Two must-see videos on Louie Giglio benediction controversy

1/11/2013 3:03pm by 45

First, CNN’s Carol Costello talks with Wayne Besen and a nutjob from the hate group Family Research Council about the anti-gay pastor Louie Giglio, who was going to give the benediction at the Obama inaugural, then apparently got un-invited.

Wayne does a fabulous job, pointing out that the FRC spokesman, Peter Sprigg, called for jailing gay people.  So that when he says it’s intolerant of people to not tolerate his intolerance, he’s stretching the truth a bit as “jailing people for being gay” is hardly a view we should be tolerant of.

Costello then weighs in about the way the Bible treated women, and the fact that there are various interpretations of the Bible.  Sprigg seems taken aback that someone would question his insane dogma.

Then Lawrence O’Donnell takes on the Louie Gigio controversy and does a great job:

Print FriendlyPrint
Tags: , , , , ,


@aravosis | Facebook | Google+. Editor of AMERICAblog, joint JD/MSFS from Georgetown, worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, and as a stringer for the Economist. A frequent TV pundit, he has been on The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline & Reliable Sources. Full bio and .

Share This Post
  • jayjonson

    See the blog by Claude Summers at glbtq.com, where he discusses Giglio as a spiritual terrorist. It is entitled “Louie Giglio and Ryan Andresen: A Reflection on Spiritual Terrorism.” Here is a link.

  • Goliard

    One problem I will point out with Mr. O’Donnell’s comments on the Bible … Many people do believe the Bible, but they view and interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. The New Testament would say that we are no longer under the law (Old Testament) but under grace. Jesus says in the gospel of John that people can diligently study the Bible and miss the entire point of it. And the bible does speak on the issue of slavery – both physical and spiritual. In Luke chapter 4, Jesus reads from the Old Testament prophet Isaiah about freeing prisoners and releasing the oppressed.

    Sin as an archery term means missing the mark. If we think of what is good and right and true and perfect and beautiful, then any reasonable person will admit that they miss the mark from time to time. The reality is, if you don’t believe that ANYTHING is a sin, and if you don’t believe that SIN as an entity even exists, then debating sin doesn’t make sense. But if you believe in the possibility of a God, and the possibility that a divine being might have values and purposes and understandings greater than ours, then you consider that anything that doesn’t line up with those is missing the mark. Most Christians believe that everyone misses the mark, and when we do, we contribute in some way to infection in the world. Even if I am a pretty likable, hard-working, compassionate fellow … my lies, my greed, my poor choices, all bring some bit of darkness into my life and into the lives of others. And Most Christians believe (fairy-taleish as it may sound) that the person of Christ redeems us and can bring good out of the most horrendous of circumstances, and that our lives are no longer about just fulfilling our dreams, but to fulfill His purposes in the world and the lives of all people. People who think that homosexuality is not part of God’s perfect design are not necessarily condemning people who identify themselves as homosexuals, just as in the same way that someone who does not believe in God or Jesus isn’t necessarily condemning those who do believe. Scripture is clear that all people are made in the image of God, so all people who believe scripture believe that all people have intrinsic value and worth. There are bigots in every camp, but we shouldn’t burn down the camp because of them.

    My first interactions with gay men were of them trying to molest me when I was a minor. It would have been easy for me to write off gay people as perverts and predators. I had the evidence. But I met some other gay people who were kind and compassionate and smart. So let’s try to stop bashing one another.

    • Mike_in_the_Tundra

      You were not molested by gay men. That’s plural, what were your parents doing to have you exposed to more than one? Were you an altar boy? They were pedophiles.

    • Don Chandler

      “But if you believe in the possibility of a God, and the possibility that a divine being might have values and purposes and understandings greater than ours, then you consider that anything that doesn’t line up with those is missing the mark”.–Your religion misses the mark. Your version of the bible misses the mark, just ask your neighbor. You have to allow for skeptics, even if I enjoy the sin of archery ;)

      The problem with your last paragraph is that you forget those men that have tried molesting underaged girls–you should remember that nobody is writing off straight people as pervert and predator…only as perverts–admit it. As hard as it might seem to you, it is commonsense to not judge a whole class of people by the actions of one person in that class.

    • Skeptical Cicada

      Cut the double-speak, bigot. You most certainly are condemning me and my partner for being gay. And after two-decades of committed monogamy–which is more than most straight people can ever manage–I have no intention of tolerating your bigoted, insulting, and defamatory personal attacks on my character, my family, and my very existence as a human being. You’re now getting judged back, get used to it, because there’s a lot more of it coming your way.

  • Dyank

    Man, having listened to multiple Louie Giglio sermons, I can definitely
    say he is not “anti-gay”. Anti-sin, sure (Which you would have to
    really disregard scripture and Jesus to argue against) Is homosexuality a
    sin? That’s the question. He believes so. But I have heard him say
    COUNTLESS times he is a sinner along with EVERYONE else on earth….so it isnt a gay issue it is a sin issue…that’s why Jesus came

    Greatest commandment is to love God and the
    second is like it, love your neighbor. Point blank: if any “Christian”
    is un-loving toward homosexuals, it goes against God. However, what is
    “un-loving”? Does that mean I have to accept and agree and promote a
    lifestyle that I wouldn’t agree with? I don’t think so. IF you would
    say I would have to do that…aren’t you committing the same “bigotry”
    towards me for not allowing me to have my world view? It is funny that a
    lot of the gay community goes up in arms, attacks people’s character
    (with or without knowing enough about the person) and says “you cant
    think that way”….which is acting with the same close mindedness that
    they accuse “all” Christians as having.

  • Dyank

    Man, having listened to multiple Louie Giglio sermons, I can definitely
    say he is not “anti-gay”. Anti-sin, sure (Which you would have to
    really disregard scripture and Jesus to argue against) Is homosexuality a
    sin? That’s the question. He believes so. But I have heard him say
    COUNTLESS times that he’s a sinner along with everyone else on earth. The Bible
    supports this claims so all have fallen short. So it isn’t a gay issue. it’s a sin issue….all paid for by Jesus.

    Greatest commandment is to love God and the
    second is like it, love your neighbor. Point blank: if any “Christian”
    is un-loving toward homosexuals, it goes against God. However, what is
    “un-loving”? Does that mean I have to accept and agree and promote a
    lifestyle that I wouldn’t agree with? I don’t think so. IF you would
    say I would have to do that…aren’t you committing the same “bigotry”
    towards me for not allowing me to have my world view? It is funny that a
    lot of the gay community goes up in arms, attacks people’s character
    (with or without knowing enough about the person) and says “you cant
    think that way”….which is acting with the same close mindedness that
    they accuse “all” Christians as having.

  • Guest

    Man, having listened to multiple Louie Giglio sermons, I can definitely say he is not “anti-gay”. Anti-sin, sure (Which you would have to really disregard scripture and Jesus to argue against) Is homosexuality a sin? That’s the question. He believes so. But I have heard him say COUNTLESS times that so is he and everyone else on earth. The Bible says that too.

    Greatest commandment is to love God and the second is like it, love your neighbor. Point blank: if any “Christian” is un-loving toward homosexuals, it goes against God. However, what is “un-loving”? Does that mean I have to accept and agree and promote a lifestyle that I wouldn’t agree with? I don’t think so. IF you would say I would have to do that…aren’t you committing the same “bigotry” towards me for not allowing me to have my world view? It is funny that a lot of the gay community goes up in arms, attacks people’s character (with or without knowing enough about the person) and says “you cant think that way”….which is acting with the same close mindedness that they accuse “all” Christians as having.

    • Stev84

      Oh evil us, not tolerating your intolerance. You can shove your sick “Christian Love” up your ass.

    • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

      Calling being LGBT a ‘sin’ and what humans presume to be against the will of an all-powerful deity is used as the justification for denying us basic human rights, including marriage, adoption, employment, and housing.

      That’s not love.

      • Naja pallida

        Assuming one person’s “sin” applies to everyone isn’t love either, it’s ridiculousness personified. The Bible doesn’t apply to me, I don’t believe in its tenets at all. So what it says means nothing to me. And no matter how much they want to impose it on me, they have no right to do so, and I have every right to continue to deny their bigoted nonsense.

        • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

          That’s among the reasons why I decided to reject it, too.

          • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

            It belongs in the 2-fer, after the newspaper runs out.

      • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

        These sin lovers always forget the ‘free will’ principle.

    • http://twitter.com/holybullies Holy Bullies

      You can believe what you want, but you need to own up to your nonsense. You seem to be under the impression that being gay is conduct rather than orientation. That’s the problem. You are so wrapped up in your own ego that you refuse to pay attention to anything but your inaccurate fevered imagination regarding homosexuality. And I might point out that not only did God Himself NEVER say a word about homosexuality but there is a story in the book of Judges (chapters 19 and 20) which refutes the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality. None of the words in Leviticus were uttered by God nor were the words in the New Testament which were allegedly about homosexuality. This is the problem I have with some American Christians. They are like sheep who think that if they study the BIble instead of having it spoonfed to them, God will strike them down. One more thing – u mention Jesus. Turns out He NEVER said a word about homosexuality either. Imagine that.

      • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

        A Jewish, thirty something unmarried son hanging out with a bunch of single hunks…just say’un.

        • FLL

          I’m glad someone said it. There is that disturbing quote from Jesus where he tells people when and how to beat their slaves (Luke 12: 47-48). But if people use the insight from your comment above, they could defend Jesus by saying the verse in Luke was a mistranslation. Jesus didn’t say to beat your slaves, he said to beat off your slaves. It all makes sense now. Phrasal verb trouble.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg Moderator4

      Posting three identical comments, two from one username and email, and the same comment from another username and email, is not acceptable. You are banned.
      (And two of your identical comments have been deleted, by the way.)

    • Don Chandler

      “Anti-sin, sure (Which you would have to really disregard scripture and Jesus to argue against)”

      If you want to test the veracity of an assertion, you look for discrepancies. You look at the source. The context, then and now. The rhetoric. Some of us have disregarded the scripture, not because we are gay, but because it is not compelling, Adam and Eve is a very interesting story, but evolution tells it the way it was…down and dirty, just like a heterosexual bedroom 99% of the time: “live and let live” is the rule. It’s the plank in the eye again. Use the bible to guide your own life. I don’t think I’m a malfunctioning human–I believe I have a unique perspective that allows the story of adam and eve to exist as a relevant story but not at the cost of greater truths. You can’t see the problem with Giglio’s words? Go live in under Islam for awhile. In this country, we have freedom of religion–thank god. You have to accept our right to disregard that which works for you, otherwise, you meddle in our affairs.

    • Skeptical Cicada

      To hell with your self-serving redefinition of “love,” which is nothing but you parading around shoving your bigotry down other people’s throats. After two decades of committed monogamy, I have no intention of tolerating your bigoted, insulting, and defamatory personal attacks on my character, my family, and my very existence as a human being. Sorry, bigot, but I won’t be fawning over your bigotry and validating it for you. You’re right. I won’t tolerate your anti-gay bigotry any more than I will tolerate anti-Semitic bigotry or racist bigotry or sexist bigotry.

  • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

    I liked O’Donnell’s piece very much. It’s true: Anybody who claims they believe that every single word in the Bible (first question, which translation?) is the literal Word of God and furthermore they believe in every single thing in there is a liar and a hypocrite.

    if they’ve done house or yard work on a Saturday (the actual Sabbath day) or ever held a job where they voluntary worked on that day, they’re supposed to be stoned to death. Adulterers such as Newt Gingrich should have been stoned to death, too, as soon as it became public knowledge that he cheated on his first wife. There should be no children in juvie detention because defiance of one’s parents also earns the death penalty. And as Lawrence points out, convicted prostitutes are supposed to be killed.

    McD’s, Burger King, In-and-Out, Wendy’s and every other fast food joint and restaurant serving cheeseburgers or pork should be shut down. Nearly all the clothing retailers should have their mixed-fabric inventory seized and burned. Men should be fined for cutting their hair or beards, and women…well, we already know that according to the Bible, women are property, and property doesn’t deserve rights like being able to vote or object to their husbands beating them. And a marriage without a bride-price or without offspring is considered to be no marriage at all.

    Nobody believes all of it, and nowadays it seems most don’t believe most of what’s in that ancient, often mistranslated book. But people think and believe that they do. And what people do believe is most often whatever supports their own world-view and preferences.

    It used to be the Bible was cited for supporting slavery — and it does do that. It was also used as justification for anti-miscegenation laws — and it could be seen as supporting that, too. Giglio uses it as his justification for believing that homosexual sex is evil and wrong, yet I’d wager anything if you asked him if he believed in slavery, or that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or own property, or if children should be put to death for defying their parents, he’d say no, he doesn’t think those things are right at all.

    Unfortunately there’s another truism about humans: We are capable of believing mutually contradictory things.

    • enkirby

      I appreciate your well-thought-out post. However, most of the points you’ve brought up refer solely to the Old Covenant that took place in the Old Testament. Christians are not bound by this covenant anymore. Yes, the laws in the Old Testament were harsh, but so were the laws in Hammurabi’s code(which also demanded the stoning of an adulterous spouse) in ancient Mesopotamia as well as Rome’s code of law. Slavery at the time of the Bible was very different from what it was recently. People became slaves to pay a debt to society, or an individual. They were released when the debt was paid. Just some thoughts…. If you really study the Bible for what it is without the bias of other affecting your judgement, there is no hypocrisy or inconsistencies.

      • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

        I have studied the Bible, extensively. You assume and presume a great deal.

        And if you’d like a fresh taste of all the rules and laws that continued, just read all those letters from Paul/Saul of Tarsus, including the bits where he admonishes slaves to be loyal to and obey their masters. True, there were forms of temporary slavery, but not if you were captured as a spoil of war or remanded into slavery by being sold or through judicial punishment. The children of slaves were not freed upon reaching adulthood. As for the dietary and appearance rules? There’s no indication Paul/Saul opposed or was in favor of rescinding any of them — and guess which portion of the New Testament is chock full of the same kinds of culturally-based rules to govern behavior as the Old? His various letters judging people for their faults as he himself saw them — contrary to Yeshua’s teachings that we should not be judging one another, that doing so is solely the province of God.

        You say Christians are not bound by the Old Testament covenant. Then why is it always Christians who want to put the Ten Commandments on public property? And who quote Abrahamaic law in Exodus and Leviticus when attempting to justify anti-gay animus?

        • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

          Thank you

      • Stev84

        Matthew 5:18

        But then, Christians routinely ignore large parts of the Bible they find inconvenient. Like Mathew 6:5-6

      • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

        wrong

      • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

        “If you really study the Bible for what it is without the bias of other affecting your judgement” What is the Bible?—a collection of tribal myth, customs, historical narrations, a pastiche of Babylonian court poetry and anti-Roman resistance. A bit of it is inspired–say Mathew and the Beatitudes, but most of it is raving nonsense and badly translated from the original texts at that. The idea that no critical analysis will lead to self fulfilling wishes for consistency is probably true. Blind faith is also a condition of propaganda. What you believe to be real about a divine magical collection of stories is only coincidentally true.

      • Naja pallida

        Doesn’t matter either way. Your Bible does not apply to me, nor anyone else who doesn’t consider themselves a Christian. The rules it lays out do not apply to the United States as a country either. That’s why we can wear cotton/poly blends, why bats are not birds, why we can eat shellfish, and why adultery is not illegal. Among many, many other things.

    • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

      Indeed, never underestimate the popularity of stupidity, or the success of mediocrity.

  • FunMe

    I don’t have a “lifestyle” … I have a life!!!! (Come on Lawrence, you should know better.)

    Homosexual? … it is GAY stupid!

    Thank goodness the HATEFUL bigot was kicked out of the benediction. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

      It’s too bad Lawrence is such an asshole, because he has a good mind and advanced views.

    • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

      I remember when my hateful brothers whined about my ‘lifestyle,’ and I could only retort: “what about bourgeois is any different than your lifestyle?

  • Don Chandler

    Enjoyed both videos. I’ve never given much attention to the bible and I’m not going to take orders from pastors or whatnot if their premise is biblical. The bible has never made much sense to me and as O’Donnell points out, no believers actually completely agree with the bible….or we’d all be executed. The fact is, this country separates church and state and i think it’s for the sake of reason.

    Since Voltaire is on the minds of some, from wiki: In a letter to Frederick II, King of Prussia, dated 5 January 1767 he wrote about Catholic Christianity of the time:

    “La nôtre [religion] est sans contredit la plus ridicule, la plus absurde, et la plus sanguinaire qui ait jamais infecté le monde.[38]
    (Ours [religion] is without a doubt the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and the most blood-thirsty ever to infect the world.)

    Interesting coming from a deist. He also felt that science had a role in religion and that religion had to change according to the science of the time.

  • FLL

    Lawrence O’Donnell’s takedown of hypocrisy is brilliant. We need to stop using the Christian Bible to administer oaths of office. It does look a little ridiculous for Michelle Obama, who is descended from slaves, to be holding a pro-slavery document for her husband to put his hand on while reciting the oath of office. Since the president is swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution, wouldn’t it make more sense for him to put his hand on a printed copy of the U.S. Constitution? I’m quite sure that over half the population of this country is what fundie Xtians refer to as “unchurched,” meaning functionally secular. Can we please throw this nonsense out the window? Please?

    • HolyMoly

      John Quincy Adams is the only president to my knowledge who did NOT use a Bible when taking the oath of office. He, like his father, was a very religious man, but he believed strongly in the Constitution and its “no religious test” clause.

      But to go further with your suggestion that he take the oath on the Constitution, I’ll expand on what O’Donnell said. This is, of course, my personal reflection, but I feel that Obama holds that document in contempt at best, what with his assassination programs, warrantless eavesdropping, and indefinite detention without charges. He doesn’t appear to believe much in THAT document, either.

      I say he should just raise his right hand and take the oath. Swear or affirm, whichever floats his boat.

      • FLL

        When I suggested that “the president” put his hand on a copy of the U.S. Constitution, I meant any president, that is to say, changing the custom for all future presidents. My comment was a very general one, and I didn’t really mean Obama specifically.

    • NCMan

      The President or any other elected official makes their own choice of what book, document, text, or nothing at all that they want to place their hand upon to take their oath of office. It is totally up to the person taking the oath. No one makes anyone put their hand on a Bible.

      • Stev84

        Yet if he chose anything other than a Bible there would be a shitstorm of epic proportions and we would hear about it for months.

        • NCMan

          Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress,
          found himself under attack last month when he announced he’d take his
          oath of office on the Koran — especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

          Yet the holy book at tomorrow’s ceremony has an unassailably
          all-American provenance. We’ve learned that the new congressman — in a
          savvy bit of political symbolism — will hold the personal copy once
          owned by Thomas Jefferson.

          “He wanted to use a Koran that was special,” said Mark Dimunation,
          chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library
          of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December.
          Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison’s 5th District, was happy to help.

          Jefferson’s copy is an English translation by George Sale
          published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of
          Jefferson’s collection and has his customary initialing on the pages.
          This isn’t the first historic book used for swearing-in ceremonies —
          the Library has allowed VIPs to use rare Bibles for inaugurations and
          other special occasions.

      • FLL

        I’m not suggesting that Obama use the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita. How about using nothing at all? Just raise your right hand and take the oath? I think that’s reasonable.

    • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

      We often disagree FLL, but there are times, when you are brilliant.

  • Peter

    Powerful piece by O’Donnell. But I do grow tired of hearing the term “lifestyle” applied to gay people. Living in the suburbs is a lifestyle. Following a macrobiotic diet is a lifestyle. One chooses one’s lifestyle. Being gay is not a lifestyle. This whole “lifestyle” thing has always been — and continues to be — used by people to demean and discriminate against gays and it bothers me when O’Donnell uses the term. He should know better.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-L-Greenlee/1269130691 James L. Greenlee

      I’m pretty sure we got saddled with “lifestyle” due to the euphimisms we used to have to use, especially in personals sections of newspapers. In the 70s, there were “alternative lifestyles” sections. It is tired and played out, and unfortunately sometimes used by allies or even gays themselves. I wish we could ditch it, along with “that’s so gay.”

      • BillFromPA

        The late, great George Carlin had a thing against the phrase ‘lifestyle’. He once said, ‘If you think about it, the most you could say about Genghis Khan is that he lived a vigorous, outdoor lifestyle.’

    • http://www.rebeccamorn.com/mind BeccaM

      I concur. ‘Lifestyle’ is a word deliberately used to demean, trivialize, and push the false meme that homosexuality is a choice, as if it’s simply a matter of willpower not to be attracted to members of your same gender. It’s also the connotative gateway that then enables the bigots to go on to claim that acting on those attractions is inherently wrong and evil.

© 2013 AMERICAblog. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS