Louie Giglio and ‘the right to hold differing views’
I’ve never been to Louie Giglio’s church. But I drive past it every Sunday on the way to the church I do attend.
Passion City Church meets in a building that once was home to a Home Depot Expo and a PGA Tour Superstore. If you aren’t familiar with the site, one thing you ought to know is it has the kind of enormous parking lot you’d expect for a mega-box store – and that it’s filled to capacity each week as volunteers and traffic cops direct the flow of motorists, pedestrians from the nearby Lindbergh MARTA station, and the shuttles that ferry still more worshippers to Giglio’s church.
You also ought to know that, for a couple of months last year, there were fewer parking spaces available than usual. That’s because part of the pavement was occupied by a gigantic statue of an arm and hand reaching skyward — I’m talking about 103-feet-tall gigantic — with, among other messages, “Indifference Is Not an Option” written on it.
“Indifference” to human trafficking and slavery, that is. That cause is the one that led the presidential inaugural committee on Tuesday to reveal Giglio would give the benediction when Barack Obama is sworn in for his second term on Jan. 21.
Giglio’s place in the program lasted all of two days. On Thursday, he and the committee announced a mutual parting of ways, after a liberal blog reported some comments Giglio made about the gay-rights movement in a sermon some 15 years ago.
Fighting human trafficking has become a popular cause among evangelical Christians in recent years,working with global outfits such as Stop the Traffik and local ones such as Street Grace. I’m sure the inaugural committee could find another pastor actively working against this evil – though probably not many who attract tens of thousands of young people and raise millions of dollars to support the movement, as Giglio does, not even counting what happens at his church on Sundays.
There probably are not many, as well, who can get the attention of the president of the United States with a petition signed by 72,000 people, many of whom very likely did not vote for him, asking him to join their cause. Giglio did.
This is the promise Barack Obama offered Americans, even those who didn’t vote for him, when he was first elected: a purple America, a country in which people came together in the name of those things they agreed upon, and not just in opposition to those they didn’t.
That promise has faded — and, to be fair, that’s hardly the fault of Obama alone. The selection of Giglio, for the fight he and his flock share with others in spite of the biblically based beliefs they may not, was at least one reason to wonder if that promise might not be renewed.
Instead, the objections won out.
The irony is that, by all accounts I’ve come across, Giglio deliberately has not emphasized the standard culture-war issues during his pastoral career. It’s one reason he focuses on human trafficking instead.
Evidently, that’s not good enough. Evidently, lifelong purity of thought is required not only of those who live under our country’s big political tents, but anyone who might pay them a visit.
Of the more controversial topic that is keeping him off the inaugural’s agenda, Giglio wrote on his blog: “individuals’ rights of freedom, and the collective right to hold differing views on any subject is a critical balance we, as a people, must recover and preserve.”
After this episode, I wonder how possible such a recovery still is.
(Note: As usual, comments will not post immediately over the weekend. Immediate commenting will resume Monday morning.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
102 comments Add your comment
PassionGoer
January 12th, 2013
7:56 pm
I’ve been attending Passion City Church. I’m gay. I go into that building feeling love, accepted and happiness. I’ve not once felt hatred from this man or any of his congregation. I love attending and will continue to do so. Just because he had one sermon a mere 15-20 years ago doesn’t mean that he’s a bad person. He might not believe or accept, but that is his opinion, and he can have that. This man would not hurt anyone and I know God would not lead me to a place to be hurt. I’m hanging onto my faith, Giglio is a good teacher to the community. His letter also stated that Homosexuality is not on his agenda and hasnt been for quite some time. We’ve got better things to learn and talk about in the church thats whats happening now. Everyone is welcome and loved. I truely feel that. At least at this church. Everyone is nice. I’ve never seen a group of people like these folks in my whole life. Mind blowing, eye opening and life changing is whats happening to me right now. These are good people who try to do good for God. I stand behind him as I know he would stand behind me out of love.
Allen
January 12th, 2013
8:29 pm
There’s a respectable argument here, but it’s clouded by overstatement. Kyle concludes by noting that we must recover the right to hold differing views, and that’s silly. It’s obvious that Giglio’s right to believe and publicly proclaim whatever he may choose remains intact.
It’s a favorite trick of commentators when someone is criticized or suffers consequences for holding certain views to suggest that their 1st amendment rights are under assault, but upon a half second’s thought, that argument is revealed as nonsense — sloppy at best, cynical at worst.
This piece would be more balanced and fair if it included the fact that Rick Warren, an avowed opponent of gay marriage and outspoken critic of Proposition 8 in California, gave the benediction at the first inauguration. Now, someone who compares gays to alcoholics, advocates for gay recovery therapy, and calls the gay rights movement “not benevolent” is probably a bit much to ask of a president who has staked his legacy on advancing gay rights. Kyle’s argument would be more persuasive if he grappled with these harder questions instead resting on hyperbole.
Hugh Jass
January 12th, 2013
9:00 pm
Are liberals actually not liberals if they are not tolerant of Louie’s views?
drew
January 12th, 2013
9:35 pm
Hitler held a “differing view” too…..had the world acted sooner millions of innocent people would not have died…just saying
Chris
January 12th, 2013
11:01 pm
Typical liberal bs: you’re entitled to your opinion….as long as it doesn’t disagree with ours.
mike
January 13th, 2013
4:30 am
Maybe the good Reverend was just smart enough to realize what was going to be made of ideas and beliefs he had 15-20 years ago. Judging by this article and most of the posts here, it would not matter if he gave the benniction or not. There will still be those ‘always blame the liberals’ out there. Matter of fact I just might give his church a try. It just might good to be surrounded by people who may be more accepting of diversity in life and in thought.
Aynie Sue
January 13th, 2013
6:41 am
Keep in mind that interpretation of the Bible, and notions about morality are not the issue here. The issue is the rights of all Americans, without regard to race, creed, color, sexual orientation, and morality.
Yes, even “immoral” Amercans are entitiled to civil and humanitarian rights!
@@
January 13th, 2013
9:20 am
I’ve been reading accounts of human traffiking. Oddly enough, the LGBT community is alarmed at the number of gay youth at risk in the sex trades.
http://www.sdgln.com/news/2010/02/09/sex-trafficking-hits-san-diegos-lgbt-youths
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/rights-so-divine/2012/jun/25/Chicago-A-gay-sex-trafficking-victim-talks-about/
Does Rev. Giglio exclude them from his efforts?
Not likely, but the above-mentioned liberal blog, would rather focus on Giglio’s past comments than his present day efforts.
To what end would they do such a thing?
Jay
January 13th, 2013
9:42 am
All of these comments about the persecution of Christians by liberals is just silly. Not only has Giglio not been silenced, he did not have a RIGHT to give a prayer at the Inauguration. Indeed, many of the same people crying crocodile tears for him now were among those who attacked him for accepting the invitation in the first place. His now-famous sermon is an ugly piece of work, little more than spiritual terrorism: if you don’t believe what I believe, you will go to hell. Maybe he has changed his views. I hope so. But Christians won’t be able to say they are persecuted until it is legal in 29 states to fire someone simply for being a Christian, when in many states Christians are prohibited from adopting children, when many universities and other institutions refuse to accept them if they are openly Christian, when public accommodations such as restaurants and hotels and bars etc. refuse them service, and when they are prohibited by law in 44 states from marrying the person they love. Oh, those are the conditions that homosexuals live under right now in this land of the free and brave. And Christians think they are persecuted!
Christian consistency
January 13th, 2013
11:06 am
As a true Christian, there is NO justification when it comes to what is right or wrong. The bible speaks about homosexuality and there is NO justification for it. It’s not about justification, it’s about right or wrong. It’s clear, NO political correctness when our world is all about PC.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 13th, 2013
11:33 am
What’s being missed here by all, and especially the hypocritical left, is less than one year ago, Obama was opposed to same sex marriage. He only announced his “evolution” after it was politically safe to do so. So, he disagrees with a position Giglio held 15 years ago, even though he did not “evolve” himself until 1 year ago.
So, how can the left love one and despise the other? The only explanation is hypocrisy.
Dusty
January 13th, 2013
12:30 pm
Come on. Kyle is talking about freedom of speech which has been cancelled for Pastor Giglio at the Presidential Inauguration. No benediction by Pastor Giglio.
President Obama had said previously, in so many words, that he would never allow anyone’s speech to be curtailed because of difference in opinion.
But that is exactly what has happened in his inauguration plans.
So Kyle wonders if the president really meant to keep his original promise when he has just dropped Giglio because of his views mentioned long years ago.
The president could have insisted on freedom of speech as the principle for Giglio’s acceptance especially since Giglio happens to be a fighter for the freedom of others.
President Obama did not insist. That is called a broken promise based on free speech and given to the people of the USA by the President of the USA..
Michael
January 13th, 2013
12:47 pm
My guess is that with Relgion involved they had no choice but to pull the invite. It has happened before and if Obama had invited rev. Wright Kyle’s article would have a different heading. And finally Colin Powell discussed on Meet the press how there is a large faction in the Repulican Party who are intolerant. They will be calling him a traitor by tomorrow. look at what happened to Chistie when he said something nice about Obama.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 13th, 2013
2:10 pm
I don’t understand why he wanted to speak on behalf of the most immoral, degraded and hateful administration in our history in the first place.
saywhat?
January 13th, 2013
2:31 pm
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart”- HL Mencken
Cherokee
January 13th, 2013
2:37 pm
Good for you PassionGoer – may God bless you in your journey as a gay Christian.
Travis McGee
January 13th, 2013
3:51 pm
I’m sure the Rev. is a good man and does many mighty good works — and he has the right and responsibility to believe whatever he wills.
But, at the same time, the POTUS has a right to have whomever he wants say a prayer, offer a benediction or baptize a goose.
So, what’s the problem?
MarkV
January 13th, 2013
6:17 pm
Wilbur, January 11th, 2013 @10:01 pm: “Our country is in a deeply sad place if a pastor cannot hold a religious belief without being censored by the President and shouted from the public square by the stalinists of the left.”
Jackie McGregor, January 11th, 2013 @10:56 pm: “What happen to freedom of speech???”
CHALL57, January 12th, 2013 @1:09 am: “Now the clergy, it is clear that this thing called the 1st Amendment is only working for those who are clearly not on the level of most human beings.”
What are these people talking about? Gigli was “censored by the President?” “Freedom of speech?“ “First amendment?” What right was pastor Gigli denied? He had his say. Was he punished for it? It is sad when adult people cannot distinguish between a freedom of speech and a freedom from criticism, and they demand the latter as well. But they are, of course, being led on that path by Messr. Gigli and Wingfield.
Former Reagan Republican
January 13th, 2013
7:09 pm
Both Liberals and Conservatives , Democrats and Republicans try to muzzle the views of others. Only Libertarians believe in true free speech/liberty. Wingfield, give me a break.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
January 13th, 2013
10:01 pm
Speaking the Truth to power will get you in a lot of trouble nowadays.
The Ghost of Willie B
January 14th, 2013
12:09 am
Obama’s definition of diversity: A people that look like the UN Assembly, but think like a San Francisco Coffee House.
josef
January 14th, 2013
7:05 am
Hagel-green light
Giglio-red light
Hagel–policy maker
Giglio–pastor
Get real, folks, get real.
And read Giglio’s comments on the matter at hand. I trust them a heckuva lot more than Hagel’s.
Anyway, this should be interesting.
Jefferson
January 14th, 2013
7:20 am
Hate filled hearts are easy to see.
TMania
January 14th, 2013
7:22 am
Truth Squad – I am so sick of hearing the term bigot. I’m beginning to think nobody knows what that word means. Here is what it means – intolerant person, somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who REFUSES to accept different views. All Louie said was that homosexuality is a sin. He didn’t say he didn’t love those people or accept them. Seeing as how you can’t accept a differing view, by definition, makes YOU A BIGOT!
TBone
January 14th, 2013
8:03 am
The left has made great progress dividing this country into victimized groups and this is just par for the course. Secularization and government control has become the left’s religion. Louie made comments a long time ago concerning a victimized group that represents what about 1% of the population that was based on Biblical principle. Look; sin is sin and God detests all sin which we all struggle with and commit. So what’s the problem with loving the sinner and hating the sin?
david c
January 14th, 2013
8:25 am
Passion Goer – What percentage of the masses in your MegaChurch know you are gay and accept you for that?
Kyle Wingfield
January 14th, 2013
9:18 am
Immediate commenting is now back on, and there’s a new post upstairs.
Kyle Wingfield
January 14th, 2013
9:18 am
Finn: If you want to post about the Louisiana tax thing, keep it on that thread.
Tom
January 14th, 2013
9:19 am
Applying the same standard he uses for Giglio, I assume Kyle will now forgo all criticism of Hamas because of the number of schools and hospitals they’ve opened.
indigo
January 14th, 2013
9:21 am
Aesop – “the most immoral, degraded and hateful administration in our history”
Really? I never knew he wanted to speak at the inauguration of George W. Bush.
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
9:22 am
Dusty @ 12:30 pm
“Come on. Kyle is talking about freedom of speech which has been cancelled for Pastor Giglio at the Presidential Inauguration. No benediction by Pastor Giglio.”
Come on, Dusty, a worst nonsense would be hard to create. What freedom of speech has been ”cancelled?” Is Pastor Giglio forbidden to speak? Is not being invited to speak somewhere the same as being denied the freedom of speech?
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
9:28 am
Sorry for keep misspelling the Pastor’s name, out of habit remembering the wonderful Benjamino Gigli.
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
9:29 am
Josef, January 11th, 2013 @6:49 pm
“I want to know why it is that this man, a preacher, is slapped down for something he said years ago and Hagel sails right along, being lauded by the left/liberals when what he had to say was much more hateful in that he said it within the context of his position as a representative of ALL of us, whereas Giglio spoke within the context of an address to his congregation, a limited number of us.”
Josef makes an interesting distinction between saying offensive things to a larger and smaller group of people. This might have some merit if the issue were the extent of damage, such as to reputation. Interesting distiction, but false, because the issue is not damage, but the character of the person saying that. And in that the number of people listening is immaterial.
Josef: “The song and dance routine I heard on Hagel has absolutely sickened me.”
What did Giglio say? That homosexuality is abomination, depravity, action showing depraved mind, not an alternative lifestyle.
What did Hagel say in 1998 about the philanthropist James Hormel, who at the time was being considered for the American ambassadorship to Luxembourg?
Hagel: “They are representing America,” Mr. Hagel said in an interview with The Omaha World-Herald. “They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job.”
And how did Hagel and Giglio deal with that years later?
Hagel: “My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”
And Giglio? That homosexuality is “no longer on his agenda.”
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
9:31 am
Kyle,
Why is one of my comments never showing up?
Dusty
January 14th, 2013
11:15 am
MarkV
Of course, Giglio was stopped from speaking at the inauguration. You can run the ol semantic trick about “stopped” but he was not going to speak because he was DENIED the opportunity. He no longer had the opening to which he was invited. (He was DISiinvited!) That is definitely the loss of freedom to speak whether you want to believe it or not.
This piece was about Giglio. Do you support (or not) any and everyone that the president mentions/appoints or disappoints? Seems that way. I’ve never seen you disagree with the president and his policies, a 100% supporter.
The sad part you also want to miss is that President Obama had made a promise for all to have free speech as it is written in our constitution. . Evidently he did not mean what he said. Just another campaign statement which he will loftily forget and remain silent on the subject.
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
11:47 am
Dusty @11:15 am
Dusty,
I am sorry, but what you write is such a profound nonsense, that can be explained only by your blindness about anything related to President Obama or Democrats.
Yes, Giglio was stopped from speaking at the inauguration. So what about that? Was he stopped from speaking anywhere, so it can be said that he was denied his right of expression? Does anybody has a right to go anywhere and speak there? If I or you wanted to speak at inauguration, and were not allowed, would we be denied our first amendment right? What is this nonsense about the inauguration committee choosing whoever they want as an attack on that right? I have written about this extensively already, and do not think I need to add still more.
“This piece was about Giglio. Do you support (or not) any and everyone that the president mentions/appoints or disappoints?”
The issue of appointment (Chuck Hagel) was raised by others, so I have responded to that. As for your insinuation about what I do or do not, it is such a standard trick of yours that I do not see a need to respond to that anymore.
Dusty
January 14th, 2013
12:17 pm
Mark V
You simply want to limit the power of freedom of speech and make it less than free. Most of us understand what it means to express our opinions with freedom. giglio was punished or insulted for having expressed his.opinion years ago. If you are punished or ostrasized for your opinion , then you do not have freedom of speech.. We know about this by studying the regimes of dictators.
I don’t insinuate anything about you. I just mention the obvious.
david c
January 14th, 2013
12:46 pm
I’m still trying to understand how the good Pastor Giglio, who instead of clarifying his position, furthered his distaste of “the Agenda”, and is considered a martyr for taking the easy way out and stepping down. As I stated before, it’s so easy to speak in front of a paying audience (yeah, I know you call it an offering) of believers, than to explain yourself to those you profess of trying to reach and spread “The Word”.
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
12:48 pm
Dusty @ 12:17 pm
Dusty,
For crying out loud, use your head! Think about this. Let’s say the inauguration committee invited somebody to speak, and it was then revealed that that person in the past praised Nazism, or racism, or spoke against religion, or against the constitution, or whatever like that. Are you saying the committee still should have let that person speak, just so that he used his freedom of expression? What a horrendous misunderstanding of that right! Everybody should understand that even people who say any such things have the right to say them, but that does not mean that they have the right to say them everywhere, whether they were invited to speak initially or not. And if you do not like the comparison, remember that that is only your opinion, and it has nothing to do with the principle.
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
1:09 pm
This discussion is hopeless, when some people have their mouths full of constitutional rights, and have no understanding of the meaning of them. And when a journalist like Kyle considers disinviting someone because of his/her views a denial of ‘the right to hold differing views,’ one can only sigh and feel desperation.
Dusty
January 14th, 2013
1:43 pm
MarkV
Giglio was first invited because he was outstanding in his work. THEN his invitation was withdraw because of his opinion. That is where the restraint came in. Further speech was blocked because of HIS opinion given while using free speech.
You can disagree with someone’s speech but that is not preventing them from speaking. Obama’s committee cared nothing about freedom of speech.. They wanted everything to be politically correct. You will see.
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
3:05 pm
Dusty @1:43 pm
Dusty,
As I have written already, I consider the discussion hopeless. First, you failed to answer my question about “disinviting” someone with obnoxious past views. Why don’t you answer? There was not any “further speech blocked.” Is anybody denying Giglio the right to go on his pulpit and say whatever he wants to say? Who is preventing him from speaking there? What special right has he to speak at this event?
You should, at last, realize that Giglio was disinvited not because what he would say. It was highly unlikely that he would broach the subject of homosexuality. He was disinvited because what his past statements have revealed about his character, at least as far as this particular issue is concerned. Just as everybody would agree, I hope, that it would be appropriate to disinvite anybody who would be shown to have a history of support of Nazism or racism, or another view abhorrent to a large section of the population.
josef
January 14th, 2013
3:41 pm
MARK
Giglio’s comments were made within the doctrinal confines of his own congregation. Hagel’s were made from the public podium speaking to ALL. Hagel’s “apology,” if you want to call it that. was many days and many dollars short, offered only when it was politically expedient to do so. Giglio did not offer an self-serving apology of any nature. I read his recent comments, and I have no problem with what he said there. I can accept that a lot more readily than I can the Hagel horse manure. Neither one of them felt obliged to say anything until called on the carpet over the last few weeks,
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
4:07 pm
josef @ 3:41 pm
You keep repeating the argument, that I have addressed before, that there is a difference because of the “confine of congregation” in case of Giglio. As I have already told Dusty, and tried to tell you, the issue is not to whom what was said. To make it more clear, if it were possible to know person’ inner thoughts, some views would make that person unsuitable for a particular occasion, even if he never said anything. It is simply inappropriate to have a person, whose views are offensive to a large segment of the population of those, whose president has just been elected, to speak at the inauguration, regardless of what he/she would talk about there. There is no issue of freedom of expression, and Kyle’s suggestion that Giglio is being denied ‘the right to hold differing views’ is laughable.
As for you suggestion that Hagel’s apology was offered when it was politically expedient to do so, that is your opinion, which you have a right to hold, but it also is based on – nothing. You calling it horse manure tells something about you, but not about Hagel.
josef
January 14th, 2013
4:56 pm
MARK
Again, you’re two-stepping the whole matter at hand. Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Don’t hold Giglio to a different standard than Hagel.
“…inappropriate to have a person, whose views are offensive to a large segment of the population …”
But, it is appropriate to have him nominated for Secretary of Defense….and, seriously, Mec, have you gone over Hagel’s voting record and rankings by any number of “watchdog” organizations? If not, you should.
josef
January 14th, 2013
5:33 pm
I guess comments are closed, tried twice to respond and to no avail….
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
5:41 pm
josef @ 4:56 pm
I am not two-stepping anything. I am aiming at the heart of the issue, while you are deflecting. Neither you, nor Dusty have answered my question whether views are disqualifying for a person, who is to speak on moral issues at an inauguration.
Josef: “Mec [sic], have you gone over Hagel’s voting record and rankings by any number of “watchdog” organizations? If not, you should.”
And why should I and why are you asking me that? Why are you bringing up Hagel in the first place to this discussion of Pastor Giglio, rather than sticking to the issue of Giglio’s “dis-invitation?”
Josef: “But, it is appropriate to have him nominated for Secretary of Defense “
Absolutely, not only because that person apologized for what he said years ago, but because a secretary of defense plays a completely different role than a person at the inauguration. Hagel views are relevant, and surely will be explored, in the framework of his duty as the Secretary for Defense, and only for that. And if his views are consistent with that duty, then an opposition to him can be appropriately be questioned based on his “right to hold differing views.”
josef
January 14th, 2013
5:50 pm
MARK
My posts in response to that are not going through for some reason…so, if I drop it, it’s not because I am not interested…
And “Mec (sic)…”
Je suppose que vous ne parlez pas français …
.
MarkV
January 14th, 2013
6:23 pm
josef @ 5:50 pm
josef,
You should keep in mind Kyle’ rule about calling people anything else than their screen names – in any language.
josef
January 14th, 2013
6:43 pm
MARK
Mec is not calling a name, it’s sorta like Buddy, Friend, Hail Fellow Well Met…