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
UPGRAYEDD
January 11th, 2013
6:39 pm
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.”
There are as many rabid pro-lifers willing to denigrate Giglio’s message of tolerance to opposing views as there are gays forcing their interpretation of truth on others. Big yawn. The pendulum of fairness swings both ways.
saywhat?
January 11th, 2013
6:43 pm
Nobody is preventing Giglio or others the right to hold the beliefs he does on the controversial topic. Therefore, this situation does not represent a situation where any “recovery” of rights is necessary, or even possible, as none have been denied.
Giglio’s beliefs however, and the expression of those beliefs, even 15 years ago, are a direct insult to so many people responsible for this President’s re-election.
The President and the inauguration committee have an equal right to hold their own beliefs, and are under no obligation to provide Giglio a forum to express his.
Do you feel the same way about people calling for Catholic universities to revoke invitations to President Obama to speak? I take a consistent position. If Notre Dame or Georgetown were to revoke an invitation to President Obama to speak over disagreement with his views, I would think they were idiots for denying their students the opportunity to hear a live speech from a sitting President, but I wouldn’t construe it as a denial of President Obama’s rights.
Question Man
January 11th, 2013
6:45 pm
A recovery obviously is possible, isn’t the question of how we all get there and when?
josef
January 11th, 2013
6:49 pm
KYLE
I want to thank you sincerely for bringing this up. It lies at the heart of my reasons for being over here the last few days.
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.
The song and dance routine I heard on Hagel has absolutely sickened me.
It is that damnable double standard that I loathe, detest and despise no matter which corner it comes from.
As for Giglio and his dedication to stopping human trafficking, I applaud that wholeheartedly. That is the “greater picture.” I have a much more personal reason for taking a different view of him and his congregation. Last year a fire put several of our neighborhood’s more modest families out of house and home. That was on a Friday night. Sunday, his church “passed the plate” and collected some $13,000 in donations for immediate help to these families. Then, they helped them to find new lodgings in the neighborhood so their children would not have to change schools, paying the deposits etc, as well as vouchers for clothes and furnishings.
Nobody asked them to do this, they say a need and responded. The Christian thing to do. I was almost willing to back off on President Obama’s nomination of a homophobic anti-Semite when I heard that Giglio was asked to give the invocation.
And now?
Where are my liberal colleagues here in Atlanta who went to defending Hagel? Where is their defense of Giglio. The silence has been deafening.
And to your regulars, please forgive me for the scatteredness of these comments. It is emotional, you know, the boa wearing drama que*en….
Mr_B
January 11th, 2013
6:53 pm
Kyle: my understanding is that Mr. Giglio withdrew voluntarily so as not to distract from the President’s inauguration. As an avowed liberal, I rather wish he had chosen to remain. I can’t speak for other of my political persuasion, but even as a defender of LGTG rights, I have no problem with the benediction of anyone who is clearly attempting to do His will as that person sees it.
@@
January 11th, 2013
6:54 pm
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.
So what…..does this mean the liberal blog is indifferent to human trafficking and slavery?
I should say so……
Just Saying..
January 11th, 2013
7:04 pm
Well, the evidence is the “big tent” GOP won’t be leading the way, if the goal is welcoming diversity of opinion…
Uh Huh....Different Strokes for Different Folks
January 11th, 2013
7:21 pm
To me this is a NON issue.
If Giglio AIN’T MAD…I AIN’T MAD.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 11th, 2013
7:28 pm
Respect for an individual, no matter their views, has disappeared from America. It seems the more liberal the country becomes, the more the libs want to control every thought expressed and every action we try to take. Peoples views should be challenged when appropriate, but the person should always be respected.
Any debate that the Libs deem to be over, because they think they won, is not willingly tolerated and the argument ridiculed. Perfect example, someone once said, “elections over, John, and I won”…. so shut up. I guess the rest of them take their cue from their dear leader.
gdrla
January 11th, 2013
7:47 pm
Seems a shame to discredit or disallow someone for something said 15 years ago. Personally I want to know what the recent track record is – actions speak louder than words and there has been a massive changes in society’s attitudes on many things (including homosexuality) over the past 15 years. Doesn’t seem like many (any ?) of us would make the cut if we were judged by things in our pasts>
Not Blind
January 11th, 2013
7:53 pm
The real polarization is here on the www. Out in public it’s surprising how well diverse people get along.
Big Ed
January 11th, 2013
7:54 pm
But of course, Reverend Wright bitter diatribes of hate were nothing to worry about. The Teleprompter of the U.S. wasn’t listening while attending his church, he says.
Bob
January 11th, 2013
8:24 pm
I heard he was against gay marriage at one point, he must be a hatelful bigot.
Del
January 11th, 2013
8:44 pm
Giglio and Andy Stanley have ties to their mutual beliefs. They parted ways but they still hold mutual beliefs. Neither fit into the left wing doctrine of excluding God unfortunately from the public discourse. God bless them both.
Cherokee
January 11th, 2013
8:45 pm
I rarely agree with you Kyle.
But I do this time. If we can forgive Bill Clinton for his awful, cowardly signature on the Defense of Marriage Act, then we ought to be able to forgive this pastor, who has clearly not been one of the anti gay culture warriors in recent years.
CB Hackworth
January 11th, 2013
9:30 pm
This article is very fair, and the only of its kind I’ve come across. It so happens I grew up with Louie Giglio and his dear, sweet sister. His late father and my dad worked together for many years and were best friends. I certainly don’t share the views on homosexuality he expressed in a sermon many years ago, and I have no idea if his thinking has changed since then, but I also don’t believe he should have had to withdraw from participation in the presidential inauguration. Louie is a decent man, widely admired, and his ministry has an enormous following made up of fellow Americans who deserve a seat at the table, even if many of us disagree on important issues. Our country needs more unity and less division if we are going to survive.
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.
Personally, I think Obama and his team invited Giglio with the express intention of uninviting him too in order to send a clear message of intimidation.
Reality
January 11th, 2013
10:46 pm
I really enjoy having a conversation with people that have different views.
I do not enjoy conversations with people that use lies, false facts, short quips, irrelavent facts, name-calling, and childish arguements to make their points.
Unfortunately, that includes most all of the con repubs that post on these blogs.
Jackie McGregor
January 11th, 2013
10:56 pm
What happen to freedom of speech??? Louie is a great pastor and speaks only bible based truths. Our government is very scary. I love our country but I do not like what is happening to our freedoms that we have grown up with and that sets our country apart from the others. We have very few places where we can hear and believe what is really happening in our wonderful country. Keep up the good work. God Rules
CHALL57
January 12th, 2013
1:09 am
Well I have been saying things on Facebook and CNN iReport and anywhere else I could post on to. 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. So after all of the big talk and promotion it boils down to a mild and softer tone of dictatorship. Yeah I said it. Look at what has been coming about over the course of the last few months. I find fault with the White house and I will no longer hide it. Leave this man to his God and let him continue to do his good work.
DeborahinAthens
January 12th, 2013
7:35 am
It IS sad that we have devolved to this point. However, Kyle, your pious posturing about this question is disingenuous, I think. If President Obama had chosen an Islamic holy man, or a Buddhist, or, God forbid, an atheist to the minor job (you do realize that you don’t have to be a Christian to do this, don’t you?), you would have written a column crucifying the man. You are so funny.
Hopeful
January 12th, 2013
7:42 am
Their are so many hungry Americans in the ga. Mountains go check it out ok
Whirled Peas
January 12th, 2013
8:10 am
The secular left in this country considers themselves to be tolerant and open minded. And the press has been very accommodating to them in this regard. But anyone who is at all observant has figured out that those who have claimed the mantle of tolerance are very much intolerant of those they do not agree with and closed minded to all contrary ideas and life styles.
david c
January 12th, 2013
8:23 am
First of all, instead of retracting his statement, or explaining his position, he took the easy way out and quit. It’s rough when the room you’re preaching to isn’t filled with acolytes. Sure, everyone has the right to an opinion. But when you are speaking to a Nation, and not just your MegaChurch faithful, you better be willing to look at all sides.
indigo
January 12th, 2013
8:39 am
There is a reason why some politicians are Democrats and some are Republicans.
I doubt that Karl Rove will speak at the inaguration.
However, I also doubt anyone will say this is wrong and Karl’s
“differing views” should be heard at this ceremony.
just sayin'
January 12th, 2013
9:45 am
Still amazes me that if your viewpoint differs from libs, you can’t participate. However, they want you to be totally tolerant of their viewpoints and include them in everything. Wait, isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy?
me
January 12th, 2013
10:18 am
Obama is all about Obama. Giglio is all about Jesus.
Morality?
January 12th, 2013
10:19 am
As warned in the Bible – those following God will be attacked by the enemy. Satan is a regular visitor to the White House.
meAgain
January 12th, 2013
10:21 am
Obama talks about what his government is doing and how it can help you. Giglio talks about what God has already done, is doing and is going to do in you through Jesus. Fools trust in a politician.
curious
January 12th, 2013
10:38 am
Kyle,
Good idea to moderate comments; cuts down on insults and squabbles among the posters.
May even get comments relative to your blog.
Not sure what he advocated, but unless it was for murder, the statute of limitations should have kicked in for 15-20 year old comments.
Edward
January 12th, 2013
11:22 am
I recognize that people can have a change of opinion, especially after 15 years. However, it is also highly unlikely that Giglio has had such a change. Were his remarks 15 years ago made against any other minority, the ramifications would be clear. But gay people are still acceptable fodder for conservatives to demonize and thus the tempest-in-a-teapot reaction by conservatives to Giglio’s withdrawal from the Inaugural, of his own accord. Keep digging your own graves, conservatives.
Mike Lum
January 12th, 2013
11:23 am
Well said. Nice to see support for Louie in the AJC.
snoqualmiefalls
January 12th, 2013
11:55 am
Interesting take on this preacher, his church and his philosophy.
Now I understand why our President would never allow a very orthodox Rebbe to address the country. Very enlightening to say the least.
Lakedawg
January 12th, 2013
12:32 pm
Tolerance is defined by the left as accepting all worldviews with which they agree; disagreements based on bible-based faith are particularly excluded.
bucket
January 12th, 2013
12:33 pm
Great article Kyle.
Shannon, M.Div., Th.M.
January 12th, 2013
12:51 pm
This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is, quite simply, an issue of not having someone speak for the president who does not believe in the equality of all Americans.
Nobody is censoring Giglio; we commend him for his work with human trafficking. But doing good deeds does not always counterbalance the rest of one’s life (and I daresay Giglio’s theology would agree with that). Giglio is welcome to preach to his followers.
We do not need to “recover” the right to hold differing views on any subject. We *have* that. Look at this blog. Nobody is stopping Wingfield from writing! But we also do not need, in the name of some kind of faux equality, to promote those who don’t believe all Americans deserve equal rights.
Wilbur
January 12th, 2013
1:01 pm
The Rev Lowery’s prayer at Obama’s first inaugural was hardly a model of inclusion. Hypocrites!
Still think...
January 12th, 2013
1:28 pm
Still think that Obama is a Christian? He doesn’t believe anything in the Bible. He’s not a Muslim either. Who knows what this guy is.
Dusty
January 12th, 2013
1:31 pm
Well, here we go again. Got to find a man who is politically correct, has a faith, presentable on TV, follows the party line, draws a crowd, says the “correct” words,and knows who sent the invitation to give the benediction. Heyyyyy, this is the inauguration of the President of the USA and don’t you forget it.
May I suggest Santa Claus? He’d be perfect. He’s sweet and kind and likes to give, give, give. Add a blue ribbon to his red and white and you’ve got it made. HIs ho ho ho is catchy and without discrimination. His past history is perfect. He’s photogenic. People love him..
Add a little child looking at him with adoration and Santa is ready for the grand finale.. OH, I am already touched. Sniff…
Truth Squad
January 12th, 2013
1:47 pm
Barack Obama has already had one bigot at one of his inaugurations in Pastor Warren. So he has fulfilled his quota.
Giglio, by his own statement,is still a bigot.Either everyone is equal under the law, or they are not. Just because you do outstanding work in one area doesn’t mean you get a pass on bigotry. “Holding different views” is just code when it means believing certain citizens have second-class civil rights.
He had an opportunity to step up and prove his critics wrong. Sadly, he blew his opportunity and is now just another conservative bigot being portrayed by other conservative bigots as a victim of those evil people who demand everyone be treated equally in law. The Republican Party is now paying the price for their embrace of bigotry for political gain.
I wonder how many of those kids Giglio now calls to service is he going to “hold a different view” of when they get older? Hopefully those kids turn out better than he did and continue their great service without the yoke of bigotry.
Always Skeptical
January 12th, 2013
1:51 pm
If he had repudiated his previous remarks, he’s still be able to be included. He didn’t and so he’s not going to be part of the festivities. That’s alright with me. His past deeds make him unfit for offering anything at this sort of gathering…plain and simple. He’s not the only person or organization fighting human trafficking. Even though he may choose now not to engage in the culture war promoted by American conservatives, he felt free to engage in the past. Let him suffer the consequences for it until he chooses to repudiate his role in it. You might as well have him preach alongside Rev. Wright. As for me, I’m glad that neither one of them will be there.
Aynie Sue
January 12th, 2013
1:53 pm
“Differing views” about the civil rights of other citizens, and the insistence that an “individual’s right of freedom” encompasses the right to deny individual rights to other citizens, may be the core issue here. But maybe not.
Rev. Giglio has, like many prominent Americans, may have changed his view on gay rights over the past 15 years. Why should members of the clergy like Rev. Giglio and Rev. Wright (Obama’s former pastor) be held to a “lifelong purity of thought” standard? Isn’t growth in wisdom (i.e. changing views) one of the tenets of religious faith?
Raiderbeater
January 12th, 2013
1:56 pm
Believe the Bible = Vilified
People believe that something is morally wrong…….Obama says they are evil.
Morals will be the new laws and he is more than happy to make himself the good guy. People with morals will be the bad guy in this new world being crafted.
TWayne
January 12th, 2013
1:57 pm
Passion City Church is a wonderful place full of loving, kind, and compassionate people who love Jesus and love all people. I will continue to pray for Louie, the Church he leads, our elected leaders and our country.
Army Strong
January 12th, 2013
2:24 pm
It boggles my mind that the Obama staffers are appalled that a Christian pastor holds Christian views on a social topic that is widely religious in nature..
MarkV
January 12th, 2013
2:43 pm
It is not easy to discern what is the real point of Kyle’s article is. A tribute to pastor Giglio for his fight against human trafficking? A criticism of the “mutual parting of ways” of Giglio and the presidential inaugural committee? A condemnation of the opposition to Giglio because of “some comments Giglio made about the gay-rights movement in a sermon some 15 years ago?” An attack on the President (and unspecified others) because of a “fading promise?”
Let’s take a look at the items other than the well-deserved tribute. There is the opposition based on the comments about the gay-right movement. Apparently, Giglio never rescinded those. Those remarks are still very offensive to a fairly large segment of the population. Let’s hope that Kyle and others will keep in mind the timing frame they point out to when they comment on Hagel’s appointment hearing and his remarks years ago, which Hagel has rescinded.
Kyle quotes Giglio’s illogical demand about the recovery of “individuals’ rights of freedom, and the collective right to hold differing views on any subject. “ Has anybody denied those rights to pastor Giglio, or his church? As for Kyle’s wondering if such a recovery is possible: How does a “de-invitation” to speak at the inaugural equal a denial of a RIGHT of freedom and of the RIGHT to hold differing views? And it is equally illogical to call a “fading” promise the President’s words about a country in which people come together “in the name of those things they agreed upon, and not just in opposition to those they didn’t.” In spite of the political polarization, don’t people still do that all the time, on many subjects?
kelly
January 12th, 2013
3:03 pm
He’s a pastor. He should be accepting of ALL people. This is not just about a disagreement. it’s about vilifyin gays in a sermon as being sinful and not allowed into the Kingdom of God. I can’t of anything a man of the cloth could say to gays as un-Christian as that. Differing view, my a##.
Saul Good
January 12th, 2013
4:43 pm
Being a “bigot” is now a “view” when it comes to human civil rights. It’s hate. 45 years ago here in GA he’d probably have made the same remarks about African Americans… bashing gays is NOT acceptable. Better for him to have “evolved” on the issue and still accepted the invitation. Instead he stood by his hate.
John Beasley (Dr. Sky Hook)
January 12th, 2013
5:44 pm
Ah, the irony of the persecution of Pastor Giglio. I admire his work in stopping slavery and human trafficking, but I remind you that slavery was a well established practice during biblical times and is supported in Ephesians by Paul who writes that the slave should submit wholeheartedly to his master. This is right after Paul admonishes women to do the same to their husbands. My point is that Giglio realizes that some societal arrangements in the Bible are no longer morally acceptable, so not all “biblically based beliefs” carry the same weight and stature. Each individual has the right to pick and choose which ones still apply and which do not, but when a “minister” uses his “biblically based beliefs” to justify denying basic human rights to a whole group of individuals, then that person should not have the right to speak at a ceremony that is supposed to represent all the people. Kyle, if you were a gay person or had a gay family member, would you want to listen to a benediction given by a man who had denigrated your worth and rights as a human being?
Atlantan
January 12th, 2013
6:18 pm
Nothing new here – the left is all for freedom of speech, gasp – even political
dissent, just make sit that speech is “correct speech …” Never spit
into the wind, tug on Superman’s cape or upset the Furher aka the collective leftists
movement.
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…
Kyle Wingfield
January 14th, 2013
6:45 pm
All right, everyone, immediate commenting is closed for the night.
MarkV
January 15th, 2013
10:44 am
josef @ 6:43 pm
Kyle’s rule #4: ” Anyone who refers to another commenter by anything other than the handle the latter uses will be subject to a ban of at least one week.”
Josef,
I do not care to be called by a slang term in any language by anybody else than my close friends .
I also do not care much for people who try to impress others on the blog by anything else than clarity and logic of their arguments.