More Reasons Rick Warren Should Get The Boot
Hitchens writes on Slate on the dictator-ass-kissing ugly that is Rick Warren:

It seems to have been agreed by every single media outlet that only one group has the right to challenge Obama's promotion of "Pastor" Rick Warren, and that group is the constituency of politically organized homosexuals. But why should that be? Last week, I pointed out that Warren maintains that heaven is closed to Jews and that his main theological mentor was a crackpot "end-of-days" ranter. Why is this not to count against him as well? Do we need our presidential invocation to be given by a bigmouth clerical businessman who is, furthermore, a religious sectarian? Let me add a little more to the mix. In November 2006, Warren made a trip to Syria and was granted an audience with the human toothbrush who has inherited control of that country and all its citizens. Bashar Assad, the dictator of Syria, is also a religious sectarian--his power base is confined to the Alawite sect--and in the intervals of murdering his critics in Lebanon, he does not expect to receive very many distinguished American or European guests. Of late, the most eminent I can think of have been David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and George Galloway of Britain's so-called Respect Party, and I believe only Galloway--an old fan of Baathism in all its forms--got an audience with the Grand Toothbrush himself.

...Our good pastor also found the time to tell his captive audience--if I may use such an unoriginal phrase in a literal way--that 80 percent of his countrymen opposed the administration's policy in Iraq. Assume yourself, dear reader, to be one of that possible 80 percent. Did you ever ask to be spoken for by Warren, who was a guest of a regime that sponsors al-Qaida infiltrators in Iraq, or to see him denounce the administration in front of an audience of Syrians that had no choice but to listen to whatever it was told? For shame.

And a shame, too, that on Inauguration Day we may also have to stand still--out of respect rather than fear, it is true--and listen to a man who is either a half-witted dupe, a hopeless naif, a cynical tourist who does favors for the powerful, a religious nut bag, a cowardly liar, or perhaps some unappetizing combination of all five. I personally think that the all-five answer is the correct one, because you cannot just find yourself in Syria, smirking into the face of the local despot and being treated like a treasured guest. The thing has to be arranged, and these things take time. So what was the motive? Listen again to Warren's driveling broadcast for the folks back home at the megachurch:

In fact, you know Saul of Tarsus--Saul was a Syrian. St. Paul, on the road to Damascus, had his conversion experience, and so Christians have been here the longest, and they get along with the Muslims, and the Muslims get along with them. There's a lot less tension than in other places.

I can absolutely see what Warren hoped to get out of this sordid little trip, the evidence of which he vainly tried to conceal when it threatened to become embarrassing. He wanted to be on video for his open-mouthed followers as he posed "on the road to Damascus." And he didn't care what deals he had to make, with Baath and Toothbrush Central Command, in order to bring off such a fundraising coup. But now it's the sandals of Obama that are being exploited by the same tub-thumper, and one has not merely a right but a duty to object to having as an inaugural auxiliary a man who is a pushover for anti-Semitism, Islamic sectarianism, "rapture" theology, fascist dictatorship, 10th-rate media trade-offs, and last-minute panicky self-censorship all at the same time. Is there nobody in the Obama camp who can see that this is not just a gay issue?

Good points lost amidst the really poor writing.

Eric at December 31, 2008 10:11 AM

"Bashar Assad...does not expect to receive very many distinguished American or European guests. Of late, the most eminent I can think of have been David Duke and George Galloway.."

I know you've met Hitch personally on a number of occasions. The next time you see him, please tell him to get his facts straight before ranting. None other than the Speaker of the House, California's own Nancy Pelosi, had an audience with Assad last April:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17920536/

Martin at December 31, 2008 10:14 AM

And there've been countless Congressional delegations to Syria over the past several years. In fact, there's one in Damascus right now, led by Senator Arlen Spector, who sat for reporters yesterday smiling & nodding his head while Assad demanded that Isreael's "massacres" in Gaza must stop:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647330,00.html

I'm not in the Rick Warren fan club. Just pointing out that if Hitchens wants to make his case, it would help if he wasn't so sloppy.

Martin at December 31, 2008 10:23 AM

Amy Alkon

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/31/more_reasons_ri.html#comment-1617649">comment from Martin

None other than the Speaker of the House, California's own Nancy Pelosi, had an audience with Assad last April

Not a surprise. I find that I can usually count on her to do what I think would be exactly the wrong thing.

Amy Alkon at December 31, 2008 10:33 AM

I'm not a member of the Rick Warren fan club either, but this seems to be taking things a bit far:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/index.html

Sometimes I'm embarassed by other atheists. I think it's possible - maybe even probable - that at some point in the future people will finally abandon the idea that there's an invisible man living in the sky. When that happens, "so help me God" will finally be taken out of the inaugural address. But it has to happen culturally before it will change legally. Until then, what really does this lawsuit think it's going to accomplish? Maybe alienating people and causing the cultural change to take even longer?

Pirate Jo at December 31, 2008 12:34 PM

Can't we all just get along??? Why can't The Messiah ask his personal pastor of 20+ years to do the invocation?

Does Rev Wright have other plans that day?

sean at December 31, 2008 1:07 PM

Sorry, but I can't take Hitchens seriously on this. As if there is ANY minister that this religion-hater would approve of for Obama to use.

Karen at December 31, 2008 2:41 PM

Amy Alkon

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/31/more_reasons_ri.html#comment-1617689">comment from Karen

I don't think that's true, Karen. I believe Hitchens, like me, understands that many people are religious and that it's likely a minister or some religious leader would be chosen to give a prayer at the inauguration. There are ministers who don't preach divisiveness and hang out with dictators. One of those would be a better choice.

Amy Alkon at December 31, 2008 3:35 PM

It's his party and he'll puke if he wants to. Or, in other words, he won, he gets to pick. Whatever his motivation for the pick, it doesn't really matter.

momof3 at December 31, 2008 7:20 PM

> There are ministers who don't
> preach divisiveness

But I *love* divisiveness!

Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 10:36 PM

Leave a comment

Name

Email Address

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

People drive to work in cars or pirates? (required):