Home / General / More Inaugural Sermons From Anti-Gay Preachers

More Inaugural Sermons From Anti-Gay Preachers


Why, Obama, why?

The Presidential Inauguration Committee announced Tuesday that the President Obama has selected Pastor Louie Giglio of the Georgia-based Passion City Church to deliver the benediction for his second inauguration. In a mid-1990s sermon identified as Giglio’s, available online on a Christian training website, he preached rabidly anti-LGBT views. The 54-minute sermon, entitled “In Search of a Standard – Christian Response to Homosexuality,” advocates for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, references a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impels Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society. Below are some of the most disturbing views in the sermon.

First, it’d be nice to have one of these sermons be by a non-Christian. Everyone who would be outraged by that didn’t vote for Obama anyway. Second, is it really that hard to find a minister to give a sermon who isn’t a gay-basher? First Rick Warren and now this guy. How about a nice Unitarian? Or a progressive-minded Lutheran? Or just someone who is nice and non-controversial on the matter?

Really unacceptable.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Malaclypse

    How about a nice Unitarian?

    Are there non-nice Unitarians?

    • Don’t know. John Adams always seemed pretty cranky at least.

    • ajay

      Dracula, being from Transylvania, was probably a Unitarian. As is the fratricidal murderer in John Dickson Carr’s “The Hollow Man”.

    • Matthew Heath

      Isaac Newton was a dick.

      • The Dark Avenger

        And went undercover to find and arrest people who were counterfeiters as part of his job in being head of the English Mint.

        • Matthew Heath

          And had them tortured IRRC. Really unnice.

      • ajay

        Isaac Newton was a dick.

        But not a Unitarian. Newton was a… well, there isn’t really a word for it because he was about the only one of it, but he wasn’t a Unitarian.

    • MAJeff

      How about the Rev. Barry Lynn from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State?

      • Uncle Ebeneezer

        Yeah. Or Jerry Dewitt.

    • CZHA

      Some are thorny — a trait Unitarians value. Bill Schultz‘s prickly bit of Unitarian conscience might provide an inspiring benediction.

  • Amanda in the South Bay

    If this was Balloon Juice, Loomis would be tarred as a closet racist just itching to drop the N word for daring to criticize Obama.

    • But this isn’t Balloon Juice, it’s LGM, where anyone who finds this post overwrought will be tarred as a closet homophobe itching to give gay people a SLAP IN THE FACE.

      • mds

        Fortunately, you’re outlining a pure hypothetical, as none of the regulars here is stupid enough to consider this post by Loomis overwrought. “It’d be nice”? “Really unacceptable”? My God, give the man some tranquilizers before he expresses disappointment again.

        • “Why, Obama, why?”


          • mds

            Sure, at Balloon Juice, it’d be past time to nitpick that phrase and power up Dr. Centerright’s Patented Pneumatic Hippie Kicker.

            But here at LGM, we’re all about the nuance. Hence “Why, Obama, Why?” is plaintive, or even exasperated, not overwrought.

            • Timb

              No criticism of Obama is allowed by joe. It’s why am reading he comments, just to read his well-expressed, but wasted rage

              • Yeah. I’m the one raging here.

                Not the people who seem to be emotionally invested in the Inauguration prayer. Not the guy who finds himself so wound up that he can’t type correctly. Ahem ahem.

                No no, the real rage is from the guy who described the whole episode as “overwrought.”

                Is this sort of like “Liberals are the real racists for complaining about racism?”

              • And certainly not the guy who thinks that the most important commentary to add is to bring up his longstanding personal grudge from old internet pie fights.

                Nope, no rage there.

                • Timb

                  I have no rage toward you, joe, I just enjoy the predictability of your reflexive defense.

                  As I stated above, on all non-“how dare you criticize the president” posts, you are great. I don’t care about the benediction, but I opened the thread just to read you.

          • djw

            It seems like a pretty good question to me. We’re getting closer and closer to these assholes being seen as toxic as white supremacists. I can’t fathom what a justification for this choice would look like.

    • witless chum

      If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle and read Balloon Juice.

      • Fiske

        Bob’s yer uncle.

      • sharculese

        Balloon Juice still gives a platform to awesome people like Tom Levenson and kay, even if a lot of the comments are completely worthless.

        • Hey now. I resemble that comment.

          Besides, I lonked to a post by Dragon-King there once, even if he made me look a fool by screwing up his math before I lonked.

    • Jberardi

      If this was Balloon Juice, Loomis would be tarred as a closet racist just itching to drop the N word for daring to criticize Obama.

      Damn that Judean People’s front.

  • ScottC

    On this topic I’ll never understand why people get outraged over a brief speech by an obscure figure who will immediately fade back into obscurity, yet have no issue at all with the former president of the United States who made DADT and DOMA the law of the land playing a major role in the campaign, and dominating a large part of the convention. What Bill Clinton did was far more harmful, but people save their outrage for this kind of piddly thing.

    • First, that was 20 years ago and those were different times. Second, Clinton has admitted he was wrong.

      • sibusisodan

        that was 20 years ago and those were different times

        Are you referring to Clinton’s policies or the ‘mid-1990’s’ sermon here? Because it’s equally true of both. I take your point about the apology.

      • Marc

        Wasn’t the speech by the preacher in question also 20 years ago?

        • 2011.

          • Never mind. That came from Weigel, but the 2011 date isn’t supported by the link he provides.

            • Njorl

              Yeah, that threw me too.

        • Ed

          Apparently we are talking about stuff Giglio was saying in the 90s (unless something more recent surfaces). His withdrawal statement indicates his position has changed since then, or at least that he’s not talking about it so much. Not an apology, natch.

          The statement from the inaugural committee claims ignorance and lousy legwork, which could well be true. Still strange that they chose this guy.

          • evodevo

            People who ran the outstanding ground-based, information-heavy campaign that they did CAN’T VET SOME PREACHER WELL-KNOWN FOR GAY-BASHING ? Really? Yeah, I would like to know the reason behind this choice. After all, he doesn’t have to run again.

            Oh, wait, the guy’s saved us the trouble.

      • rea

        DADT, in particular, was a major improvement over what went before . . .

        • Malaclypse

          DOMA, however, was drastically worse.

      • cpinva

        fair enough.

        Second, Clinton has admitted he was wrong.

        has giglio?

        the past, as they say, is a different country. things and people change. it’s possible giglio, like clinton, has changed. however, unlike clinton, we have no word from the man himself. that being the case, it can be reasonably assumed not. surely, out of the 1,000’s of religious leaders, in the 1,000’s of churches across the country, they could have picked someone else.

        • catclub

          Has he repudiated the broccoli mandate? And Stalin, while we are at it.

        • djw

          His statement was an opportunity to retract his endorsement of psychological torture masquerading as therapy, but he didn’t make that choice.

      • I’m not happy with Obama’s choice on the optics, but who speaks for five minutes at the inauguration is largely irrelevant to me and won’t affect my life at all. On the other hand, when I go to do my taxes in a few weeks and play the dance of “Married in CA but not to the IRS” Clinton’s actions will have me cursing his name, as I have to do two separate federal returns and pay for my wife’s health care coverage as a taxable “fringe benefit”–something none of my married co-workers have to do.

        So great that Clinton’s apologized. Too bad he didn’t realize he was wrong at the time he signed the transparent pander to the right.

    • witless chum

      Because it’s a brief speech by an obscure figure, it’s all the more reason to be annoyed. Precisely no one will be pissed if Obama picked someone non-objectionable, but he chooses to pick someone who’ll annoy liberals.

      I think it’s much more sensible to complain about this than, say, the lack of a public option in the Affordable Care Act. Obama had to fight congress creatures in his own party to get that passed. He has to fight precisely no one to pick the guy giving the invocation.

      • It’s even worse. It’s a very clear message: “I reward my opponents and insult my supporters!” If there were money in it, DLC-style, it might be understandable, but it appears entirely gratuitous.

        • witless chum

          Yup. It’d also be one thing if it was a some kind of politically-active preacher who’d been a very public Obama supporter and/or advisor despite having shitty views about gay people. Not exactly unknown in the black church, for instance. Throwing the gays and liberals over for another important constituency in the Democratic Party is something that you should expect from a politician.

          Clicking the link, that doesn’t seem to be who this guy is. He’s more in the mold of Rick Warren, ie, he brings in an audience of people who are very likely to be hostile to Obama and won’t stop because he showed a little love to their favorite preacher.

    • Njorl

      There are reasons to tolerate Bill Clinton’s flaws. Are there any reasons at all to tolerate Giglio’s?

      • commie atheist

        Well, he’s anti-slavery, so he’s at least as tolerable as Nick Kristof.

    • fwiw

      DADT was an improvement over existing policy and a compromise with a Congress that wanted to ban gays from the military via statute. DOMA on the other hand

  • Tammany

    “First, it’d be nice to have one of these sermons be by a non-Christian. Everyone who would be outraged by that didn’t vote for Obama anyway.”

    Huh? You need to de-bubble. While I’d like the speech to be by a non-Christian, there are definitely plenty of Obama voters who’d be outraged. Maybe not in the liberal blogosphere, but in the inner city.

    • John

      If it’s a rabbi?

      • mds

        Especially if it’s Rabbi Capers Funnye?

    • Amanda in the South Bay

      Who gives a shit? Obamas not running for reelection.

      • Cody

        Who gives a shit? Obamas not running for reelection.

        This is the most important quote of the next four years.

        We’re going to see this a lot, and it’s going to be true! Lets hope Obama knows this, and does some things liberals love!

  • Kurzleg

    My biggest problem with this sort of thing is that it reinforces the notion that conservative Christians are the only valid moral authorities.

    • spencer

      Yes, this exactly. As John suggested above, why not a rabbi, this one time?

      • LeeEsq

        Its probably because its difficult to reach a consensus on which Rabbi should be selected. There lots of prominent Rabbis but none of them really of the status that prominent pastors and Priests have even among Jews.

        • John

          Who cares about the status of prominent pastors? Or bishops (who are the only Catholic clergy that have any particularly greater status than your random rabbi)? How did they reach a “consensus” that this homophobic asshole be selected?

    • Amanda in the South Bay

      Conservative Protestant Christians you mean.

      • Kurzleg

        I did! Also, CPC men. Women are too emotional…

  • Alex

    The invocation is being given by a lay-person. Not exactly non-Christian, but it is somewhat not religions.

    As for Giglio, his anti-gay sermon was in the mid-90s. In the past ten years, there’s not much reference to him doing anything anti-gay (or pro-gay). He and his organization have also stayed out of gay marriage politics — all of which is kind of surprising for a conservative Southern evangelical megachurch. And they’ve denied the media’s requests for clarification on their current non-existent stance.

  • Richard

    And it should be noted that the President chose Richard Blanco, an openly gay Latino, to be the poet for the inauguration

    • It should.

      It won’t be, but it should.

      • DocAmazing

        Here’s a cookie.

        • We need an opposite to “Here’s a cookie,” some way to express the smallest possible amount of contempt.

          Because “Here’s a cookie” and its opposite represent exactly the degree of passion that inaugural speaker choices should generate.

          • DocAmazing

            Obama’s choice was more “Here’s a turd.”

      • djangermats

        Except for just now, by Richard.

        Breathe into a bag or something, bro.

  • FWIW, I was pretty annoyed at the Rick Warren choice, but pretty amused when the resulting fla pushed Warren to claim to have not supported Prop 8, causing his flock to throw a shitfit.

    • TribalistMeathead

      I was also amused that the end result was Warren’s ego swelling to the point where he just assumed he’d be holding another forum with the two major Presidential candidates in 2012, only to discover neither one really wanted to do it after all.

  • Joe

    As to these being done by a non-Christian, the President is a Christian, so it’s logical he would pick a Christian. I can see the point of this being an event for the nation, but I think it’s reasonable the person getting inaugurated would pick a member of his own general faith. Which like his old controversial pastor shows is a sort of evangelical Christianity many here might not like.

    As last time, he also is using someone less upsetting … Myrlie Evers-Williams will also deliver a prayer. I don’t know if she is a “gay basher” though I think the liberal leaning clergy member used along with Warren last time wasn’t one. Obama is trying to be inclusive here, including a member of evangelical traditions of a different type as a gesture. If he used a Catholic priest, it would be anti-gay too, I guess.

    As with the prayer service for Newtown, Obama has honored other religious faiths (and those with none) and this is a way for him to respect some that include many who strongly oppose him. Given his overall record on gay rights, it is a pretty minor symbolic gesture and should be taken in context.

    • sharculese

      Why are we supposed to respect the sort of faith that leads one to conclude that your cowardly prejudices are moral imperatives? What’s inclusive about that?

      • Joe

        You don’t have to “respect” the faith that much but a chunk of society has the faith and as POTUS he can’t just ignore them. Having a preacher some of them ALONG WITH SOMEONE ELSE TOO give a short prayer is not really the same as endorsing the faith in question. You have to respect the millions in some small way and finding some common ground is possible.

    • John

      The president is a liberal mainline protestant. Isn’t it just as logical that he would pick a liberal mainline protestant pastor to do this kind of thing, rather than a conservative evangelical? Why does your logic hold and mine does not?

      • Joe

        Sure. First, however, I was responding to the desire that he pick a non-Christian. Second, he all the time by his words and actions acts like a LMP. Here, he provides a symbolic means to nod to views of others whose views he disagrees with. It is a small gesture and I’m fine with those who don’t like it because of his bigoted views on gays.

  • Thomas Jefferson

    First, it’d be nice to have one of these sermons be by a non-Christian not have sermons.

    • Richard

      It’s not a sermon. Its a benediction. And this guy was disinvited as soon as the administration became aware of his speech/sermon from the 90s.

      • I don’t care if it’s a sermon or a benediction. It’s religious BS that not only has no place in a public ceremony in a country that has a separation of church and state, but should be treated as the superstitious nonsense that it is. It makes no more sense to have a benediction than it does to have an astrologer or a shaman up there. Or why not let Tom Cruise hook Obama up to an e-meter before the oath to make sure he’s Clear?

        • Richard

          I’m a nonbeliever. But I have no problem with benedictions at public ceremonies as long as I am not forced to join in. And I’m not so certain about everything in this world that I want to brand the beliefs of people I like, that I support and of many of my friends and loved ones as “superstitious nonsense”.

          • Richard:

            Whether something is superstitious or nonsense has nothing to do with how many people believe it. Indeed, great masses of people have been wrong about some very important questions, such as slavery, sexism, homosexuality, and the like. You can choose not to offend religious people by pointing out that they espouse belief in things that clearly did not happen and are not true, but people who espouse false claims shouldn’t get an intellectual free pass just because they whine loud enough when someone points it out.

            Further, however, I would also add this– I don’t actually think a lot of people really believe these things. Most professed religious believers are just engaging in a vulgar form of Pascal’s Wager where they go to heaven if the vain, immature, malevolent, petty God presented in the Christian Bible exists and they are no worse off if She doesn’t. You can tell this not only from the fact that they protest too much when it is pointed out that their professed beliefs are false (true believers would not be made uncomfortable by criticism) but also by the fact that they make no real effort to actually abide by the commands of their religion. They don’t forsake worldly wealth, don’t honor the Sabbath, don’t abstain from all sex outside of marriage, don’t go to church, etc.

            If someone really, really, really believed that there was a God who was going to torture them for eternity if they did not conduct their life in a certain way, and they further believed that it was worth avoiding that eternal torture (personally, I would tell such a God to GFY), they would assiduously comply with religious restrictions.

            People don’t believe, they say they believe in the wishful hope of avoiding certain death, and they don’t like it when the wishful thinking is identified for what it is.

            • Richard


              As I said before, I’m a nonbeliever. I dont believe in the god of the Old or New testament. I dont believe in any god. But I dont go around insulting the views of those people who disagree with me on this issue (although I am happy to debate the point). I dont think insulting religious beliefs accomplishes much and seems to be a sort of childish intellectual hubris which I got over by the time I graduated from college.

              And I have friends and relatives who are believing Jews, even orthodox Jews. I have friends and relatives who are practicing Catholics. The President, who I generally support, is a practicing Protestant. Many of my friends and relatives believe in a God who interferes with the actions of humans on earth, answers prayers, etc. Good for them. Unless they couple that belief with belief on social issues that I find repulsive (that people are predestined for heaven or hell, that being gay dooms one to hell, etc), I don’t find the belief in God to be harmful so I dont rail against it. There are people who are as smart as I am who have been ardent believers and/or deists.

              • Untruth is harmful in itself, and liberal believers actually legitimize the bigots and science deniers.

                Further, it isn’t an insult to say someone is wrong. The fact that they take it as one is evidence they know deep in their hearts it isn’t true

                • Richard

                  Nonsense. The fact is I value my friendships with my believing friends and relatives a lot more than I value my right to engage in arguments with them over the falsity of their beliefs (and which will never convince them anyway).
                  Unless we both agree to amicably debate the existence of god, there is simply no reason for me to tell them they are wrong. It wouldn’t be insulting for me to do so (I dont think they would be insulted) but it certainly would be impolite and rude.

                  If they want to believe in a god, so be it. It doesn’t hurt me, or society, in the least bit for them to harbor that belief. An untruth is NOT harmful in itself. When my kids were very little, they believed in Santa Claus. That was an untruth. You think they were hurt by that? You think that my mother was somehow hurt by believing that there was a benevolent god? I dont think so.

        • Uncle Ebeneezer

          Exactly, why is there a benediction at all?

          • Ceremonial deism.

            It classes up the joint.

            • Ceremonial deism is fine as a legal matter, if only because it’s stupid to bring federal cases over meaningless invocations of superstition in public ceremonies.

              But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t hold politicians to a higher standard. Especially since it doesn’t actually class up the joint to bring some usually ignorant homophobe who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old or whatever to make a short speech addressing a being that either doesn’t exist or isn’t anything like what that person thinks. Truly respecting a separation of church and state means eliminating this crap.

              • Uncle Ebeneezer

                Exactly. People often claim that prayers at public ceremonies are not any sort of favoritism or endorsement of a religion because it’s just tradition. As if the words spoken on the stage will have no connection or association to the President/government/organization playing host. But at the same time they (rightly, imo) are very attentive to what words are spoken because the wrong statements (or even past statements like in the case of Giglio) will absolutely be associated with the President/government/organization that allows them. I don’t understand why benedictions and such are the only statements that apparently don’t count, in that fashion. If the religious statements are so trivial, why not replace them with a secular equivalent.

                • I don’t understand why benedictions and such are the only statements that apparently don’t count, in that fashion.

                  Because, like every other use of language, their meaning is constructed based on a common understanding, and the common understanding is that benedictions at public events are ceremonial deism.

                  If the religious statements are so trivial, why not replace them with a secular equivalent.

                  Because while the words themselves are so trivial, the tradition, the ceremonial action, of having a cleric say a few words (regardless of what those words might be) while we all respectfully quiet down has its own understood meaning, which contributes to the character and impact of the occasion.

                • No Joe. What it actually does is privilege members of powerful religions.

              • I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the fellow who cannot discuss this issue without throwing around words like “ignorant,” “stupid,” “superstitious,” “crap,” and “nonsense” is a poor arbiter of class.

                • Is it also unclassy to call astrology a superstition? Or does this rule only apply to the powerful?

              • LeeEsq

                Dilan, while the Constitution calls for seperation of religion and state, the American political tradition never included 100% seperation. A majority of the American people believe are monotheists of some sort and public life always reflected it.

                I see no harm in minor reflections of this in public ceremonies.

                • The harm is that it privileges dominant groups, historocal oppresdors, ignorants, and bigots, saying that government endorses error.

            • commie atheist

              Professor Martha Nussbaum at the University of Chicago Law school stated, “‘Ceremonial Deism’ is an odd name for a ritual affirmation that a Deist would be very reluctant to endorse, since Deists think of God as a rational causal principle but not as a personal judge and father.

          • Richard

            Because Presidents have chosen to include one. Not necessary but not forbidden.

            • Uncle Ebeneezer

              But you would understand how someone could view something like this:

              Oh Lord God Almighty, the supply and supplier of faith and freedom, how excellent is Your name in all the earth. You are great and greatly to be praised. God, as we conclude this 55th inaugural ceremony, we conclude it with an attitude of thanksgiving. Thank You for protecting America’s borders. After all, the Psalmist reminds us, unless You, O God, guard the territory, our efforts will be in vain.
              Thank You for our armed service personnel. And it is with unswerving thanksgiving that we pause to remember the persons who have made the ultimate sacrifice to help ensure America’s safety. Thank You, O God, for surrounding our personnel, their families, their friends and our allies with Your favor and Your faithfulness.
              Deploy Your hosts from heaven so that Your will for America will be performed on earth as it is already perfected in heaven. I confess that Your face will shine upon the United States of America, granting us social peace and economic prosperity, particularly for the weary and the poor.
              I also confess, God, that each American’s latter days will be better than their former days. Let it be unto us according to Your Word.
              Rally the Republicans, the Democrats and the independents around Your common good so that America will truly become one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice and equal opportunity for all—including the least, the last and the lost.
              Bless every elected official right now. God, I declare Your blessings to shower upon our President, George W. Bush. Bless him, his family and his administration. I once again declare that no weapon formed against them shall prosper.
              God, forgive us for becoming so ensnarled in petty partisan politics that we miss Your glory and block our purpose. Deliver us from the evil one, from evil itself and from the mere appearance of evil.
              Give us clean hearts, so that we might have clean agendas, clean priorities and programs and even clean financial statements.
              Now, unto You, O God, the One who always has been and always will be, the one King of kings and the true power broker, we glorify and honor You.
              Respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

              As being government-funded proselytizing, no? Or at the very least being an endorsement of belief vs. non-belief?

              • Richard

                Its a particularly offensive benediction but not unconstitutional. Most, if not all, benedictions are an endorsement of belief v. non-belief. So what? So is In God We Trust on coins. Its just not a big deal to me.

              • Inaugural ceremonies are privately-funded.

  • sibusisodan

    Actually, musing on this a little further, I’m more surprised that Giglio accepted than anything else. Which, for someone of his faith tradition and geographical background is a touch surprising.

    After all, he’ll be standing up there with a known Marxist Socialist (TM), who only last year came out in support of gay marriage. It’s not like he can use Warren’s excuse that Obama wasn’t known at that point.

    Which kinda implies that the existence of one sermon a man preached 20 years ago may not be the best grounds on which to judge his actual current beliefs. I’d appreciate a more rounded and up to date picture of those, if it’s really going to be an issue.

    • Bitter Scribe

      Maybe this guy has repudiated his anti-gay rantings of more than a dozen years ago. But I’m not betting on it.

      • John

        From one of the comments above, it looks like he’s toned it down without actually repudiating it.

  • Eric

    The invitation has been revoked. Giglio won’t be part of the inauguration ceremonies.

  • db

    He’s already been dropped from the Inauguration, according to Alex Seitz-Wald.

  • catclub

    The update on thinkprogress says he is backing out of the inaugural.

  • StevenAttewell

    And he’s outta there! That was quick.

    • mds

      See? All you proggier-than-thou types were so quick to complain about this, and it turns out to not be happening after all! Now we can focus on the laudable choice of inauguration poet, which sends a stronger message than who is or isn’t delivering the sectarian benediction at a presidential inauguration anyway.

      • Richard

        Plus the words of the inauguration poet are occasionally remembered the next day.

        • Njorl

          Perhaps by the poet.

          • Richard

            Actually, Frost at Kennedy’s inauguration and Angelou at Clinton’s inauguration got far more notice than any benediction that has ever been offered at any presidential inauguration.

            • Njorl

              I think Angelou’s selection received far more notice than her words.

              My point was not that the benediction was as meaningful as the poet’s words, but rather that the poet’s words were generally not memorable. The only way to give a memorable benediction would be to screw it up monumentally.

              • Richard

                And to be fair, most of the press about Frost at the Kennedy inauguration was due to the fact that he stumbled over his own poem because the sun’s glare made it hard to read.

                But there was some mention of Frost and Angelou’s poems in the day’s following the inauguration. I doubt there has ever been mention of a benediction.

              • Anonymous

                I think Angelou’s selection hat received far more notice than her words.


                • sibusisodan

                  um, that was me.

      • John

        Surely the complaints had a great deal to do with him getting bumped.

  • RedSquareBear


    • Paul Campos

      If you send us $19.95, LGM will “Bork” one (1) benediction deliverer of your choice. And that’s a guarantee!*

      *Not a guarantee.

      • Malaclypse

        See, it would have been funnier if you guaranteed to put the head of one benediction speaker on a stick.

  • rea

    I gather the reason the guy was chosen was that he’s done good work agains human trafficing, which is a worthy cause.


  • I know of a nice atheist zombie architect who would absolutely RIP IT UP.

  • Pingback: Breaking News From Memorandum on Anti-LGBT Pastor Who Was to Pray at Obama Inauguration | ZION'S TRUMPET()

  • wengler

    I wish they’d stop praying before every federal government function. I wish the establishment clause meant we’d have a secular government instead of one that bends over backwards to cater to religious institutions at every opportunity.

It is main inner container footer text