Uh oh. Someone pissed off the evangelicals:
A prominent evangelical lobbyist resigned yesterday over his remarks in a National Public Radio interview, in which he said he supports permitting same-sex civil unions.
The Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), later apologized for the remark, said the Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the 30 million-member organization.
But, Anderson said, “he lost the leadership’s confidence as spokesman, and that’s hard to regain.”
Asked by Terry Gross in a Dec. 2 interview on NPR’s Fresh Air whether he had changed his position on same-sex marriage, Cizik responded: “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. . . . We have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself — heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to reevaluate this and look at it a little differently.”
The remark, anathema to most evangelical Christians, who believe that the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman, caused an uproar in the group and in other evangelical organizations.
The NAE statement is priceless:
Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained in a letter to the members of the board of directors of NAE that “in a December 2, 2008 broadcast interview on National Public Radio, Richard responded to questions and made statements that did not appropriately represent the values and convictions of NAE and our constituents. Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized and affirmed our values there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents.”
Tolerance is not an evangelical value.
Fencedude
But…he said he supported civil unions, not marriage.
So what the heck is their problem, exactly?
Evinfuilt
They’re worried us gays are going to take all their meth away.
Zifnab
Everyone remain calm! Despite recent evidence to the contrary we assure you that we continue to maintain our stance as humongous bigots. Please continue to donate your rapidly diminishing incomes to our cause such that we can drive around in big fancy cars, attend prestigious events, sip champagne with Senators, and beat the crap out of those filthy gays.
In Jesus’s Name We Pray. Amen.
Incertus
@Fencedude: The problem is that he doesn’t support putting all gays on a boat, pushing it out to sea, and then dropping a bomb on the boat.
Stuck in the Funhouse
And they call the Mooslims Islamo Fascist.
Funhouse Proverb- Let thee without sin cast the first ad hominem .
Fencedude
@Incertus:
Oh, of course. How silly of me!
Stooleo
Never was, never will be.
cleek
And if thine spokesman offend thee, pluck him out, and cast him from thee: it is better for thee to enter into public relations with a new spokesman, rather than to be cast into hell fire.
Mike
I heard that interview, and recall thinking "This guy sounds way too sane to be a spokesman for the evangelicals". Sometimes I hate it when I’m right.
anonymous
@Mike:
The dude wasn’t far enough right for them on a number of issues, particularly global warming.
kid bitzer
another lesson to be learned:
watch out for terry gross.
she seems mousy and unobtrusive, but she gets people to spill.
mantis
Nor forgiveness, apparently.
Napoleon
@Mike:
Same here. I actually thought to myself "maybe I am too hard on them, and maybe they are more thoughful then I thought". To bad for him, he came off like a good guy in the interview.
Atanarjuat
Evangelical Christians are so narrow-minded, ignorant, and intolerant. Of this there can be no doubt.
In contrast, it’s such a relief to see the open-minded, thoughtful, and ever-so-tolerant Muslims of Iran — especially with regard to how they treat gay Iranians.
If only the evangelical Christians in America could follow the egalitarian example of their religious counterparts in Iran, I’m absolutely SURE that California’s Proposition 8 would never have passed, and gay marriage would be as ubiquitous in this nation as lawn grass.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@Mike:
The next to go will be those who promote the Creationist Care movement in certain Evan circles, or in Wingnut Preacher speak- those coddling the Eco-Jihadi’s, especially the ones who believe in the Satanic Ruse of Global Warming. Mainly because it’s bad for bidness, which gets an automatic EVIL sticker.
Jeff
Wow, someone who realizes the threats to heterosexual marriage are things like divorce. No wonder he was fired. The right cannot have a reality based spokesman.
Napoleon
@kid bitzer:
Just ask Bill O’Reilly.
passerby
Cizik:
"We have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself—heterosexual marriage."
…and the truth has set him free. Whether losing his job was his intent or not, Cizik managed to get himself out of the Hampster Wheel of Pseudo-morality.
t jasper parnell
@Atanarjuat:
Who said anything nice about Iranian Muslims? Speaking for myself only, I cannot abide any of them, except maybe Quakers and Unitarians, and I bet if the former obtained power they would be intolerable and intolerant.
Punchy
They’re supposed to "turn the other cheek", but I imagine most of them probably think that’s code for switching positions during gay sex….
TenguPhule
Polgomy is also endorsed by the Bible.
I look forward to my evangelical supported harem.
Josh Hueco
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
Let’s see…Homosexuality a perversion? Check. Women should be subservient baby machines? Check. Man’s law should conform to God’s law? Check. All those who are not with us will spend the rest of eternity roasting on a spit? Check. The only difference is that our fundies don’t have beards and machetes.
TheHatOnMyCat
Those guys don’t want to get rid of gays. They need them in order to have something to demonize.
That’s why the gentleman was pushed out for speaking the truth. The truth is, he blew their cover.
What would the evangelicals do, if all the sin went away?
gnomedad
Shorter Atanarjuat: Go live in
RussiaIran, you DFH!Stimpy
@Atanarjuat:
Ah! You have cleverly revealed the hypocrisy! How lucky we are to have you to show us the light!
Clearly, a thread that is criticizing American evangelicals for their intolerance and self-righteousness and bully-boy tactics needs to also criticize Iranian-freaking-muslims who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to with the thread!
Brilliant.
/feeds the troll
TheHatOnMyCat
(S)Atan …. don’t blow your cover, man. It’s going to take you all afternoon to unbend that pretzel of commentary you laid down there.
Show some respect for the spoof craft, for crissakes.
r€nato
Atanajurat – and most Americans – should take the time to learn something about the Iranian people before characterizing them as a single, indistinguishable mass of America-hating Islamofascists.
Or characterizing the views of everyday Iranians as somehow being exactly identical to the political posturing of their politicians.
TheFountainHead
@Atanarjuat: This is really not up to your usual level of spoof. I give it a 2/10, and that 2 is just for comparing gay marriage rights to lawn grass.
jake 4 that 1
@cleek: 100% Win.
If Cizik had had sex with a man and then apologized his Talevangical pals would have forgiven him.
r€nato
I think all reasonable people can agree that divorce causes significant damage to the ‘institution of marriage’, much more so than allowing gays to marry. Divorce directly destroys a marriage; the notion of no-fault divorce certainly has led more than a few people to think to themselves, ‘what the hell, if it doesn’t work out I can always get divorced.’
Nobody has ever explained to me exactly how gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage. What would be the direct result of it? In fact, there are states in our union and developed, industrialized countries which have gay marriage. Surely there is some sort of empircal evidence of the damage done to the institution of marriage by allowing gays to marry?
I don’t see any of these bible-thumping busybodies proposing constitutional amendments to prohibit divorce, or lobbying their legislatures to make our divorce laws conform to biblical ideas about divorce. Not anywhere. It’s all about the queers.
Makes one wonder what the true agenda is…
Grand Moff Texan
Tolerance is not an evangelical value.
What would be the point? "Christianity" is just an asshole’s rhetoric of entitlement.
If I can’t blame God for me being shitty to you, it all falls apart.
.
spencer
But- – but I thought it was THE GAYS who were forcing people out of their jobs because of their intollerance!
Zifnab
@t jasper parnell:
And the later would just give us more wishy-washy centrist Democrats.
t jasper parnell
@Zifnab:
Maybe yes, maybe no. I cannot make up my mind.
r€nato
shorter Christian Taliban-gelicals:
Jesus told me to hate you.
Zifnab
@Atanarjuat:
DemocratsArabs are worse!(p.s. I swear I’m not a racist. I just happen to point my bigoted grief at a certain sect of humanity that just happens to have a darker skin tone than me.)
(p.p.s. Shoulda lynched those Sand N*gg3rs when we had the chance.)
(p.p.p.s. Still not racist!)
aimai
the funniest part of the NAE response is actually later, when they complain explicitly that anti gay marriage is the only one of their various initiatives that they think has gotten any political traction. So their real problem with Cizik, other than spelling his name, is that they are a political interest movement masquerading as a religious one and he undercut their funding source which is frightened homophobes. If they didn’t have homophobia and they took seriously Jesus’s admonitions on the poor they’d have to *fund raise* for the poor and that has to be less lucrative than fundraising to bash the gays.
aimai
demimondian
@Zifnab: I’m not sure I believe that.
Krista
Quick OT:
John, I didn’t realize you had submitted a photo of Tunch to Cute Overload. Very nice.
It never would, though. Put three people on a desert island, and two of them would find a way to ostracize the third. Certain people just seem to get a real charge out of ganging together and demonizing others. So if all of what is currently known as a sin went a way, they’d grab their Bibles, selectively reinterpret a few passages, and whammo — next thing you know, they’d have a brand new batch of sins for which to hate people.
Josh Hueco
@r€nato:
Gay bashing is low-hanging fruit, electorally. Just like the most ardent anti-abortion people are also anti-birth control, but aren’t open about it because nobody would vote for them if they were.
Cpl. Cam
Let this be a lesson to all you heathens; reason and compassion will NOT be tolerated by the NAE.
TheFountainHead
@demimondian: Now you’re just equivocating.
Joshua Norton
Where? Look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel — all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.
The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments — especially to family (Let the dead bury their dead but go out and preach the kingdom of heaven).
Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.
Would any contemporary straight couple really turn to the Bible as a how-to script? Seems to me that today’s so-called "christians" would probably hate Jesus worst of all.
bootlegger
I think, Attanut, that the whole point was that our Evangelical neighbors are no better than the mullahs in Persia when it comes to their intolerance.
Someone else mentioned that we see Persians as homogenous when they are actually quite heterogeneous. Fair enough critique. But they do actually have laws on the books banning gay relationships and they do actually enforce those laws. This doesn’t mean that there may be a significant, perhaps even a majority, proportion of Iranians who disagree with this and would support gay rights, but The Mullah Law says no, so that’s the way they roll.
Betsy
I would have thought the mere act of going on NPR would be enough to get him relieved of his post. God hates public radio.
Mnemosyne
So pointing out that Christian evangelicals want to treat gay Americans badly means they’re completely different than the Iranian Muslim fundamentalists who treat gay Iranians badly?
The Moar You Know
@Josh Hueco: Too true. Ours have mullets and pickup trucks.
The AK-47 is the preferred weapon of both groups, however. It’s always good to see mankind agree and unite around a common weapons platform.
Faux News
So true! I well remember Terry eviserating Nancy Reagan on an interview about Nancy’s pitiful nothing of a book called "My Turn". Terry tore into her about her husband’s lack of action on AIDS,responsibility for Iran-Contra, and other issues. All Nancy could do was bleat like a sheep over and over again saying "but, but what does this have to do with my book"? Worst of all Nancy eventually fell into the trap and tried to answer the questions with sputtering denials that made it even worse.
Joshua Norton
Nice little smoke screen there, toots. Since Muslims in Iran have no say in how gay Americans are treated in this country, your argument is one big load of blow-it-out-your-ass.
And, YES, given half the chance, the christianist bigots and fundies here would be as batshit crazy and blood-thirsty as any of the howling Muslim fundies. History has proven this time and again.
Incertus
@Joshua Norton: They get around that by not actually reading the Bible. It’s inconvenient for them.
bootlegger
@Faux News: I listened to her broadcast where she made Papabear O’reily cry. He still claims to this day that he was "ambushed". You got that? The Lord of the Strawmen was ambushed by a leftie girl. Tee-hee.
Comrade Kevin
@bootlegger: That’s pretty rich, Billo the Clown whining about being ambushed by someone! I suppose he knows how it works, from his being the one dishing it out.
Dreggas
@Atanarjuat:
Joke’s on you dumbass, if the Fundagelicals had their way they’d be doing the same thing to gays as the Iranians do.
Tonal Crow
Ah, the religionists…are so much more honest, generous, moral, civil, aware, and caring than unbelievers, that their God’s existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and all-goodness are clearly proven……………. Humbug.
Tonal Crow
@kid bitzer: Terry Gross is one of the 3 best MSM journalists. Her show’s ostensible "let’s talk fluff about pop culture" theme disguises her wide-ranging curiosity, razor-sharp mind, and dogged persistence in the face of all manner of evasive B.S. from her guests. She absolutely deserves a Pulitzer.
canuckistani
@r€nato:
The existence of legal gay marriage would teach children that homosexuality is "normal", and they would grow up in a world that permitted all forms of alternative lifestyles, and many of them would choose to be gay, and unwittingly condemn themselves to hell. That’s the theory, anyway. Don’t bother asking for evidence, that’s not how these people argue.
bootlegger
In a debate I had with a Catholic fundie (with an EdD of course) I sent him all the psychological, sociological, anthropological and pediatric evidence that kids grow up just fine in 2-parent households. "Rich lesbians," he says. "Best data we have," I say, "and only some of the samples are rich lesbians. But the data all points in that direction." He says, "no it doesn’t." Me, thinking I missed something, query "what data?" "Why the data on single parents," he says. "But they’re not single parents," said I. "Only one parent can be biological and therefore it is a single-parent household." The douchebags wouldn’t know evidence if it arrived in flaming bag on their front porch.
As for their "theory", I’ve also heard that allowing (privileging actually) anyone other than Adam and Eve to marry would "devalue" those hale and healthy hetero-marriages. So there you have it, Adam and Steve determine the worth of Adam (not related) and Eve’s relationship.
Theory? Only in the sense that my Uncle Arnie has a theory about why his underwear always rides up his crack.
TenguPhule
If Evangelical Priests can’t have happytime buttsex, neither can anybody else.
Objective Scrutator
If we had just executed gays under the law, Mr. Cizik wouldn’t have had to lose his job. This, in my mind, is the greatest tragedy. How can liberals allow such a political atmosphere exist that risks allowing Mr. Cizik to lose his job? Why are gay people more important than Mr. Cizik? These are all questions that must be asked.
Islamists, too, are also to blame. If the liberals would just let us throw them into concentration camps while we nuke Iran, then evangelical Christians, such as myself, would be pleased. Perhaps Mr. Cizik should have made a disparaging remark about the Islamists in response to a question about homosexuals.
Joshua Norton
So what about families where either one or neither parent is "biological", such as adoption, or step parents?
They can’t really perform any valid reasoning. Other than "we spend all our time thinking about it and it seems icky (but we really are dying to try it out ourselves, which is why we’re always thinking about it)".
HyperIon
I saw Richard Cizik on Bill Moyer’s Journal maybe a year ago discussing the topic "Is God green?" He is best known for making an argument that God actually wants his people to take care of the earth. Imagine!
There’s a good wiki article on him.
And remember, tonite Glennzilla will be on Bill Moyer’s Journal!
jake 4 that 1
Au contraire. There is at least one group (based in Virginia) that has agitated to place severe restrictions on divorce. No one pays any attention to them but I hope they spend a lot of time bugging the hell out the cretins who get elected by screaming about Family Values.
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Atanarjuat
Zifnab said:
Iranians are Persians, Zifnab — not Arabs. It seems your artificial multiculturalist mask just slipped a bit (not surprising, of course).
To everyone else: the obvious point MISSED by all of you who are cluelessly piling on to my prior comment is simply this: no matter how supposedly awful you claim evangelical Christians are toward gay people, they can not even begin to approach the depths of cruelty and horror that Iranian Muslims inflict on their own gay population with saddening regularity.
And yet you pretend that evangelicals in America are every bit as vile, and, given the chance, would do precisely what those Mideast madmen do to non-heterosexuals every single fucking day.
As a result, your manufactured outrage comes off as less than genuine. It’s just part of the same old "conservatives are bad" diatribe that seems to principally describe leftist ideology.
dbrown
I once belonged to an evangelical church and the minister who I thought was an honest minister and would admit when he had no idea what a passage meant, made the unforgivable sin of saying that Christ did not permit divorce and that people in the congregation should, at least consider getting back with their original spouse. He was thrown out within the week by all the members (especially the female ones) that were divorced (well over 50%!) I left the church shortly after this event both because they got rid of the minister and because I and the girl who was a member that I was dating had a falling out.
What I realized from this incident was that evangelicals don’t give a shit about value of marriage only that they can attack others that dare try and get married who would do a better job then they ever could.
As for the troll, and know-nothing Atanarjuat (as I learned from his refusial to support any of his claims) , he has only his ignorance to share and is best ignored.
Dreggas
@Atanarjuat:
To everyone else: the obvious point MISSED by all of you who are cluelessly piling on to my prior comment is simply this: no matter how supposedly awful you claim evangelical Christians are toward gay people, they can not even begin to approach the depths of cruelty and horror that Iranian Muslims inflict on their own gay population with saddening regularity.
Only because we have laws preventing the Talibaptists from doing so.
TenguPhule
Because given the chance, they would.
The only difference between the American Taliban and the other one is power and relative numbers.
Tattoosydney
@Fencedude:
This is the bind that the wingnut evangelicals find themselves in… (not that they ever see it as a bind).
Many of them crap on about protecting the sanctity of "marriage", and how it’s not about denying civil rights, and then when it is suggested that, in that case, civil unions would be the way to go, they have to retreat into admitting that it’s really and truly about stopping the gays getting any rights, because they’re icky with the bum sex and the men kissing each other …
On that note:
When my boyfriend and I have lived together for the statutory two years, we will have every single right that a married couple have… It’s not "marriage" but it’s pretty damn close…
and not a peep from the religious nuts…
Change, she is coming.
Tattoosydney
@Tattoosydney:
Ooops. Forgot linky for the article I quoted.
@r€nato:
Bum sex = icky. That’s the entire agenda, no matter how they try to dress it up.
Tattoosydney
@Atanarjuat:
Fred Phelps:
Stacy Harp:
Shall I go on?
Mike G
the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman
Actually the Bible endorses marriage between one man and many women; and if your wife isn’t fertile, impregnate one of your slave girls (Abraham).
Tonal Crow
@TenguPhule: You’ve nailed it. This "protect marriage from gays" crap is mostly about the religionists’ wallowing in the "Deadly Sin" of Envy.
Tonal Crow
@Mike G: Of course, the Bible endorses all kinds of nasty crap, including (but not limited to):
1. Slavery;
2. Murder of innocents (look up "Heshbon");
3. "The Lord’s" intervention to force a person who would obey His will to then disobey it, thus "justifying" that person’s slaughter and the slaughter of his people (look up "Heshbon" once again);
4. Gambling between "the Lord" and "Satan" over a certain person’s fidelity to "the Lord", resulting in torture for said person, and murder for his family (see the Book of Job).
Wanna make a religionist run in terror? Just open your Bible and make it clear that you know it well. They can’t stand that.
toujoursdan
Anyone who thinks that evangelical/fundamentalist Christians aren’t just as nasty as Islamic fundamentalists hasn’t been paying attention. The Christians who advocate that the Constitution is to be subservient to "Biblical Law" are talking about re-instituting parts of Leviticus, including specifically, the parts that advocate death for homosexuals. The Dominationist literature found in right-wing Christian circles makes it clear that gay people are a target.
H
I gotta object to you bringing my ummah into your issues. As a Muslim I am part of the ummah, which is to Islam as Christendom, you might say, is to Christianity. I happen to be a Muslim who fully supports gay marriage (because I fully support marriage, so get to it, guys & gals). all Muslims are part of the ummah, that term doesn’t refer to "mullahs" as one of the above commenters said, or to any sect or theological.ideological subset of us. It’s all of us. And you haven’t offended me, except possibly by the implication that I find gay marriage offensive. It’s late. Anyway, scratch the use of "ummah" in this context, OK? It’s kinda not, how you say, kosher.
Nancy Irving
Um, and how long has it been since Ted Haggard was the president of this outfit, LOL?
Bob P
Cizik has been freed! I hear that he has been legally separated from his wife for a very long time. Apparently he must have been worried he would get fired for getting a divorce. Low and behold he was pushed off the cliff anyway for supporting civil union. His work is better served somewhere else. Good luck Cizik!