Yesterday we noted that a gaggle of right-wing powerbrokers had lined up behind Ken Blackwell's candidacy for RNC chair and his performance at yesterday's debate seems to have placed him among the front-runners for the position.

And Tony Perkins, who runs the Family Research Council where Blackwell serves as a senior fellow, is doing his part to help him get elected, issuing press releases endorsing him and touting his qualifications to right-wing news outlets:

"The party is at a turning point right now where its first really open election of a party chairman is taking place," notes Perkins. "And Ken Blackwell is probably the most qualified in terms of his background of being elected to statewide office three times in Ohio, having worked with the U.N. [on] the Human Rights Commission."

And while Blackwell has "done a whole lot in his political career," Perkins emphasizes that the former university administrator and educator is also a solid conservative -- "one who understands the importance of faith and family and freedom, [and] lower taxes," he adds.

Since losing his own bid for Governor of Ohio in 2006, Blackwell has kept a rather low profile and more or less refrained from making bold public proclamations decrying gays like he did during his campaign when he was travelling the state with Rod Parsley - so maybe now would be a good time to remind ourselves of some of the remarks Blackwell made before he decided he wanted to be RNC chair:

In a newspaper interview Sunday, the Republican candidate for Ohio's governorship, J. Kenneth Blackwell, compared gay people to arsonists and kleptomaniacs who can be "changed." The religious conservative and current secretary of state made the controversial remarks in a question-and-answer session with The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio's largest paper.

"I think homosexuality is a lifestyle, it's a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed," Blackwell said in response to the question "Is homosexuality a sin, and can gays be cured?" according to published transcripts. "I think it is a transgression against God's law, God's will."

He continued: "The reality is, again...that I think we make choices all the time. And I think you make good choices and bad choices in terms of lifestyle. Our expectation is that one's genetic makeup might make one more inclined to be an arsonist or might make one more inclined to be a kleptomaniac. Do I think that they can be changed? Yes."

And who could ever forget this gem from 2004:

Ohio's Secretary of State is coming out strong in support of Issue One, the measure that would ban same-sex marriage. Kenneth Blackwell spoke to an energized crowd at the Cathedral of Praise Tuesday night.

Blackwell said it's time for people of God to take a stand. He even drew a comparison between same-sex couples and farm animals. "I don't know how many of you have a farming background but I can tell you right now that notion even defies barnyard logic ... the barnyard knows better," said Blackwell referring to the idea of same-sex marriage.

Blackwell was joined by Pastor Rod Parsley, president of The Center for Moral Clarity. The two men are traveling across the state trying to rally support for Issue One. News 11 contacted Secretary Blackwell's office today for further explanation. His press secretary issued the following statement on Blackwell's behalf: "Part of the function of marriage is to reproduce the human race and same-sex marriage cannot carry out that function."

This man now wants to lead the Republican Party and so it comes as no surprise that the professional anti-gay activists like Perkins, Dobson, and their ilk are lining up to ensure that he does.

On yesterday's broadcast of Focus on the Family's radio program, guest host Frank Pastore was joined by Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer to discuss the threat that Christians will soon find themselves under in this country thanks to the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told Pastore they are both concerned about what's on the line as Barack Obama takes office.

Perkins said the battle over marriage is on center stage.

"We have an administration that supports the redefinition of marriage in many, many ways," he said. "We’ve got a number of issues that are going to be coming out of Washington. The Defense of Marriage Act, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, hate crimes are all going to be on the table right after the Obama administration begins."

Bauer described the situation as a "witch's brew."

"You’ve got people in government, willing to use the force of law to push the radical gay-rights agenda," he said, "and you’ve got a gay-rights movement that is willing to use the tactics of intimidation in the streets of America to silence those that would dare oppose them." 

Perkins went on the warn that liberals "ultimately want to take away the voice of American citizens, primarily those of religious faith" while Bauer proclaimed that "if we lose this [fight over marriage equality], the next generation of American children will be taught about family and about normal relationships between men and women in a way that will completely distort God's plan for mankind and that is something that I think would be devastating for our culture, for our families, and certainly for our country."

After discussing about the dangers they face from issues like FOCA and the Fairness Doctrine, Perkins warned "don't let your guard down ... [or] we will lose these precious freedoms" while Bauer closed with a call to arms:

This is probably the one thing that listeners should take away from this show: you can't take for granted the right to hold these views any more. You're going to have to stand up ... if they go down the road on these issues, I believe [that] with all of our passion, all of our intelligence and all of the freedom that the founders gave to us, we need to resist.

With Barack Obama’s inauguration just around the corner, it looks like anti-choice activists are swinging into high gear:

Beginning January 1, the Christian Defense Coalition will lead prayer for President-Elect Obama outside of the White House every day at 12:00 noon until the Inauguration.

The group will close with a large prayer vigil on the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. National Holiday on Monday, January 19 at noon.

The Christian Defense Coalition is encouraging the faith community to pray for Mr. Obama at noon in their homes, churches and local communities all across the nation.

That sounds rather innocuous, but the Baltimore Sun reports that, like every other CDC event, there is more to it than meets the eye:

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, will be going on a 21-day fast and hunger strike to pray for and "stand in solidarity and identify with the homeless, poor and disenfranchised of America, as well as the 50 million innocent victims of abortion."

Considering that Mahoney is a tireless anti-choice crusader, it’s pretty safe to assume that his efforts are aimed more at ending abortion than helping the homeless.  

But Mahoney is not alone is seeing the upcoming inauguration as an opportunity to press his anti-choice ideology:

Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said today that African Americans celebrating the upcoming inauguration of President-Elect Barack Obama should carry a pro-family agenda to Washington, DC.

"African Americans are pro-life and favor procreative marriage," said Dr. King.  "As we see the dawn of a new year and a great milestone being passed, blacks across the country should let our new president know that we want babies in the womb protected and traditional marriage respected.  The accomplishment of an African American holding the nation's highest office will be of little value if the black community continues to be destroyed by the horrible plague of abortion."

Tips-Q raises a good point – when did the Religious Right start replacing their standard “traditional marriage” with “procreative marriage”?

But nobody in the anti-choice movement seems to be as excited about the opportunity they believe they will have to highlight the evils of abortion under Barack Obama as Clenard Childress, who proclaims the incoming president to be the face of black genocide:

Clenard Childress Jr., senior pastor of New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, N.J., and founder of BlackGenocide.org, criticizes Obama's pro-abortion voting record and rhetoric but says, "The good thing about an Obama presidency is that we now have a face to put on the genocide of African-American babies in this country."

In fact, it looks like anti-choice adovcates are now embarking on an effort to specifically target African American communities:

Georgia Right to Life is pleased to announce that Catherine Davis will be leading GRTL in outreach efforts to the African American community. In 2006, Catherine Davis ran for the 4th District Congressional Candidate because she had a desire to impact her community. Now just a few years later, she will have that opportunity by helping GRTL to preserve the legacy of the African American community ... As the new director of minority outreach for GRTL, Catherine will work to dramatically decrease the number of abortions while educating Georgians about the holocaustic impact this practice has had on the Black community.

Right after the election, we wrote about many of the people mentioned here when they simultaneously announced that they intended to form an anti-abortion resistance movement once Obama took office … and it looks like that is exactly what they are setting out to do.

Ed Whelan has a piece in the latest edition of The National Review that has been posted on the Ethics and Public Policy Center website in which he hails the “appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito as two of [President Bush’s] best decisions” before launching into the by-now standard Republican complaint that Bush’s judicial nominees faced unprecedented obstruction at the hands of Democrats: 

President Bush's record on lower-court appointments is much more mixed. Let's begin with the numbers. Bush appointed 62 judges to the federal courts of appeals. That's even fewer than the 65 that President Clinton appointed, amidst bitter Democratic complaints and media buzz about a confirmation slowdown by Senate Republicans. Bush's total also includes three of Clinton's unsuccessful nominees whom Bush renominated -- two in 2001 in unrequited gestures of goodwill, and one in 2008 as part of a Sixth Circuit deal. The numbers for the federal district courts are even worse: 261 Bush appointees versus 305 Clinton appointees. The Bush numbers are all the more disappointing as Republicans controlled the Senate for more than half of the Bush presidency, whereas Clinton enjoyed Democratic control for only two of his eight years.

Back in October, I tried to debunk this sort of misleading comparison by noting that one cannot accurately compare confirmation rates by simply citing the total number of judges confirmed – rather, one must compare the overall percentage of nominees confirmed to get an accurate comparison; and by that measure, President Bush’s nominees fared better than did President Clinton’s.  But since this claims keeps popping up, I suppose I should re-post my last explanation … and considering that there do not appear to have not been any new nominations or confirmations since I first wrote it, the numbers are still accurate:

According to CRS, President Reagan put forth a total of 423 District and Circuit Court nominees and saw 375 of them confirmed; a confirmation rate of 88%. President Clinton, by contrast, put forth more nominees and had fewer confirmed:  372 of 488, for a confirmation rate of 76%. 

In comparison, according to the White House’s own figures cited in the Washington Post article above, “324 of 376 federal court nominees have been confirmed during Bush's tenure.”  That gives him a confirmation rate of 86%, well above President Clinton’s confirmation rate.  In fact, for Bush to lower his confirmation rate to match that of Clinton, he'd have to nominate another 50 or so judges before he leaves office in a few months.

Despite relying on the use of raw confirmation totals instead of the more accurate confirmation rates, Whelan deserves credit for using correct figures and overall having a solid understanding of the issue. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Texas Eagle Forum which, as the Texas Freedom Network notes, has jumped into the fray regarding the selection of the next Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives by likening those who are not supporting their preferred right-wing choice to the senators who “stifled President Bush’s court appointments”: 

Remember how the “gang of 12″ US Senators stifled President Bush’s court appointments? This type of renegade politics is now being practiced by a “gang of 11″ TX State Representatives concerning the election of the next Speaker of the House.

Do you remember the “Gang of 12”?  I sure don’t … though I do remember the “Gang of 14.”  It seems to me that if you are trying to rile up your supporters by likening current events to one of the Right’s bitterest memories, the least you can do is be sure to get the name right.

It’s the beginning of the year, so you know that that means:  Pat Robertson is back with his report on what God told him to expect in this coming year during his annual prayer retreat:

Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, announced at his staff's annual prayer retreat that God told him Americans would embrace socialism in 2009 "in order to relieve their pain" and that the economy would rebound under an Obama administration.

"The Lord said the economy of your nation will recover," Robertson told a group assembled at Founders Inn on the campus of Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., a university Robertson founded.

Robertson said God also declared, "The steps taken will lead to a dramatic increase in the power of government. The people will welcome socialism in order to relieve their pain. Nothing will stand in the way of a plan by Obama to restructure the economy in the same fashion as the New Deal in the '30s."

…

Socialist policies and massive government spending, Robertson told Meeuwsen, could lead to heavy hyperinflation, sending prices through the roof and the value of the dollar through the floor.

"The Lord said the dollar is going to go down dramatically," Robertson said in the interview. "If I'm hearing him right, gold will go to about $1900 dollars an ounce and oil to $300 a barrel."

Conveniently, CBN has posted the entire segment on YouTube for easy viewing, so you can listen for yourself as Robertson informs his audience that "Islam is weakening" and that poverty and misery will become so widespread that it will lead ten of millions to Christ:

Since they began the segment by highlighting a few instances where Robertson’s 2008 predictions proved correct, it only seems fair for us to remind everyone of his dire 2007 predictions when he warned that God had told him to expect a massive terrorist attack on US cities that would kill “possibly millions of people.”

Over the weekend, a gaggle of Right Wing powerbrokers came out in support of Ken Blackwell’s candidacy to become the next chairman of the Republican National Committee, announcing that they “intend to contact grassroots conservatives across the country and ask them to urge the three RNC members from each state and U.S. territory to vote for Ken Blackwell for RNC chairman.”  The list of those endorsing Blackwell is a veritable who’s who of the Religious Right and conservative movements, including James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, Tim LaHaye, Pat Toomey: 

Gary Aldrich, Chairman, CNP Action Inc.

Morton C. Blackwell, Virginia Republican National Committeeman

Robert B. Bluey, Contributing Editor, RedState

L. Brent Bozell, Founder and President, Media Research Center

Kellyanne Conway, CEO and President, the polling company, inc./WomanTrend

T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., Former Domestic Adviser to President Reagan

James C. Dobson, Ph.D., Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family

Becky Norton Dunlop, President, Council for National Policy

Stuart W. Epperson, Chairman, Salem Communications Corp.

Steve Forbes, Chairman & CEO, Forbes Media

Dr. Ronald Godwin, Vice Chancellor, Liberty University

Rebecca Hagelin, Author and Conservative Columnist

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union

Tim LaHaye, Founder and President, Tim LaHaye Ministries

Ed Meese, Past President, Council for National Policy

James C. Miller, Past President, Council for National Policy

Tony Perkins, President Family Research Council

Ken Raasch, Chairman & CEO, Creative Brands Group

Alfred S. Regnery, Publisher, The American Spectator

Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

Interestingly, one name that doesn’t appear on the list is Rod Parsley who, as we’ve noted before, has a deep and very public connection to Blackwell.  Perhaps Parsley is a little gun-shy about issuing endorsements considering that the last time he did so, it ended with his humiliating rejection.

Back before the holidays, I came across a press release on Christian Newswire from Steve McConkey of Underground Apologetics blasting Focus on the Family for posting a short interview with Glenn Beck about his new book "The Christmas Sweater."  McConkey was outraged that Focus dared to post the interview without mentioning that Beck is Mormon and that “Mormonism is a cult”:   

While Glenn's social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not. Clearly, Mormonism is a cult. The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck's Mormon faith, however, the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith.

Through the years, Focus on the Family has done great things to help the family and has brought attention to the many social ills that are attacking the family.

However, to promote a Mormon as a Christian is not helpful to the cause of Jesus Christ. For Christians to influence society, Christians should be promoting the central issues of the faith properly without opening the door to false religions.

At the time, I ignored the press release because it seemed like just another example of a relatively unknown and unimportant fringe right-wing figure trying to gin up some press for himself … but it turns out that McConkey’s gripes apparently had more influence than I had realized as Focus subsequently pulled the interview from its website:

James Dobson's Focus on the Family ministry has pulled from its CitizenLink Web site an article about talk show host Glenn Beck's book "The Christmas Sweater" after some complained that Beck's LDS faith is a "cult" and "false religion" and shouldn't be promoted by a Christian ministry.

When contacted Friday, a Focus on the Family worker at the ministry in Colorado Springs, Colo. confirmed that the article had been pulled …

For his part Beck is none-too-pleased with Focus’s “censorship” while the organization insists that McConkey’s attack had nothing to do with its decision to yank the article:  

Focus on the Family got to work this week in explaining in detail why it pulled from its website an interview with a Mormon author.

“We intended no insult,” expressed ministry spokesman Gary Schneeberger, in a statement. “[W]e merely miscalculated on how best to feature Glenn [Beck], whom we greatly appreciate.”

…

Beck, however, maintains that the book's message can be and has been embraced by people of different faiths and should not be “censored” because of his own personal religious views. The book tells the narrative of a boy named Eddie who embarks on a dark and painful journey on the road to manhood.

“The Christmas Sweater is a story about the idea of Christmas as a time for redemption and atonement,” Beck expressed in a released statement after the interview was pulled from Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink website.

“Whatever your beliefs about my religion, the concept of religious tolerance is too important to be sacrificed in response to pressure from special interest groups, especially when it means bowing to censorship,” he added.

According to Schneeberger, however, Focus on the Family could not intimate to its evangelical base that the differences in Mormon faith and the historic evangelical faith are inconsequential.

“We can, and do, gladly cooperate with friends outside of the evangelical heritage on common causes; but in no case do we intend to alter our clear distinction as unwaveringly grounded in evangelical theology,” he explained.

But Schneeberger made sure to also distance the ministry from another that had strongly rebuked it for the article’s posting.

“[W]e do not condone the tone of communications put out from UnderGround Apologetics,” he clarified, referring to the controversial apologetics ministry that spoke out against Focus on the Family last week. “And we can without reservation say that the group's news release had nothing to do with our decision to pull the article from publication."

Neil Macdonald of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a piece up on CBCNews about the Rick Warren controversy that contains an interesting nugget, not about Warren, but Richard Land:

Warren has compared gay marriage to legitimizing incest, child abuse and polygamy.

Some of his colleagues go further. Richard Land, a high official at the Southern Baptist Convention, the evangelical stream with which Saddleback Church is associated, told me once during an interview that he thinks gay sex should be illegal.

I came across this article earlier, but didn't think any element of it warranted a blog post:

A Florida woman says she was fired from her job for refusing to comply with a policy requiring employees to say "Happy Holidays" to callers ...Tonia Thomas says she was terminated two weeks ago from her job at Counts Oakes Resort Properties in Panama City after balking at the rule because it went against her religion. She is suing for lost wages, she said.

Thomas offered to use a generic greeting or say "Merry Christmas" to callers instead, but that offer was denied by company President Andy Phillips, according to the Liberty Counsel — the Christian-based legal group representing her.

My first thought upon reading this was that there had to be more to this story - the company in question insists that Thomas was dismissed for other reasons - but that probably won't stop the Religious Right from seizing on this episode as further proof that there is a "War on Christmas/War on Christians."

Then I came across this article in CNS based on a report from the Catholic League claiming that there have been nearly 30 documented episodes of anti-Christmas vandalism and violence in recent weeks.  Among the instances cited is this:

[I]n Riverside, Calif., a pastor was brutally beaten and robbed behind his church as he went to a supply room to get a Christmas bulb.

According to The Press Enterprise, 49-year-old Pastor James Dennis Warman was struck repeatedly in the head by two assailants on Dec. 7. He is now in a medically induced coma and not able to speak, and he may have brain damage, according to his wife, Mendy Warman.

Apparently the Right is chalking this assault up to rapid anti-Christmas sentiment ... while the local police are treating it as an act of robbery:

Along with his wife and daughter, James Dennis Warman stopped by the Base Line Rd. church to finish his sermon for Sunday morning, but figured he'd also fix a broken bulb on the Christmas tree. He walked out the back door to retrieve a replacement from storage. Then his family heard a scream - two robbers were attacking the 49-year-old elementary school teacher with a blunt object, repeatedly striking his head.

...

As Warman lay defenseless on the ground, bleeding, his wife ran at the attackers with a bass guitar she had found by the back door. Finally they ran off, taking the victim's wallet ... "I don't think they were lying in wait for him," sheriff's Sgt. Don Lupear said of the suspects. "But I think it was a crime of opportunity, which was bad."

While there is absolutely no justification for claiming that this has anything at all to do with the supposed "war on Christmas," apparently the Right is intent on going ahead and doing exactly that.

Personally, I don't really want to know the inspiration behind this latest column from Dennis Prager:

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

Prager goes on to list a variety of reasons why wives should have sex with their husbands whenever it is requested - not one of which seems to take the woman's desires, feelings, or reasons into consideration:

Compared to most womens sexual nature, mens sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual natures desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman.

We can only look forward to next week's installment of Prager's rather disturbing foray into marital counseling:

In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a womans determining whether she has sex with her husband.

Maybe Prager ought to just marry Phyllis Schlafly, since they seem to share similar views on this subject.

In was just a few months ago when the Wall Street Journal published this op-ed explaining that President Bush was really just like Batman:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

Apparently, the ridicule they received for that has now died down enough that the paper felt bold enough to unveil its newest absurd comparison - Sarah Palin is a lot like Margaret Thatcher:

[A]s it happens, I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common ... Mrs. Palin has a long way to go to match [Thatcher]. Circumstances may never give her the chance to do so. Even if she gets that chance, she may lack Mrs. Thatcher's depths of courage, firmness and stamina -- we only ever know such things in retrospect.

But she has plenty of time, probably eight years, to analyze America's problems, recruit her own expert advice, and develop conservative solutions to them. She has obvious intelligence, drive, serious moral character, and a Reaganesque likability. Her likely Republican rivals such as Bobby Jindal and Mitt Romney, not to mention Barack Obama, have most of these same qualities too. But she shares with Mrs. Thatcher a very rare charisma. As Ronnie Millar, the latter's speechwriter and a successful playwright, used to say in theatrical tones: She may be depressed, ill-dressed and having a bad hair day, but when the curtain rises, out onto the stage she steps looking like a billion dollars. That's the mark of a star, dear boy. They rise to the big occasions.

Whatever ... I wonder how this flattering comparison ranks against her recent honor of being named Human Event's Conservative of the Year?

And speaking of Palin, the Ancorage Daily News reports that contrary to earlier report, she has not yet agreed to attend this year's CPAC:

Now the 2009 convention is just two months away, and Palin is expected to speak to the thousands of conservative activists and college students that attend each year, director Lisa De Pasquale said in a phone interview Monday.

A Palin spokesman said it's no sure thing.

...

But Palin spokesman Bill McAllister said Palin has merely been invited and that she has not confirmed. "It's not scheduled, she's not told them yes."

Ad Age reports that Campbell's Soup has placed an ad in The Advocate that "showcases the female proprietors of a Manhattan restaurant and a young boy basking over the warm hue of a box of Swanson's. The accompanying text identifies the women as a couple and the boy as their son."

And because no company in America is allowed to admit that some of its customers might be gay and therefore advertise to them, the American Family Association has swung into action:

Campbell Soup Company has openly begun helping homosexual activists push their agenda. Not only did the ads cost Campbell's a chunk of money, but they also sent a message that homosexual parents constitute a family and are worthy of support. They also gave their approval to the entire homosexual agenda.

TAKE ACTION

* Send an email to Campbell Soup Company President Douglas Conant. Tell him you want his company to stop supporting the gay agenda.
* After sending your email, please call Campbell Soup Company (800-257-8443) and their Swanson division (1-800-442-7684) and ask the company to remain neutral in the culture war.
* Forward this e-mail to your friends and family so they will know about Campbell's support of the gay agenda.

Fortunately, Ad Age reports that the company appears to have no intention of caving to the AFA's pressure:

Campbell made no apologies for the series of ads, which it said is its first in any LGBT publication, and instead took a decisive stance on the criticism. "Our position on this is pretty straightforward," said company rep Anthony Sanzio. "Inclusion and diversity play an important role in our business, and that fact is reflected in our marketing plan. For more than a century, people from all walks for life have enjoyed Campbell's products, and we will continue to try to communicate in ways that are meaningful and relevant to them."

He added: "Our plans for the Swanson brand include additional placements in The Advocate."

Now that Saddleback has stripped its anti-gay language from its website, Pastor Rick Warren appears in a new video to Saddleback Church members to set the record straight.  In the video, Warren blames the controversy that has erupted over his inclusion in Barack Obama's Inauguration on a) the media, which always tries to generate controversy  and b) "bloggers who really need to get a life. A lot of people think that because they can sit in the quietness of their own home and hide behind the screen, they can hurl all kinds of bombs at people and get away with it.  Well, no - they are just being rude." 

Warren goes on to say that he has never equated gay relationships to incest or pedophilia, but understands how some people might think that based on his recent Beliefnet interview.   Warren attempts to clarify, declaring that his point was merely to make clear his opposition to attempts to change the definition of marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman.

Warren then explains his views of gays: 

Gay partnerships are typically between consenting adults.  While I believe that the gay view of sexuality is contrary to God's word, I do believe that God gives us free choice. He gives us the choice to obey his word or disobey it .  And you know what, God has given me that choice? He's given me the free will that I can choose to follow him, and his ways, his rules, and his precepts, or I'm free to not follow them.  And because of that, I believe I must give everybody else that same freedom of choice. I'm opposed to forcing people to act the way I believe I ought to act - that's not what it's about.  It what I believe God wants me to act and it's the way I believe God wants other people to act, but God has given me the choice and there have been times that I didn't act the way God wanted me to act.

He concludes that the Bible commands him to love everyone "regardless of the choice they make" and that while "we're all free to make choices, I think gays should use another term for their consenting adult relationships and partnerships - I oppose the redefinition of the meaning of marriage." 

In a separate video, Warren says they will respond to all the "hate speech" he and his church have received by "overcoming evil with good" and says they are being targeted because of "Christ-ophobia" and "people who are afraid of any Christian."

Last week when we first noted that Rick Warren had been tapped to deliver the Invocation at Barack Obama's Inauguration, we complained that, despite the fact that we and others continually point out that "Rick Warren is really just a friendlier version of James Dobson, his media-driven reputation as some sort of 'moderate' evangelical preacher continues to win out."

Case in point: this new article by the AP's Rachel Zoll. In it, she explains that Warren really is different from the traditional Religious Right leaders because his "biggest critics [are] other evangelicals" ... and then proceeds to fail to name even one of those supposed critics while suggesting that the mere existence of this unspecified criticism proves Warren's centrism and moderation: 

Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

The pastor chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to give the inaugural invocation backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California. But he did so belatedly, with none of the enthusiasm he brings to fighting AIDS and illiteracy.

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

For gay rights advocates, that strategy was nothing more than an attempt to mask Warren's prejudice. They were outraged that Obama decided last week to give a place of honor to a pastor they consider a general for the Christian right.

Lost in the uproar was the irony of Warren's plight. Ever since he began his climb to prominence in the 1980s, he has battled complaints from fellow evangelicals that he isn't nearly conservative enough.

...

It is no surprise that he and Obama have become friendly. Each tries to operate outside a strict liberal-conservative divide, and has risked angering his supporters to do so.

"You can't have a reformation without somebody opposing it," Warren says. "If I wasn't making a difference, nobody would be paying attention."

Of course, as we pointed out last week, both the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family were thrilled with the announcement that Warren was to be part of the Inauguration ... that that list we can also add Richard Land:

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, applauded Obama for choosing Warren.

"I'm encouraged that President-elect Obama would select Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration," Land told Baptist Press. "First, it is a signal that President-elect Obama is going to employ a big-tent philosophy in his administration's approach to people who may disagree with them on some issues, but not others. His selection of Rick Warren indicates that people who disagree with the president-elect on sanctity of life issues are not automatically persona non grata at the White House in an Obama administration. It also indicates that the president-elect is not buying the radical homosexual activists' argument that anyone who opposes them on the gay marriage issue should be ostracized as a bigot."

If Zoll is going to write an article claiming that Warren is moderate because he has received criticism for not being conservative enough, the least she can do is actually include some examples of people leveling that criticism ... maybe from someone like fringe crackpot Joseph Farah:

I'm writing to share my profound and abject revulsion at your agreement to offer the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as president Jan. 20.

I understand you want this to be a time of "healing" for our nation. I understand you consider Obama to be your "friend." I understand your desire to bring "civility" to our society.

However, when we read the Bible, we see there are times for men of God to stand up to leaders, like Nathan did to King David, and confront them with the absolute truth of God's word and His laws. That's what all Christians should do when confronted with leaders embracing evil.

...

I'm sure you would not want to invoke God's blessing on the inauguration of a figure like Adolf Hitler, whose rise to power brought the destruction of millions of lives.

So, in principle, you agree there is a time for believers to stand up to elected leaders and rebuke them – even publicly. Apparently, you don't believe that time is now – that the deaths of untold numbers of born and unborn babies is not justification enough for such a stance.

Obviously, Farah and his ilk who have criticized Warren in the past hail from the far-right fringes of the Religious Right movement, but apparently that is enough for Zoll to declare that it proves Warren's moderation - so much so that she can completely ignore the fact that current Religious Right leaders like FRC, FOF, and Land see Obama's decision to include Warren as a welcome sign for their own political agenda.

If Warren really did represent some sort of new, more moderate evangelical movement, presumably the current Religious Right powerbrokers would be throwing a fit over Warren's role in the Inauguration, rather than welcoming it as an encouraging sign.

KCMB in Kansas City, MO has this story about a Catholic school pulling two books about Barack Obama from its library - see if you can follow this logic: 

A reverend at a Blue Springs parish and school has removed two books about President-elect Barack Obama from the Catholic school's library.

The Rev. Ron Elliott at St. John LaLande School said someone complained about the content of the books, and he wanted to review them.

In a phone interview, the reverend told KMBC he was concerned about Obama's position on abortion.

"I am very pro-life," Elliott told KMBC's Maria Antonia. "Because of his stance on certain issues, I was asked to look into that matter."

Elliott said the books he pulled were printed shortly before Obama was elected president.

Elliott said he has read the books and didn't find anything wrong with them. He said he will put the books back on the shelf in February or March, "after the dust kind of settles."

In a different article, Elliott admits there the two books in question are written for elementary school students and contain absolutely nothing anyone could find objectionable, but he still removed them from the library just to be safe and plans on keeping them away from students for another few months:

He said the slender books, written on an elementary level, covered Obama’s childhood up to his nomination for president. Elliot, who said he is strongly anti-abortion, noted it is his responsibility as pastor to respond when concerns are raised, given Obama’s pro-abortion-rights stance.

“They don’t begin to touch on that. They don’t touch on anything controversial at all,” Elliott said. “They’re just about him growing up, with pictures of him smiling.”