. It's about recognizing that all of the religious are not alike. The billions of people around the world and the hundreds of millions of Americans have a variety of faith traditions. Evangelical Christians do not represent all of us. They cannot represent all of us. To require us to hold them up as the only faith tradition that represents Americans is totally wrong, wrong, wrong. Obama has made a mistake not only because this is an insult to gay people, but because it is an insult to all of us who do not now and never well accept evangelical Christianity as our faith.
December 20, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just kind of hate to see someone that calls me a pedophile and says my marriage is the moral equivalent of incest given a place of honor on the national stage.
Not to mention that fact the that he not only said assassination of a foreign leader (President President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is not only OK but its our moral duty as Christians.
He is just not the kind of guy you want honored in the countries first ceremony of the Obama term. It's just sort of nasty. Would you ask us to wait see if it were David Duke or Louis Farrakhan invited to speak?
December 20, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait to hear what he has to say. But ignore what he has said before, because that's irrelevant "gotcha"-ism, and we "hate that."
If he says something provocative at the inauguration, and people react, who wants to be dollars to doughnuts that people will be trolling liberal blogs begging for sympathy for poor multi-millionaire huckster Rick Warren, the closet queen du jour.
December 20, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do we have to do this to Warren?
Or
Do we have to do this to gay people?
December 20, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
warren is responsible through his hate speech of creating and encouraging violence against gay people.
if you support this move by obama, the trojan horse, then you too have blood on your hands.
December 20, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I would like to ask people who are complaining about the Warren invocation is do you believe gay rights will make significant gains under President Obama? I do. That's why it's easy for me to brush off Warren's involvement in the inauguration. It seems small to me compared to what I expect to happen under Obama. I suspect this is the key to the difference in reaction to Warren.
December 20, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
If gays make gains, it won't be because of Obama. Obama is risk averse. He won't stick his neck out on the issue. He's triangulating for 2012 already. Gays will make gains because the public is ahead of the politicians and the santimonius hypocrites they choose to publicly worship. Politicians put on "faith" like flag pins. They choose the latest best selling snake oil salesman to be their religious huckster. This has nothing to do with faith or God. It's all politics all the time and unless gays have something they can deliver to Obama they'll be thrown under the bus as fast as you can say Reverand Wright.
December 20, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't hold my breath waiting for your recognition of just how wrong you are when Barack immediately makes it the law that gays can serve openly in the military, just like the rest of the federal government. Someone said up above that many on the far left sound like spoiled children who want it all right now. I can't argue with that view.
December 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you say the same thing to black people or Jewish people if it were David Duke or Louis Farrakhan that was invited to participate in the Inauguration of our President?
December 20, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
YES! If Obama had to face a preacher who was hell bent against interracial marriage giving a prayer in his face he would be very justified in questioning the value of that. How would he feel with his children also in the front row smiling at this man who openly dismisses the humanity of his entire family. That is how all gay Americans are going to feel.
It is the old saying about walking a mile in another mans shoes to understand what he feels that you cannot just imagine. It really surprises me how blacks seem to slam the door in the face of everyone else once they got themselves on the civil rights train.
Sad.
December 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much , satya, for trenchantly and eloquently speaking truth to so idiocy surrounding the Warren contremps.
December 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
meant to say so much idiocy
December 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I'm way tired of all this religion in politics and wish Obama hadn't made any kind of announcement about who was going to give the invocation. I wish he'd just picked some nice preacher from some nice church somewhere. I mean, c'mon -- of all the preachers in this country, he had to pick some megachurch guy who's a gazillionaire and rakes in millions from his flock and book deals and speeches, while having a huge public forum to make controvery and become a controversial figure. You gotta wonder: Why did Obama do that? He could have avoided all this if, as I said, he just under the radar asked some nice preacher from some nice church somewhere to come in and say a nice prayer. Instead, we have all this mess. It's certainly ruined the inauguration for me, I'm not anywhere near as excited about it as I was. I wanted to see a great historical ceremony. Now we'll be seeing protests. For the first time, I'm questioning Obama's judgement.
December 20, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It took hundreds of years for those people to get their rights.
You speak of these historical horrific struggles as if they happened overnight. We freed slaves and didn't end slavery until a hundred years later. Many in the black community are still suffering forty years after gaining the same rights as everyone else. Women settled this land right alongside the men and are still beating their head against a glass ceiling. It took them demanding their rights and then working each and every day to get them, though they still fall short even now.
Barack is charting a course by which we engage the people you hate and bring them into the fold through the many ways stillidealistic mentions. He is engaging their "leader" and convincing him of the right path, not to mention the righteous one. This strategy of leadership is nothing new in the history of civilization. We just haven't seen it in America for quite a while.
That is the way change happens. Heart by heart. Mind by mind.
You seem to want a magic wand that makes everything a happy little Utopia overnight. That is not a rational position at all, let alone reasonable or historically accurate. I would suggest looking at the tactics and tone of the people who accomplished those great deeds that you cite.
The ones who were successful are much closer to Barack Obama than they are the Raging Left.
December 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to everyone who participated in this conversation. I think a lot of this comes down to the way we view our political opponents, especially those on the other side of this ongoing culture war. The cliche is for a conservative to talk about how they oppose gay marriage, but have gay friends. Well, I support gay marriage, but I have evangelical (and other conservative Christian) friends. And while I totally disagree with their stance on this issue, many of the evangelicals I know are good, thoughtful people, capable of meaningful conversation if you approach them with some degree of respect. If you start the conversation by attacking them for believing in stupid unscientific myths or shouting all the dumb passages from the Bible at them, conversation is more difficult. It's also difficult if you truly believe that opposition to gay marriage is truly comparable to the Ku Klux Klan, a comparison that IMO, only works only on a very superficial level.
December 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
many of the evangelicals I know are good, thoughtful people
Many of the gays I know are good, thoughtful people, too. They don't think of people who withhold their rights as good, thoughtful people. Apparently you do.
December 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink