Obama defends choice of evangelical pastor

Alicia stands up and "applauds" Rick Warren is a great choice, in addition to be being a great pastor and a wonderful speaker who loves all mankind.  Also, just because a person doesn't agree with a movement doesn't mean he hates the people of that movement. 

I don't really care if people hate gays. Seriously. Hate away. It's just an emotion. That's not the problem. Nor is not agreeing.

Actively working to take away the civil rights of a people without just cause is wrong. It doesn't matter if you "love" the people you're actively working to take away rights from.

It also doesn't mean the the person who does not agree with gay marriage has the right to stick his religion into gay peoples right to marry. If two gay people want to get married it's no one else's business but theirs. If you don't  like gay marriage then don't marry a gay person. It really is that simple. He does not have the right to force other people to follow his religious beliefs and by opposing gay rights that's exactly what he is doing. No one is going to try to force him to allow gays into his church or to require him to perform gay weddings. All the gay community is asking is that people like him mind their own business and don't try to force their religious belief on them. That's all. Gay people don't expect people to accept them, or take them into their home or church, just to leave them alone to live their lives in peace.

Obama doesn't hate gays.  But it's that dang tradition of having a praying christian pastor at the inaugural proceedings.  It always used to be Billy Graham. Now it's this guy... he's the most non-denominational, I guess. 

I'm for the complete separation of church and state and personally think this tradition should hit the history books.  But I don't think we should over react.  It's my opinion that these religious nuts will not take over Obama's decisions.

I don't want there to be a separation of church and state. There's nothing wrong with pledging to hold your office well over a Bible or Koran. I just want the church to stop running the state.

On issues like gay marriage and abortion, religious beliefs shouldn't decide what the law says, since everyone doesn't have the same religious beliefs. The health, safety, and well-being of a country's citizens should dictate such decisions.

I don't want there to be a separation of church and state. There's nothing wrong with pledging to hold your office well over a Bible or Koran. I just want the church to stop running the state.

On issues like gay marriage and abortion, religious beliefs shouldn't decide what the law says, since everyone doesn't have the same religious beliefs. The health, safety, and well-being of a country's citizens should dictate such decisions.

Doc Cece,

I'd be interested to hear where you would draw the line between symbols and the power of those symbols.

If we are going to say the Bible/Qur'an/etc., are acceptable to swear on, why not keep the Bible in our courtrooms (for swearing on)? Logically, then, there's no harm in letting the ten commandments stay in our courtrooms? If we're going to put the ten commandments in our courtrooms and not any other religious moral law, how are we not symbolically giving one religion more power over another?

Was it Ronald Reagan who said that Atheists could not also be Patriots because, after all, our money says "In God We Trust"?

In other words, I think that for the church to be stripped of its influence on law, the US government must necessarily be purged of religious symbols.

- Fouf

We don't need to do a full-blown purge. There just needs to be an understanding that everyone doesn't see those symbols the same way.

Now, the symbols are something entirely different from what dictates our law. I was referring to their inclusion in American...customs (if you will), like being sworn into office. Having the Ten Commandments hanging in a courthouse yet disallowing other religions' belongings is just plain wrong. It's discrimination. Stuff like that tends to get by because no one wants to be the one to take on "Jesus", but it's still unfair.

And just by removing religious symbols, doesn't mean religious influence would be removed. I don't think all the influence should be removed. After all, religion is something of the people. The people are supposed to influence the law, that includes their religion. My problem comes in when only one person's religion determines the law.

I hate that Bush wants part of his legacy to be that he governed practically on behalf of his religion. That meant he wasn't everyone's president. He was the president of people who shared his economic status and his religious beliefs. That's no good for a country. Having an influence, but not a mandate is what I feel is best.

That way, we get influences from everyone, and hopefully find a middle ground.

Doc Cece,

I didn't see your reply till just now. I'm not 100 percent convinced that people should be able to vote according to their religion, but then again since religious people actually believe what they say they believe, they cannot escape their own biases in the voting booth, I'm sure.

I think this problem can be solved if we protect certain rights that should not be voted on. 

On the one hand, I understand (and even applaud) the motivation behind this action. 

You know, I won't even give him that. I think it's a crappy move. And a stupid one.

I don't see the point of picking someone Obama had to of known would be seen as a decisive character in the name of "unity". He could of very easily gone with a pastor more sympathetic to gay rights and still played towards more moderate evangelicals.

To pick someone that really isn't a "moderate" on his views towards women, gays and lesbians (equating abortion to the holocaust and gay and lesbian marriage to pedophilia) is playing towards more extreme social conservatives, and I just don't think we need to play to those guys. For one, I'm really tired of Democrats playing to Republicans when it's become pretty obvious that Republicans never will extend the same goodwill gesture, "bi-partisan" has come to mean "don't stand in the Republican's way, ever. Secondly, even if "Obama doesn't agree with everything", it's still mainstreaming and reinforcing extreme views like Warren's, making our battle harder.  And thirdly, it's a waste of time. It's not like social conservatives or Republicans that run on the "culture war" are ever going to have a change of heart and start supporting Obama merely because someone that represents their ideals speaks at the inauguration.

In reality, all Obama managed to do here was piss of a lot of people. A lot of people that are very tired of being taken for granted and told their issues of equal rights needs to be put on the back-burner for the good of the Democratic party, and a lot of people that worked very hard to help get him where he today. That's not uniting or compromising, in my opinion. To me it's sending a message that some people's rights are expendable for the sake of... an illusion of harmony and goodwill?

Sorry for the rant, but I seriously face-palmed when I heard about this. I can't give him a pass on this one. I'm just tired of it being accepted or assumed that people affected by these things will "get over" them, you know? How many more slaps in the face can one take before it's "acceptable" for them to get angry about it?

Emotions are still very raw over Prop 8, nationwide, in the LGBT community.

I guess we shouldn't invite any black people to the event either given that statistically speaking they were the swing vote on Prop 8? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3388430/Barack-Obama-may-have-helped-California-Proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban-pass.html

Come on people, when are we going to be able to disagree with one another and still be treated civily?  I am against Prop 8 as well, but all this hub-bub over this is ridiculous.

Good for Obama!

Sorry for the rant, but I seriously face-palmed when I heard about this. I can't give him a pass on this one. I'm just tired of it being accepted or assumed that people affected by these things will "get over" them, you know? How many more slaps in the face can one take before it's "acceptable" for them to get angry about it?

Stacy, don't apologize. You're absolutely right. This is the type of leadership we're going to continue to get until we really take this @!$%#ing country back from the political elite, in which Obama too is a member of. Sadly, the sixties revolution was never complete and ended way too soon. This kind of @!$%# pisses me off. I'm @!$%#ing sick and tired of the religious right and narrow-minded, selfish conservative elements who hold back social progress. Obama is gonna disappoint a lot of people in the coming months and years.

I guess we shouldn't invite any black people to the event either given that statistically speaking they were the swing vote on Prop 8?

That's actually probably not true.  There have been plenty of debunkings of that elsewhere, but even a quick eyeball of the numbers suggests it probably isn't true.  If Blacks made up 10% of the electorate and if they split 70/30**, then it's not likely they were truly determinative.  There were almost exactly 13 million votes cast in CA on the Prop 8 measure (so we'll just use 13,000,000 to keep this easy), and the margin was just about 600,000 votes. 

Remember we're assuming the exit polling is correct and that Blacks were 10% of the electorate, so approximately 1.3 million votes were from African Americans.  Of those, 70% were Yes (910,000) and 30% were No (390,000).  Remember that our margin of win is 600,000.  The difference between the Yes and No vote is only 520,000 votes, so even if Blacks had swapped (70% No and 30% Yes, an unlikely number not matched by any other racial group), Prop 8 still would have passed.  

Blacks did not pass Prop 8, at least not alone, and they're no more responsible than any other group if you base it on race.

**understanding that exit polling usually has a much higher error rate than true random sample polling and also understanding that goes at least double when looking at small subgroups within that non-random sample, but also understanding that these are the best numbers available, so we just muddle on...

I guess we shouldn't invite any black people to the event either given that statistically speaking they were the swing vote on Prop 8?

Putting the error of confusing a person's actions and beliefs to biological factors like race aside, this myth his has been debunked repeatedly.*

Come on people, when are we going to be able to disagree with one another and still be treated civily? 

But don't you see the disconnect here? Gays and lesbians are shamed for not being "civil" about someone that would deny them rights (and for the record, I haven't seen anyone being "uncivil" about this, they are expressing their displeasure with it). But arguing to deny right to certain groups of people, essentially saying that gays and lesbians and women are not equals in this country, is somehow civil? I think not. In fact, I'd say it's far less civil then expressing anger or dismay at having rights denied. Yet that Obama picked this divisive pastor in the first place that has no problem stating that certain groups shouldn't be equal isn't seen as "uncivil", because apparently being civil to gays and lesbians and women doesn't matter. They should just get over it, like we always expect them to do. Well, maybe some don't feel like getting over it this time. You can only kick someone in the gut so many times before they react badly to it.

I am against Prop 8 as well, but all this hub-bub over this is ridiculous.

I'm sure it is to some that don't have a personal stake in this issue. But to others, it's not seen as "hub-bub" or "ridiculous". We are talking about opinions about the rights that people are entitled to here.

Plus, you have to understand that this mentality - "We luv teh gays and teh wimmins when we need their support politically, but don't you get too uppity or loud or think that we should represent your interests or anything, just go back to being quiet for the good of the Democratic party and don't fuss while we take care of everyone else and ignore you" - happens all the time. People tell me all the time how my silly little women's issues just aren't important, and that I should totally "compromise" and agree with laws that put women at a disadvantage because to not agree at least in part that the government should control women's bodies is somehow "hurting" the Democratic party because gosh, social conservatives may be turned off by it! Boo hoo. And the same thing is happening here, - "Shut up gays, you're being all silly and totally ruining my unity party". Boo hoo. And it happens all. the. time. It's about time we started calling them out.

*Edit - Oops, spiffie beat me.

I'm really tired of Democrats playing to Republicans when it's become pretty obvious that Republicans never will extend the same goodwill gesture, "bi-partisan" has come to mean "don't stand in the Republican's way, ever.

That sums it up for me too. Enough is enough. It's time to realize that they will never cooperate if it's not in their immediate interest. They are never wrong, doncha know?

You know, I won't even give him that. I think it's a crappy move. And a stupid one.

The only reason I say applaud is because, in a very real way, Obama is doing exactly what I sent him to Washington to do.  The partisan ass-hattery of the last 15 years (well, really 14 years, 1994) has been beyond the pale and awful, and it's time the adults took charge again.  And sometimes being adult means working with people you don't like, if not with a smile then at least with respect.  

I sent him to Washington because I knew he was a compromiser.  I even knew he'd make compromises I disagreed with (like his FISA vote).  I voted to send him to Washington to build bridges instead of burn them.  And, I guess, part of building bridges involves showing people who have been trained to hate Democrats and Liberals by two decades of right-wing media that you really aren't the anti-Christ and you really do want to include them (or their representatives) in your counsel.

Yeah, yeah, I know this gesture of good will is unlikely to matched by the other side; it certainly wasn't matched when Republicans controlled the trifecta of elected branches.  But sometimes you have to be the person you want to be, and I guess that goes for party, as well.  Be the party you want your party to be.  Be the governor you think governors should be.

And yet.  Bitter pill.  I still have hope, though.  His civil rights platform is ambitious and comprehensive.  I think he has a chance to get some of it done.  And that might be just enough spoonfuls of sugar to make this medicine go down.

On the other hand, I think it's a rare example of Obama showing a tin ear on an issue.

It's unusual for him to be this politically tone deaf. I don't think he really realized how angry many people would get at this choice. Perhaps they thought that since we voted for him we'd support anything he does and it doesn't work that way. When he's wrong he's wrong and in this case he's really really wrong. Rare screw up, but a screw up none the less.

In reality, all Obama managed to do here was piss of a lot of people. A lot of people that are very tired of being taken for granted and told their issues of equal rights needs to be put on the back-burner for the good of the Democratic party, and a lot of people that worked very hard to help get him where he today. That's not uniting or compromising, in my opinion. To me it's sending a message that some people's rights are expendable for the sake of... an illusion of harmony and goodwill?

Well said! Excellent post and completely true. I'm sick of the Democrats bending over to compromise with the right wing when they repeatedly spit on us when they're in charge. Enough is enough!

I think when you witness the conquer divide and reward ethos of the past you have to realise that allowing people into the arena is a step towards learning how to co-exist with tolerance and understanding of difference Christians should display. Perhaps Christians do not realise the irony.   If you really want things to stay the same then just divide and dominate - it won't last long and the see-saw pendulum simply gathers momentum at a faster rate.  Then later you can watch the other side divide and dominate.  That is not inclusive politics or nation building or even responsible government. Obama wants a government for all the people - not lip service to that end.

This is a very Tasteless move for Obama. The passing of prop 8 is still fresh wounds for the LGBT community and he is setting a grimtone for the future. He could have made a more diplomatic choice which would reflect his religious beliefs, But Rick Warren??? this is truly a slap in the face.

Is every decision President(elect) makes to be run through the GAY community for approval?  Is the GAY community going to feel slighted by every decision which is not GAY friendly, GAY sensitive, or GAY politically correct?

If that's what the activist GAY community bargained for, you have the wrong Man.  A President Obama will put his principles, the constitution, and the well being and inclusion of all Americans first.

To paraphrase on a campaign slogan of his.  "I'm not running to be the President of the Red States of America or The Blue States of America"  Nor did he run to be the President of GLBT States of the America.  He will be the President of the United States.

If every decision that does not openly favor GAYS, is going to cause to people to revisit their decision to vote for him, or cause them buyer's remorse, they may as well withdraw their support from him right here and now!  Saving themselves any future anguish.  Because President Obama is no one's "yes" man.  He is a Leader.

I might go a bit off topic with this, apologies.

The partisan ass-hattery of the last 15 years (well, really 14 years, 1994) has been beyond the pale and awful, and it's time the adults took charge again.

Sure, and I do understand this. But there is a problem when it's just one party being the adults. I feel like we are getting trapped in this cycle - you have a Republican that disregards partisanship or moderation and moves policy farther right, then Democrats, instead of recovering the ground, instead scramble to show everyone how moderate and bi-partisan they are by accepting it or tolerating it (because god forbid, they be liberal on something), and then, the next cycle, the Republicans move it farther right again. My mother has always tried to re-assure me when it comes to politics that the pendulum will always swing both ways. But I don't see it doing that, I see it swinging all lop-sided.

And it has an effect. Something that I've always found telling is the language, and how it's changed ("death tax" rather then "estate tax", "Partial-Birth Abortion" rather then "Late term Abortion"), and the memes - government is bad. Liberal is a bad word. Liberals are always the extremists. Supporting a separation of church and state is an attack on religion. Taxation to pay off debts or use for the benefit of the country is socialist. This are things that came from the right but have slowly moved into the mainstream of discourse over a number of years, even decades. We've just accepted it.

Since Republicans pretty much own the frames and memes, and we keep trying to show what good sports we are within them, they have the upper hand. For example, when I talk about the mainstreaming of some of Warren's views, my concern is that if we keep mainstreaming and accepting some of his positions in order to play to social conservatives and show how we are willing to work together, they win. It becomes no longer a debate about if a fear of pedophilia is an issue when it comes to gay marriage, instead it is a debate on how we can have gay marriage if we know it will lead to pedophilia. So we have to argue back to square one - not only do we have to convince others about why we feel gays and lesbians should have equal rights, we have to waste time explaining why legalized pedophilia isn't an issue.

Political frames are powerful. If not for the economy tanking and McCain's poor choices campaign, we could very well have McCain and Palin in office right now. McCain and Palin. Why? Because of the frames they used during the election. Any use of government = socialism = death of capitalism = death of America. The idea that government can be useful in some circumstances doesn't exist, because we've bought into the meme that government is always bad. Even though McCain/Palin was a complete train wreck, the supported that meme. And as such, they got a bit of support from those that have bought into the meme.

Anyway, rambling aside, that we seem to be on that same track concerns me.

But there is a problem when it's just one party being the adults. I feel like we are getting trapped in this cycle - you have a Republican that disregards partisanship or moderation and moves policy farther right, then Democrats, instead of recovering the ground, instead scramble to show everyone how moderate and bi-partisan they are

Sure, and I don't disagree with this, but I think that trying to compare this administration to what happened in the 90s might be a mistake.  There's a reason that the Clinton years saw a lot of backsliding from the perspective of liberal ideology, and a lot of that has to do with Clinton's governing from a "third way" perspective.  I don't think Obama's approach is necessarily equivalent to "third way" politics.  Obama has been perfectly willing to advocate the liberal or progressive position, to advance a more leftward frame, while at the same time doing the necessary groundwork to ensure that his framing can gain some traction.

When you look at how Clinton governed in his first two years, it's easy to see some of the mistakes he made right off the bat.  He attempted to push reforms for which he didn't have a base of support.  There's no better example than healthcare reform, where such reform had a good amount of public support, but the backroom nature of its fashioning turned off a lot of people in Congress, and Clinton ultimately bickered as much with Democrats in Congress as he did with Republicans.  Another example would the travesty that ended up with DADT.

And that initial lack of caution set the stage for all of Clinton's later years.  It resulted in a backlash that took Democrats several cycles to recover from.   After the '94 "revolution", Clinton had to deal with a Congress that was so nuts it was willing to shut down the government rather than compromise.   Clinton's lack of legwork set up a situation whereby effective compromise was made almost impossible.

But Obama's style is much more transparent and much more open.  He seems, constitutionally, more willing to do the hard work of building coalitions first.  Whether you look at his state senate career or his first two years in the US Senate, that becomes clear.  One of the most impressive things I learned during the course of the campaign was explicated in the PBS Frontline special "The Choice" where they revealed that Obama came in, sat down with his legislative and political staff, and laid out a two-year plan to develop a body of legislation and bipartisan backing that would allow him to think about running for president.  Obama is a long-range thinker, perhaps more so than any politician we've had in a long, long time.

Maybe he couldn't work with Dick Lugar on abortion legislation, but he could work with him on nuclear proliferation.  Maybe he couldn't work with some on LGBT rights, but he could work with them on ethics reform.  That kind of careful planning and powerbase building showed up in the campaign, too.  Maybe he couldn't win New York or some of the early primaries, but he set himself and his organization up in a lot of other states so that his ground game could keep him competitive on Super Tuesday and in the February/March contests.

Obama is and has always been a cautious planner.  That's a key difference I see between him and Clinton.  So while it's pretty clear Obama won't be able to necessarily rely on Rick Warren (or his constituency) on issues like gay marriage and abortion, because really it's difficult to compromise with someone on an issue when they're determined to compare you Nazis and pedophiles, Warren is less extreme on other issues that Obama can work with him on, such as global poverty and global warming (i.e. "creation care").

So for me this is a form of outreach that makes a sort of political sense.  In the same way I often bemoan some voters (including my own mother) who seem determined to vote along certain narrow-interest litmus issues, so too must I be careful I myself don't fall into that trap.  There are some issues that shouldn't be compromised on, and yet inviting Rick Warren isn't strictly speaking a compromise on any issue--it's just an invitation to a certain segment of the population work with Obama on the issues on which they can agree.

I also think we need to be careful in judging what Obama's inevitable compromises will be on policy based solely on actions he's taking during this process of bridge-building and coalition building.  I'm not saying stop advocating liberal positions and stop making sure Obama is aware of what the concerns of our constituency are, but I can see a certain method and logic and political calculus underlying his (apparent) madness.  If allowing Rick Warren to speak helps Obama among a certain segment of the public whereby he is able to translate that support into action on global warming, that's great. 

It's that approach that I think is my greatest hope.  If Obama can successfully tackle an issue like global warming, then he might be able to tackle an issue like DADT or gay marriage (or civil unions, more likely) or healthcare or real education reform. 

Anyway, rambling aside, that we seem to be on that same track concerns me.

I do understand this concern.  I do.  I just don't think we can conclude yet that this is, in fact, the track we're on.  There are a lot of other reasons to be hopeful that we won't end up on this track, a lot of which have nothing to do with Obama.  

In the first place, conservatives have moved on some issues which will allow Obama to build some political capital.  Global warming is one ("creation care", Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, many younger evangelicals).  Civil unions at the federal level of one form  might be another (even the Mormon Church is willing to allow some rights be extended to gay couples).  

In the next case, liberals and progressives have resources in the 21st century that they didn't have at the end of the 20th.  Republicans spent five decades building a conveyor belt system to get their ideas thought of, refined, and out to the public, through a system of think tanks, print publications, and talk radio.  

Liberals spent most of this decade playing catch-up, and in some ways we've even exceeded them, especially on the Internet.  Just six years ago, the sole openly liberal commentator in cable news was fired by MSNBC--today that position has completely reversed.  Ten years ago we didn't have people like David Sirota and Robert Reich and Paul Krugman appearing in every media appearance they could.  There are organizations like MoveOn and Media Matters, and countless top-tier blogs.  Our messaging apparatus is much more robust than it was.  (Actually, it's much more existent than it was.  Heh.)  And that apparatus will help as much to "keep Obama honest" as it will to help combat right-wing framing of the issues.

So while I'm cautiously optimistic, I think I am still optimistic, even given this choice for an invocation speaker.  And while I'm hurt by its necessity, I can recognize the reasoning that classes it as a necessity.  No doom and gloom for me yet.  There will be plenty of time for that in 2009.  ;-)

Annnnd, I really should learn to write articles instead of long-ass comments.  It pays a lot better, at least.  :-)

Correct there anyway. We  are all humans and NOBODY, especially the president is ever going to please EVERY person. The country can't be run, built, repaired, or anything else if no one is given a chance to try. I think he is trying to keep peace with ALL factions, for a hoped for future of NO factions. He HAS been elected and deserves to be given the chance to pass or fail just as any previous president. Try to step back a little and let his plans unfold. Nothing can be solved overnight, and if we all have the same (mostly) God. What does it effect on WHO is doing the praying?

Annnnd, I really should learn to write articles instead of long-ass comments.  It pays a lot better, at least.  :-)

Does anyone actually keep the money newsvine has for pay outs? I mean mine's not all that much so I just donate it.

I cash out when I get over $100, usually about three times a year.

I've hit just about $40 bucks since I joined this past July, though I admit I'm not trying very hard. I give it off to the Wildlife Conservation Society. Of course that's just because my wife doesn't know that I could actually make money here. She'd be having me write columns all day and cashing out.

;-)

Spiffie -

I tried so hard to keep this short, I really did!

Anyway, I get what you are saying, and agree with a lot of it. But I guess another way I am looking at this though isn’t so much the administrations themselves, but also how they are reacted to. For example, I don’t necessarily believe that the backlash against Clinton was actually just about Clinton. I think that it started in the 60s. There are still many people in this country that are upset with things like the civil rights movement or women’s liberation or the anti-war protesters of the era or, at the risk of sound cliché, the dirty hippies. And Republicans picked up on this, and have been playing off of this anger from the 60s ever since.

Republicans would cite radical groups like The Weathermen and claim that the Democratic party was either in danger of allowing these “far left” groups to take control, or were willing to have them do so. You still see this today, Democrats are accused of wanting to hand over the nation to those that are extremists, Obama was constantly berated for being too “far-left”, and also “socialist”, which isn’t exactly a surprise when  you look at the similar accusations that were thrown at civil rights leaders. I think the whole attempt to equate fighting for equality with “oppression” of those that wished for things to stay unequal came out of this as well, it came to a point where denying equal rights to people of color or women wasn’t acceptable to the public on it’s face, but tacking on this conspiracy that the leaders were actual socialists with a super-scary secret agenda that threatened the very core of what America stands for sure as hell caught the attention of a few voters. And it still does.

This has had an effect on Democrats, they tend to run like made from anything that may make them appear “too liberal” or associate them with the movements of the 60s. But more importantly, I think it’s had an effect on Republicans as well, as they tend to move further from traditional conservative values and towards more of the far-right. It could be argued that the boogeyman of the 60s radical liberals is so strong in some minds, more extreme Republicans gained an edge by presenting themselves as a way to counteract that (non-existent) boogeyman, but it could also be that it was a good time to push a far-right policy, while no one pays attention because they are so worried Ayers is going to be the next president and destroy freedom.

I feel the flaw here is trying to compromise with that. Yes, I would like the country to be less divisive. But what do we really accomplish when compromising with figures that are themselves divisive? Can we only have harmony on their terms? And if so, is it really worth it then?

Don’t get me wrong, now is a great time to reach out to more traditional conservatives and moderate Republicans, and I would encourage that. And you are right that we shouldn't use a litmus test, obviously we are going to have to work with people that don't hold the same values we do. But comparing gay marriage to pedophilia? Lying about what would happen if Prop 8 didn't pass in order to scare people into voting for it? Claiming that husbands are the masters over their wives? Claiming that abortion is equal to the holocaust? That's a bit too much. Warren is a product of the far-right. He’s really no different from Daddy Dobson and the like; he shares the same views on the issues just in a kinder tone. But now, we’ve taken these ideas that are far-right and sold them to the audience at Obama’s inaugural as “moderate” or acceptable. And I agree with some bloggers that are claiming that this move is going to come back to bite us in the ass:

When Obama advances a progressive agenda on social issues, as he's certain to do, Warren will continue to speak out on the other side -- only now, he'll do so with the added authority that comes with being the president's hand-chosen pastor for the inauguration's invocation. Warren's status will soar, and his criticism of Obama's policies -- or Democrats' in general -- will resonate that much louder.

I do see your point that Warren isn’t speaking on gay rights or abortion, and could be an asset for things like climate change. But personally, I kind of doubt Warren is doing this out of any love for Obama, I think it’s an opportunity for him to get more face time. And as such, these other issues are going to come up. And you know, since he’s such a reasonable guy when it comes to climate change…

I just really think we could of found someone that was more moderate.

Even if we did want it, I don’t feel like we are ever going to have unity in this country so long as the Republican party is in the state it is currently in. We are at a point right now where there are Republicans in elected office that don’t even acknowledge Democrats as legitimate Americans (again, I think this is something that harkens back to the mentality concerning the civil rights era). That whole attempt to tie Obama to his relatives in Kenya and the drama over the birth certificate? The attempt to tie Obama in with ACORN and present ACORN as a hotbed for voter fraud? There were reasons why those tactics were used to discredit Obama's presidency if he won. There is no way these people will ever, ever, ever work with a Democrat. I’m kind of optimistic that the Republican party won’t be in that state for long, I think moderates, fiscal conservatives and more libertarian-minded folks are fed up with it, but I also think the more radical aspects will take a while to die out. We will see Sarah Palin again, I’m sure.

This is getting kind of long , but I’ll just say that I completely agree with your assessment of the netroots. However, although we have seen that the internet can keep people honest, also keep in mind that it feeds into rumors as well. I really don’t think that the whole “birth certificate” stupidity would have made it to the mainstream media if not for blogs like No Quarter. I’m still hoping that despite that, more information being available will turn out to be beneficial in the long run. Either way, this will be a very interesting era to live in. Television revolutionized politics, and I think that, as we actually begun to see, the internet will do the same.

At any rate, thanks for the thoughtful response! I’m not going to call doom and gloom on this at all. But I do worry about what we are willing to compromise for what appears (to me) to be a small shot at unity. I don’t disagree with a lot of what you said, I just think that we are just operating off of different levels of optimism. Or maybe conspiracy theories. Either way. ;)

Yes, I would like the country to be less divisive. But what do we really accomplish when compromising with figures that are themselves divisive? Can we only have harmony on their terms? And if so, is it really worth it then?

I think maybe where we disagree is in our impression of Rick Warren.  Yes, Rick Warren is far-right, but he doesn't strike me as far-crazy-right, like many of those that we've been dealing with in the past.  The right-wing religious movement has been dominated by far-crazy-right leaders for thirty-five years, since the Anita Bryants and Jerry Falwells, and it's that rump movement that resulted in the birth certificate and Kenya rumor mills.  

In other words, I agree that Warren uses the tired rhetoric of the far-right in some cases (pedophilia, etc.), but I don't equate him to Dobson who is fanatically committed to the issues of homosexuality and abortion to the exclusion of all others.  But there are a lot of people on the right who use that tired rhetoric, and it doesn't necessarily make them crazy--it might make them ignorant or uneducated on the issue or set in their ways or some other thing.  Some of them are even on my friends list here on Newsvine.  But a lot of those people can be reasoned with in a way that the far-crazy-right (willing to shut down the government to make a point) never could be.

Warren's willingness to do a couple things makes me think he's not part of that rump, and there are encouraging signs that the Republican Party mainstream is not as beholden to that group as it used to be.  

With respect to Warren, first, he had invited Obama to speak at Saddleback long before the official campaign started, in 2006.  That shows a willingness to at least admit other viewpoints that I don't think we've seen often from that quarter.  Second, I thought Warren treated Obama very fairly during the pseudo-debate at Saddleback.  

Gillis has made this comment elsewhere, too, but I agree with you that Warren wants more than to just be a California mega-church preacher.  Where I disagree with Gillis is that he's aiming to be the new Billy Graham.  I think, rather, he's aiming to be the Evangelical Oprah (even if he would never put it that way). 

The thing about expanding your audience is that it literally forces you to be less parochial.  If Warren wants a consistent audience of a size of millions rather than the 20,000 members of Saddleback, he'll need legitimacy--and needing that legitimacy he opens himself up to public pressure that he doesn't face in his home parish.  I also tend to be long-term bullish on the prospects of gay marriage, especially in California.  I think gay marriage will be legal there sooner rather than later, and at the point when it is Warren will have to make a choice whether to be fire-and-brimstone or whether to cede that point and move on to other issues.  I think he's more ambitious than he is crazy.

The other bit of encouragement, especially as regards such "controversies" as the Obama birth certificate, is that even a certain segment of the right-wing blogs declared the issue to be idiotic.  Bloggers like Michele Malkin and Ed Morissey of Hot Air equated it to 9/11 truther status.  When I find myself nodding while reading a Malkin blog post, I know something is either very wrong or very right--and I think in this case it was something very right.  If No Quarter wants to establish themselves as seen, even by other right-wing sites, as the 9/11 truther movement site of the right, more power to them.  I don't expect it will serve them well.

I just really think we could of found someone that was more moderate.

Maybe.  I think the more that I think about it, part of the brilliance of the gamble (and it is a gamble, I have no doubt about that) is that Warren isn't that moderate, but a lot of the people who are attuned to Warren are.  See this thread here.

Again, I don't see this as a gesture that Obama compromising on policy, but rather showing far-right-but-not-crazy conservatives that he's willing to respect them--even if everyone acknowledges that they won't agree on many issues.  Yes, there's a risk that Warren will get more out of this relationship than Obama will, but I think Warren takes a risk, too, in that to get what he wants he may find himself as influenced by Obama as he seeks to influence Obama.

As I see it, Obama is taking a risk that he can help elevate the far-right-but-not-crazy segment over the far-crazy-right.  If he can do that, he might save himself some of the headaches that Clinton faced.  Personally, I think the far-right-but-not-crazy segment might be in a period of ascendance, and things we can do to encourage that ascendance are, on balance, good. 

The other reason speaking for a Warren pick is that Warren was inserted into the campaign and public consciousness in a way that no other preacher of similar ideology was (with exceptions noted in a minute).  Obama is probably seeking to play on Warren's fame, as much as Warren is seeking to play on Obama's.  Who else could be used, after this campaign, with such facile shorthand for the average voter?

There were only three other preachers of such stature that I can think of: Wright, Hagee, and Parsley.  Wright, of course, wouldn't reach across the aisle.  Hagee and Parsley are both from the far-crazy-right segment, and so would be out.  Picking a lesser-known preacher takes a lot of oomph out of the gesture, probably to the point that it may not have been worth making at all.  There's no point in taking a big risk if the potential payoff isn't commensurately large.

And I agree that this conversation has been very enjoyable.  It's probably the best I've taken part of in months on the site.  :-) 

Can you two stop this already! I decided not to waste any more time on Newsvine and you two aren't helping at all with your intelligence and reasonableness! Damn it! I... refuse... to... chime... in...

Give in to the green side, vas.  

Vas, you're needed on Newsvine. Your opinions are one of the few I never scroll past. All things in moderation.

Wow, I'm flattered, Doc! And you're making me regret my use of the word "waste"... Conversations with people like you, spiffie and Stacy are certainly not a waste of time. The greatest thing about the time I have spent on Newsvine is that I've met some great people and their ideas. I hope to stay connected to them!

The problem is that even in moderation, there aren't enough hours in the day.  The other thing is that I think I personally can do more good in the world by physically engaging. This is not necessarily true for others, especially whose who write well, but experience is telling me that it is true for me. Plus my current day job is technical, so I really need to get away from computers :)   I would like to find a site or community where people focus on more intelligent, open-minded and respectful discussion than what is typical here on Newsvine.  There fraction of Newsvine interested in this is getting smaller and smaller every day.

Hmmm, you've made good points. If you find this Utop-ic place on the internet, let me know. I'd love to avoid some of the tom-foolery that goes down here on a daily basis. But the news junkie in me kinda likes the funnel action that Newsvine provides.

Depends how you look at it. I personally think its a ridiculous choice, but a friend of mine figures that since most of the demographics that came out heavy for Obama also voted heavily for Prop 8 its just payback for his constituents. My friend is something of an ass, but the irony isn't lost on me.

Obama's a populist. In this case it isn't such a big deal but on matters of national security, defense, and terror where he will have to make some difficult decisions, it will be a problem.

R Donald Snyder,  if someone, a homophobe say, said to you about your choice of a mate, "Picking him is indefensible?"

How much weight would you give those words?  And would you let those words prevent you from doing what you were determined to do? 

Just asking.

Um, actually I'm straight and picked a woman as a mate, because I fell in love with her. So I don't really see how your question applies? Still, the difference here is not that Barack picked a mate, he didn't. Warren and him are not looking to get married. He was asked to give a prayer at the inauguration, which is a slap in the face to gay rights supporters like myself. See the difference? If Barack said he was in love with Warren and wanted to marry him, I'd certainly support his right to, though I still think he could do better and I'd be happy to introduce him to any one of several gay friends who'd love to go out with him.

I think as decidedly as we support people who feel one way, we should support those who feel the other way.

There is a lot of intolerance going both ways. There are pro-gay rights people acting as if anti-gay rights people don't have the same right to feel that way.

The problem comes in when a feeling gets translated into an action that impedes on one's civil rights.

As a pro-gay rights person, I see nothing wrong with this whole thing. Rev. Warren deserves to be included in the inauguration as much as anyone else. He and his opinions have a place in America. When Obama starts consulting him about whether or not to sign an order banning gay marriage, then we should worry. Until then, let's remember a big part of Obama's platform: bring everyone to the table, not just those who are the most centrist and agreeable.

Clergymen should not be allowed to speak at any goverment function what-so-ever.

Totally on point.

Totally on point.

So we have freedom of speech, just not when it comes to religion. Got it.

So we have freedom of speech, just not when it comes to religion. Got it.

No, we can have freedom of speech, but let it be in the churches where it belong. Not not secular government. Was a gay rights minister invited to the inauguration to represent the other side? Hell no, because the conservative right would have kicked Obama ass for doing so. He's a @!$%#ing Clinton with a dark face. There, I said it.

These defenders of free speech and separation of church and state would be blowing a gasket if this was some radical muslim preacher up there delivering the invocation.  Just depends on what side of the argument you happen to fall.

By radical muslim, do you mean one who has or wants to commit murder or just a muslim with hard-line beliefs?  I don't see anybody complaining about him inviting a muslim to speak if he were to.  The left have always been the "squeakier" wheel.

Okay I have a problem with the post above simply due to this.

This is HIS inauguration, this is HIS choice on what religious or spiritual guidance he chooses to start his presidency with.  

Now where are all the critics he's had for months hollering "he's a closet Muslim".  "he has been under the guidance of a racist pastor for 20 years".  It wouldn't have matter who he chose because he can't and won't ever be able to please everyone! No matter if he had invited the pope, the gay population would be pissed about that as well.  Just because he picked this particular clergyman to conduct prayer at his inauguration doesn't mean he is going to totally ignore the gay population. 

It is a shame that all some do is sit back and read any story posted about him and a decision he's made and be ready to redicule him over each and every one!

Very well said, "Southern Bell".  Again, people are not getting their way and people want to @!$%# and complain about it.  All the people moaning and complaining should of gotten off there arses and ran for POTUS of America and then they would understand the job is about compromise and not pleasing a particular group.

Was a gay rights minister invited to the inauguration to represent the other side?

Yes: Lowery.

Sorry Southern Bell, while I've agreed with you sometimes I don't agree with you here. It's not impossible to pick someone who isn't polarizing. How about Maya Angelou? How about Nelson Mandela? How about Robert Redford? How about Colin Powell? How about Oprah? Want a pastor? How about Dr. Scott Jones?

He could have picked damn near anyone instead of picking someone that would love nothing more than the destruction of the families of gay, lesbian, and trans-gendered Americans.

I don't mind him picking people that disagree with my views. I do mind Obama picking someone that loves to go into families that are not his own and to remove children, prevent loved ones from visiting their partners in the hospital, or having a loved ones family completely take over all children and property in the case of death. Sorry but he's wrong here... BIG TIME.

You can always support a different view, but a President should not support hatred and death sorry just my two cents.

KC-77

I don't think Obama picked Warren because he supports hatred and death.  I think Obama picked Warren because he had the concern about the presidential election that all should and invited Obama and McCain to his church.  I think Obama also picked Warren because he is trying to include someone to represent every group.  Now to show you where I am going with this.  Obama's got his eye on an officer to place over the Navy and he's openly gay. 

 You are right he could have picked someone like Nelson Mandella, great choice KC and you know what, then all the racist would be coming out of the wood work hollering "he's looking out for his African brothers already and not even in office yet"; come on now I know you've read these type comments right here on the vine.  If not I can go back and cc as many as you can stand to you. 

I really think the gay community is so upset over the Prop 8 not passing that they are going to lash out at anything that comes from anyone who opposes them or has been viewed as opposition in the past.  I know Warren is pastor of a behemoth of a church, but I don't think you can contribute Prop 8 not passing strictly to their credit.  According to all the data I've read, it was not a close vote on the passing of that bill, which would say to me that a lot of citizens not just Warren's church thought that not the right thing to do.  Are they because they voted against that bill practicing hatred and death?

There's my two cents to add to yours, pretty soon we'll have a dollar! ;)

There's my two cents to add to yours, pretty soon we'll have a dollar! ;)

LOL. That would be nice.

Anyway, I understand Obama wanting to reach out. However, picking a gay (he's definitely not openly gay as laws prevent that) individual for some obscure post does not equate to picking a speaker, know for his hate speech, for the inauguration for definitely one of the most important presidential selections of my lifetime. While I understand that William White might be able to ease tensions and interpret the law more loosely, he cannot overturn the current "don't ask don't tell" law.

 You are right he could have picked someone like Nelson Mandella, great choice KC and you know what, then all the racist would be coming out of the wood work hollering "he's looking out for his African brothers already and not even in office yet"; come on now I know you've read these type comments right here on the vine.  If not I can go back and cc as many as you can stand to you.

You're definitely right. However, you don't give hatred a microphone. You might try to have some sort of meaningful dialogue. But I don't think I've ever met someone who was full of hatred suddenly change his/her spots due to some magnanimous speech. That's not to say it's never happened, but the likely hood is extremely slim.

I really think the gay community is so upset over the Prop 8 not passing that they are going to lash out at anything that comes from anyone who opposes them or has been viewed as opposition in the past.  I know Warren is pastor of a behemoth of a church, but I don't think you can contribute Prop 8 not passing strictly to their credit.  According to all the data I've read, it was not a close vote on the passing of that bill, which would say to me that a lot of citizens not just Warren's church thought that not the right thing to do.  Are they because they voted against that bill practicing hatred and death?

This is where I don't agree. The gay and lesbian community is lashing out because of civil rights. PERIOD. Any class of people would do the same, and history has shown that they have. This isn't new, which is probably why the GLBT community is more active in todays' political climate than in previous times. The overall civil rights movement wasn't that long ago. Therefore, the possibility of doing the right thing when it comes to equal protection under the law should be less reactionary and more progressive in practice. I know it might sound a little utopian, but I find this issue to be very analgous to sending a mouse through a maze that the mouse has completed before. We know how to do this.

As for this...

Are they because they voted against that bill practicing hatred and death?

Yup. I don't think the emotions run concurrently, but definitely one of them is at work when it comes to civil rights. Marriage is a government institution, not religious when it comes to the law. To make the point, if you get married in a church are you legally married? In most states no. You must get a marriage license in order for the legal classification to be applied. Same goes for getting a divorce. Very few churches sanction that. In order for the legal classification to be applied for annulment you must go to divorce court. Religion plays no role. Therefore in terms of equal protection under the law when you decide to vote against civil rights you're not voting for your religious beliefs to be compromised. You're voting for the constriction of the Constitution to exclude a group of Americans that would be normally protected. If that's a person's goal, you are only going to do that if you have a prejudiced view, in more extreme cases hatred, and by proxy at the fringe of the discussion even death or ill will.

You people, and I mean that from every possible angle.  Pro gay, anti gay, right wing, left wing....are complete idiots. 

This is a 90 sec prayer.  Oh my...90 seconds...the pillars of democracy may crumble... Someone praying to God in the US...perish the thought, run for he hills or Alaska.  The entire country (myself included) watched W shred the constitution... and Clinton was impeached for a BJ, lovely...

Obama picked someone from the right as they make up 30% of the electorate (which is still >10% (gay folks)), had to be white (racists would have gone crazy) and balances it out with a black man who is liberal...geez, even handedness, exactly what he said he would be.  What the hell did you expect or want?  An anti freaking W who would be a one term wonder?? 

The people (that's all of  us) have voted in most states.  Marriage is defined in all of these constitutions.  It will not be over turned by W's Supreme Court, gay rights activists will have to seek election victories state by state.  This will not happen in our liftimes, my opinion.  You're pissed but your claim to agrieved status will not be heard.

Basically, be happy that Obama won and work on grass roots knowing that you are already 30-40% in the hole.  Quite frankly, with everything else going to hell, gay marriage is not even on my radar screen.  Pretty much rank it right along with Cubans in South Florida hating Castro....noted...

Oh my...90 seconds...the pillars of democracy may crumble.

Bout Time You Saw The Light.

Obama picked someone from the right as they make up 30% of the electorate (which is still >10% (gay folks)), had to be white (racists would have gone crazy) and balances it out with a black man who is liberal...geez, even handedness, exactly what he said he would be.  What the hell did you expect or want?  An anti freaking W who would be a one term wonder??

I understand being "even handed" as you call it. However Warren is at the fringe of the electorate as a whole. More like 10% with 10% racists and another 10% rich, and another 10% that don't know any better. He's definitely not the majority. The question is that if Obama is moving so far to the right with this one, where' is the balance? While Obama may be left, he isn't far left. Far left would be Michael Moore, or Melissa Ethridge, or Rachel Maddow. Obama isn't there. So he could have picked a right wing minister, but he didn't have to go off the cliff with the selection. He's got 71% of the electorate in support.

  This will not happen in our liftimes, my opinion.  You're pissed but your claim to agrieved status will not be heard.

They said the same thing about electing a black president. Did you think that would happen in your lifetime? The civil rights movement as so far as when  a minority group has mobilized, the changes actually happen pretty quick. Women equality (1948) and equality for African Americans (1954 - 1968) happened within a arms length of one another definitely within a single person's lifetime. We are waaay past the grass roots effort on this one. I agree civil rights for GLBT community may not be on your radar considering the economy, but at the same time we shouldn't be having a discussion which we've had before. As a country we should deal with this issue as we've done with similar issues and move the hell on. This isn't new. It's not rocket science.

Yup. I don't think the emotions run concurrently, but definitely one of them is at work when it comes to civil rights. Marriage is a government institution, not religious when it comes to the law.

Okay, by your statement above your saying that it has to be a union that is legal under the law, right??  My point from the beginning, there are only 2 states within the 50 that have overturned the ban on gay marriage, Ca and Mass, right?  To say that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage is racist means you just called the majority of the American people racist.  Since by popular vote, the other 48 states have not considered it or if the agenda has landed on their ballet it has not passed by majority vote, you are in essence saying every state that has not allowed this to come to vote is majority racist as in the states where it has been voted on and not passed as racist. 

We have the right to agree or disagree, and at this point we do.  I feel if this is the system we follow and have for centuries and "WE" the people still elect to follow the constitution and have upheld it in this matter, you can't possibly believe everyone racist. 

My example to you:  I have a really good friend, she and I have been friends for at least 20 years maybe longer. She met a lady that was the owner of a property she was going to rent.  This started about 4 years ago and since then they have made a trip to Vancouver to get married.  Now remember, I'm a Bama girl so we have a slew of conservative christian fanatics here in our state.  It took her a while to let everyone in on the secret although pretty much those close around her including myself already knew what was up.  She and I have had this conversation several times, the first time when she confirmed they had gotten married.  I don't think the union between two women or two men is right morally, however I'm not going to ridicule someone else for their decision to do so.  I was raised in a southern baptist home and surroundings.  I didn't vote for gay marriage when it landed on my state ballet, she knows I didn't vote for it, but she also knows that is based off my belief.  I don't get my bible out and beat her over the head with it, nor do I speak in a manor that would make her uncomfortable or regret our friendship.  I love her as much now as I have over the years.  I'm not threatened by her choice nor is she threatened by my choice not to be an advocate of gay marriage.  She has lost friendships over her choice and has realized that everyone won't be okay with it.

This is where some people can't navigate through society without tripping over their religious beliefs.  I personally would not take part in a gay relationship, I love men, can't deny that, however the same bible I try my best to live by also tells me it is not my personal place to judge anyone, that is up to God when they have their time with him.  I don't get as passionate about gay rights because I feel they are making a moral choice of their own and not bringing harm to others with their decision.  They will be the ones to answer when it is all said and done.   

Belle get of your high horse

It never went to the ballot in MA, we are just fine here, the sky has not fallen and the sun still rises. CT and IA also it is marriage for all.

And I just talked to Buddha and he said I'm doing great.

Why do people have to FLAUNT Their religion.

Addendum:

My cheer, two cents, 4 cents, 6 cents.....................................Tag, your it!  Not quite to the dollar yet but getting there!  :)

Not Santa,

Not on my high horse, never get there too much of a lowly servant myselt NotSanta!  Not waving my religion either, I was ask a question by another poster here and I answered it.  Sorry if I stepped on your almighty toes.

Sorry you seemed to be really patronizing

answering a post is not patronizing, this is a discussion anyone has the right to post views here, or is that only if you agree!

At any rate, I'm not here to argue nor do I expect everyone to agree unlike yourself obviously, if you don't care for religion or other's views of religion there is a little ! mark in the upper right corner that you can click and choose to ignore my comments at anytime.  As patronizing as you may think I am I will not be offended.

Oh it was a misunderstanding. BTW you are welcome for the food stamps.

MMMMM,

Food stamps, huh?  I would suggest you know something about an individual before you go assuming that they are in need or are dependent on government assistance.  So no reason to be thanking you or anyone else for something I don't get and never have.  I work, have raised my children and all without the government.

So your right, it obviously is a misunderstanding on your behalf of course!

Oh Southern Bell...there are so many gays in the south, despite how they were raised. How you were raised and what's right aren't always the same thing. The majority of the south didn't want to desegregate either, but it was the right thing to do. And so they were forced, and they'll be forced again.

And that's the south's choice. But it's not gay people's choice to be gay. This is not an agree to disagree...it's just a fact of life. The truth of it will come around one day, and the south will once again look stupid.

I'm a child of the M-to-M program in Alabama.

Well Bell I know ya live in a trailer and at least one of your kids are in jail or were pregnant before they were 16

Be glad you don't get paid based on what you think you know.  None of the things in your post above apply to me.  I don't live in a trailor, none of my children have been in jail, and none were pregnant by age 18.  Got 2 college grads both with great jobs and doing well. No government assistance at any point, not even student loans, athletics and brains paid for their education and what that didn't cover I took care of the rest out of sheer good old hard work, maybe something you know nothing about. 

Looks like you might need to educate yourself on perception, you got it all wrong here!

BTW:  I see you are up to nothing but to insult and try to start a bickering session which I will not be a part of.  You feel free to speak whatever you wish, I on the other hand know it doesn't apply to me.

Oh I'm sorry I'm just going by stereotypes, all I know about people from Alabama is that they all live in trailers and usually get knocked up at an early age.

Wow stereotypes suck huh

Nice NotSanta. LOL

I'm a child of the M-to-M program in Alabama

Romeo,

If the quote from your own post is true (see above) he is also talking about you, way to go,  pat him on the back for his stereotypical comments. 

Southern Bell, he was making a point...you don't like being stereotyped for being a southerner anymore than gays like being stereotyped for being gay.

We have the right to agree or disagree, and at this point we do.  I feel if this is the system we follow and have for centuries and "WE" the people still elect to follow the constitution and have upheld it in this matter, you can't possibly believe everyone racist.

Hi Bell,

Overall I liked your post. However, the selection I have highlighted above I disagree with.

First,  this country is a representative democracy, not majority rule. The success of the civil rights movement, or woman's suffrage for that matter, would never have had the end result it did if it were majority rule. The main reason any of these successes have occurred is because of the judicial rulings which are based around legal precedence and the Constitution.

Second, I'm not calling everyone who opposes Prop 8 a racist. I'm calling them homophobic. Now here me out here. Now whether you like that term or not is something completely up to you, but it is applicable. Does it mean you don't love your friend, probably not as it seems you've actually been able to accept her as a human being.

However, be that as it may, that does mean that you are unable to accept and support her in the ability to see her partner in a hospital if she's injured, if her partner should die she would have no recourse in terms of property. If her partner should suffer serious brain injury her parents or even the state could make the decision whether to pull the plug on her or not despite a written will, or any kind of legal document proclaiming the opposite. 

Depending on the state, she could also be denied sharing health care with her partner thus increasing the likelihood of her receiving less coverage which in turn either decreases her life expectancy or decreases her standard of living compared to hetero couples. In addition your lack of acceptance would also mean that if she and her partner would have children and the wrong partner should die, the child could be thrust into foster care at the worst, or put through a long custody battle with the grandparents, which most likely would mean the child would have trouble in school within all grades of schooling. 

Now tell me, if the argument of choice places a person as a sinner within your religion, is there anything within your belief system that would allow a common human being to assume the role of God, as judge, jury, and executioner of His word, even in agreement of sin,  upon people that may not follow your religion even in a place such as the United States which accepts all religions regardless of the definition of God? If the answer is no, then how is not homophobic to not only overrule your own religion, but everything that makes you, you..as it overrules even the love for your friend? If that's not fear, what is?

Kc-77

Good morning to ya! I have read your post and I do understand a lot of the points that you make.  I don't feel I'm homophobic because me as a person (no government restrictions involved) I try to practice not treating gay people I do know and am associated with any differently than I do other people. 

Fear, first off is a wasted emotion in most senses.  I am a nurse, so fear of catching disease from them more so than from any one else - NO

Fear that some of their personal practices are going to affect me in the eyes of someone else - NO, if they really know me they know what I'm about, other wise anyone else' (strangers) perception I could care less about.

As far as my religion goes, "we" Christians are supposed to speak, react and treat people who do and do not practice our religious faith as brothers and sister in Christ.  No matter their beliefs or if they are of no faith at all we are supposed to live by example of what our faith stands for (which is where a lot of people fail) we are supposed to educate others about our faith and the rest is up to them.  There is scripture where he talks of knocking at you're hearts door, that maybe through personal experience in ones life or through someone else witnessing to them, but he will be there and it is up to them to make that step and receive him. 

I alone cannot change society's perception of how they view Christianity, I do know this, no matter how others view it and how others may practice they're religion it is not in me to hate someone just because we disagree on an issue such as sexual preference.  Not my job to be judge, jury, but also not something I would do personally in my life.  I spoke with a friend/colleague of mine who does some work with the local AIDS society and also the gay/lesbian community in regards to other health related issues.  She relayed to me that one thing that causes a lot of society to reject the idea of same sex marriage is the fear that a lot of the gay community admits to multiple sexual partners. She is so much more involved and we do have a huge medical crisis with certain issues that by research are prone to the gay community. 

Furthermore, I'm really at a loss as to why citizens gay or otherwise of this country only target Christians to be the object of their anger when social issues such as gay marriage and abortion come up.  Most religions do not compromise their faith just to satisfy either of these social issues, if it were that easy and dismissible then why would we even practice our faith.  Just because my friend is actively living in a gay marriage doesn't mean I even as her friend have to compromise my beliefs in order to be her friend just as she has not considered that a requirement of our friendship. She didn't stop and think about how others that have been friends of hers for years would react to this situation, it was what she wanted to do and did, it was up to us as her friends to either live with it and continue to be her friend as before, or remove ourselves from it, which would mean no longer being her friend.  

 I can be tolerant as far as not protesting against this social issue, but to say that I have to compromise my faith in order to support something I personally do not have issue with but do not practice is absurd.  I don't ask her as my gay friend, "please do not bring this around me as I'm a christian and unable to be tolerant", or you are welcome at my home at the holidays, please stop by, but leave your partner outside or at your relatives as I don't want my neighbors to see you and her arriving here it might make me look bad to fellow Christians".  But to say well I believe but let me step away for a moment so I can actively support this although it compromises my faith in God's eyes",  is that fair to me? My faith and morals is something I feel I should not have to compromise on just because a certain social issue is at stake.  This is only part of my journey, this world nor nothing in it holds my salvation.

PEACE, LOVE AND HAIR GREASE!!!!

that a lot of the gay community admits to multiple sexual partners.

Umm hello, Spring break? Are you from this century? How many college students getting laid??

Hell there was a school in western MA were where the boys were nailing the girls and attaching point values to them, it was like a score card, I believe the winner had 27 and like 560 points.

NS,

Umm hello, Spring break? Are you from this century? How many college students getting laid??

How did I know that you would go there?  Christians do have an issue with abstinence and all of us are to teach our children how to behave even as young adults.  Yes I participated in spring break (without getting laid), yes I am from this century (for the past 42 years) and yes many many college students and high school students get laid, I am aware.  The difference is those youngsters are not trying to get sex legalized for underage citizens, or some laws passed that would allow them this type of activity without repercussions. 

We have many social issues that stem from unprotected sex of underage children, so many young men and women are finding themselves victims to sexually transmitted diseases that some can never be cured and no I'm not just speaking of herpes or Aids. 

I have had only one sexual partner my whole life. I don't want any more. What other people do is no reason to restrict my civil rights.

Stereotyping human beings is evil.

Romeo

I apologize if you are offended by that peice of documented health statistics and in no way did I say that every person who is gay has multiple partners.  The fact that the majority do have multiple sexual partners has been proven by answers given at the time of medical assessment.  By they're own admission, there are a lot that do. 

Let me be clear to you since you obviously have picked my post to pick a part.  I never said that I as a christian march and protest against your rights, gay people do not cause a phobia with me that I am ashamed to treat them as patients or associate with those that I do within my profession.  I hold no ill will toward you or anyone for their sexual preference.  When it came up for vote on our ballet, I voted by my beliefs, there are millions of people here in the United States that feel the same way. 

 I know it is your personal choice, so is it mine to not stand in your way of pursuing what you think is your right, however I will not shy away from my faith or temporarily step away from it so that you and others can feel better about how society veiws your life style. I'm not asking you to be ashamed of who you are, nor should you ask me or try and make me ashamed of my religious beliefs because they are apart of me and what I personally stand for.  

In all sincerety, God Bless You sweetie, and I truly wish you all the happiness this world can provide.

Gee Bell Way to skirt the issue.

that a lot of the gay community admits to multiple sexual partners.

You made it sound as if the gay community is the only ones with more than one sex partner yet you change your mind in the second comment. Way to pick and choose.

I hope you are a better nurse than you a liar.

And I got through the same con ed classes you go through. I am well aware of the statistics.

Southern Bell, you're in denial about how anti-gay you are. It's really bizarre. You're protesting online, you're spreading anti-gay propaganda and if you voted against gay marriage, you actively took away someone's rights.

Abusive parents and spouses also tell them they love them.

Hi belle,

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I've read your post. As you've stated before you don't fear how you are seen by others, or treating others with a baseline level of respect. However, the question I have is do you fear that accepting your friend's desire for same sex marriage means that you would lose the security in your faith? In other words are you afraid of losing your religion?

KC77-

No I'm not afraid of loosing my religion.  What really bothers me is most people who are critical of Christians pool us all together in the fanatical category.  We as Christians are supposed to honor our bible, which means I'm not going to participate personally in a gay relationship, I'm to pray for anyone that violates that, I'm not to stand in the place of judge and jury, that is not my place.  So no, my religion is not threatened at all.  I was raised by my beliefs, I'm not going to force them on anyone.  But also I will not vote for gay marriage and I will not get out and march a picket line to protest a ban on gay marriage. 

What most people don't understand is that the bible does tell us the things to look for and the social issues that will come about before Christ returns. 

GrrrRomeo,

Just because I don't agree with you're thoughts and outlook doesn't mean I'm in denial. You however seemed to be desperate for any and everyone to jump on your bandwagon to make you feel better about how society perceives you.  That is called insecurity my friend, seek some help. 

GrrrRomeo,

Southern Bell, you're in denial about how anti-gay you are. It's really bizarre. You're protesting on line, you're spreading anti-gay propaganda and if you voted against gay marriage

Since you think what I posted earlier was "Propaganda" and since I posted scripture earlier that you felt was some unknown version of the bible that I snatched out of mid air and you thought to challenge me with the "King James Version" that you claim says nothing about homosexuality being a sin, here ya go.  This is from the King James Version.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

Romans 1:25, 26, 27

²⁵Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

²⁶For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

²⁷And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

GrrrRomeo,

I already have talked to priests. And you know what? They know it's wrong, but they won't speak out against it.

Just proved my point, you just admitted that even under the faith you follow or at least consult to support the life style you have, it is considered WRONG, just because you're priest doesn't speak against it you choose to dismiss the biblical fact that it is immoral.  If you don't believe in God or his word then you should have no problem and for those whose opinion differs from yours, you would be able to dismiss it and go on.

Keep Picking and Choosing Bell

Southern Bell,

I survived Bible abuse and I survived abusive religious people. You have little to no effect on me. Honestly. My concern is how you spread your ideology...it's dangerous. You contribute to the hostile environment in which my people are traumatized, murdered and raped. Yeah, I worry about my fellow gays...especially the gay youth, 'cause y'all totally screw them up.

Leviticus, Leviticus...I'm a girl that does it with another girl. N/A

Romans...letter written by Paul to the Romans about idol worship. That passage is about fertility rituals that included orgies. So...not actually about homosexuality.

And you're totally missing 4 more passages. Do you need help finding them? All in the name of what...proving your beliefs are right...to me? To beat me back down with your book? What is your purpose in doing this? I'm fighting for the civil rights of my people so that we can be free and live in safety. You're fighting for what? Moral superiority?

Now you were the first to question my beliefs, I did not search you out on this seed and attack your lifestyle nor the reason for you living as you do.  Actually that is your burden to bare, to answer for what you've done.  I see it was easy to dismiss the actual references to homosexuality, but that is expected your trying to justify your stand just as I am. 

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

That to me would be homosexuality if I ever heard of it.  Man lying with a man as he would lie with a woman, yep I think that would mean same sex. But you keep clinging to all the other sexual improprieties that are out there that are indeed just as bad in the eyes of God as any of the others.   Eventually you will convince yourself you have done nothing wrong.

I haven't beat you with anything, I simply quoted scripture, you agreed you're spiritual guidance through the church (priest) told you that the bible says it is wrong.  Now if you would like to throw it up that this is based on the "Catholic Bible", but yet criticize the New English version that I originally quoted from, which I believe you referred to as blasphemous. 

Again, I have not been out on one picket line or denounced one gay person for their lifestyle, I alone am not blocking your rights.  But I tell ya what, since you sought to get the advice or religious cancel from a priest who says it is wrong but won't stand in your way, then why don't you go ask him if he will walk, march, whatever with you and see what response he gives you.  Ask him to vote for prop 8 to make your life easier and see if he is all about supporting you then.  I mean if it is no big deal for him to do that since they don't speak against it, then I'm sure he'll rush right out to help ya with that!!

What else is an abomination? Can you give a list Bell or do you have ones that you pick and choose from?

Abomination in English signifies that which is exceptionally loathsome, hateful, wicked, or vile.

Don't see the word sin there. The poly cotton scrubs you wear are an abomination.

Way to re write the bible!

Tell it all or don't tell any, have you ever worked on the sabbath?

First of all, the Holiness Code of Leviticus was written primarily as a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Christians today are not bound by the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. (Galatians 3:22-25) If Christians today insist on using this passage to condemn homosexuality, then they are also bound by the other rules and rituals described in Leviticus.

Among other things, the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits:

Sexual intercourse during a women's menstrual cycle

Tattoos

Wearing certain types of jewelry

Eating certain kinds of meat

Wearing clothing made from blended textiles (cotton-polyester blends)

Cross-breeding livestock

Sowing a field with mixed seed

Eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, rabbits, & some forms of seafood

The Holiness Code also endorses polygamy and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath. Obviously, it is unfair to use these passages to condemn homosexuality, while ignoring the fact that most Christians do not follow the rest of the rules and rituals outlined in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

Southern:

Just as you (undoubtedly) want to stop the spread of terrorism through Islam, we want to stop the spread of terrorism through Christianity.

I beg your pardon?  Come again?  How many Christians activily practicing the faith do you know? 

My religion is not a terrorist organization.  Muslims do not tolerate homosexuality, do you for wish them to change they're religion, ask one or a few and see what kind of response you get.  I should not be expected to question my faith, or anyone of faith should not be ask to compromise they're beliefs because a minority of people in this country are pissed about current politics. 

Do you believe in bestiality and do you think that someone who practices that should be allowed to marry an animal in a court of law and then therefore have that significant other recognized by society as just that?  Don't start with "that is absurd" not the same thing.  Yes it is, there are many people in this country that will not stand up for gay marriage and they are not Christians. 

You pick and choose. At least Muslims follow it to the letter.

You still did not respond to post 5.45

I'm waiting!

NotSanta...everywhere I go...you're there...like MasterCard

Southern Bell,

Leviticus says nothing about two women. If you're going to interpret it literally, interpret it literally. I don't lay with mankind as I do with womankind. In fact, I've never laid with mankind. So, Leviticus is totally pro-lesbian. Awesome.

You do have a point. Bell stop re writing the bible

How many Christians activily practicing the faith do you know? 

Um... I live in South Carolina, sister. 75% of the people I know are very active Christians. My family listen to Rush Limbaugh and/or Fox News almost 24/7. I grew up for 20 years being what people in my church called the "the most holy Christian I know". Thanks.

My religion is not a terrorist organization.

I disagree. Your religion (strict fundamentalist Christianity, not Christianity in general) seeks to instill fear (according to Roget's Thesaurus, a synonym for fear is terror) of everything that it disagrees with.

Interestingly enough, as you will see from history, it usually has made people afraid of things that will destroy it's rule over humankind.

Examples of both points (at the same time):

1. Homosexuality. Same-sex relationships threaten patriarchy because they can put a man in "a woman's place", which is degrading to the status of men over women. Christianity was built on patriarchies (Abram/Abraham, anyone? The whole line of Jesus, where the man was important.) "If we start letting women being pastors, Christianity will be torn apart! Therefore, throw out the homos!" There is plenty of research in this area. And because of that, fundamentalists claim that you will go to a fiery, miserable place for all infinity if you do someone of the same sex. Have you ever thought about how Christians respond to feminine comments made by guys by saying: "You're scaring me"?
2. Evolution. Any Christian commentary I've ever heard about the topic of evolution is written to instill fear a la "If evolution is taught, then children will come to the logical conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist! Everyone will be nihilist/hedonist/communist! Then no one will go to church! We must avoid this at all costs if we want to still be an institutation." To that end, the wedge document uses the loaded word "destructive" to describe Naturalism.
3. Sex outside of marriage. I won't go into as much detail, but think of "If everyone is realizing they can have a satisfying life with good relationships, and that they can get a high off of hormones instead of religion, they will abandon religion!" Have you seen pictures that these guys use in abstinence-only education—every one of them is of a STI-ridden vagina or old man dying of AIDS.

Every moral rule that fundamentalist Christians have tried to push on me have been done using what-ifs and fear to promote their own agenda. Christianity uses this strong to maintain its control over people. That is terrorism.

Muslims do not tolerate homosexuality, do you for wish them to change they're religion, ask one or a few and see what kind of response you get.

One, I haven't heard of Muslim organizations trying to put their religion into law. If there are such organizations, I oppose them just as I oppose your religion.

I should not be expected to question my faith, or anyone of faith should not be ask to compromise they're beliefs because a minority of people in this country are pissed about current politics. 

Yes, you absolutely should. Critical thought is the key to co-existing with people who are different from you. If you're too scared to think critically, you should not be allowed to vote. It actually scares me you're not willing to question your faith. As you've mentioned before, it is only your faith because you were raised under it.

Do you believe in bestiality and do you think that someone who practices that should be allowed to marry an animal in a court of law and then therefore have that significant other recognized by society as just that?

You are allowed to marry a man and get legal benefits from that. Therefore, since all humans are equal, so should I. It is that simple. You cannot be given a right that is not given to me. As far as I know, no on in the US has the right to marry an animal, so we're all equal as far as that goes. Which means yes, that is absurd.

My faith is as it stands, I have that right to believe as I do and so do you.  I could care less about gay marriage and I'm not afraid to admit that, nor do I fear anyone who is openly gay. 

If everyone adopted your philosophy there would be no religious faith period.  So you would therefore take away my and millions of others rights to enable yours, is that not oppression of my faith?  You are going to view things however you want and again that is your right, however while you're steadily trying to convince me that I'm a terrorist why don't you try this same discussion out on those Christians that you know that actively practice the faith and see how many of them go against that faith to make you feel victorious in this matter.  Since your community is so understanding then why does the state of South Carolina have a ban on gay marriage, MMMMMMMMMM???????????????

Yep that's right there are more people in this country willing to stand against it than for it.  If that makes us terrorist then maybe you should move cause it sounds like you are living in a country predominantly of terrorist. 

Good day to all of you sweet sisters, I wish you well in 2009!

Wait you did not mention the issue of women laying with woman. Thats not in the bilble!!!!!!!

If everyone adopted your philosophy there would be no religious faith period.

Yes that is true. That would be a good good day.

So you would therefore take away my and millions of others rights to enable yours, is that not oppression of my faith?

You deconstruct your own argument here, and it's quite wonderful. If everyone adopted my philosophy (as many are starting to do—I'm definitely not alone), then it would be their choice to do so. If they chose to shirk their childhood religions, it would not be taking away their rights, now, would it? I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that this would be oppression.

Also, I don't think you really took to heart my argument about fear. (Did you not grapple with my earlier post at all?) Whether or not you are afraid, the church seeks to further itself using scary images of hell/STIs/etc. to instill terror in people who do not obey.

Why don't you try this same discussion out on those Christians that you know that actively practice the faith and see how many of them go against that faith to make you feel victorious in this matter.

I don't actually care for people to change their religions, they just need to actually employ critical thought. If they did, we could live together and forget this nonsense we call homophobia.

Since your community is so understanding then why does the state of South Carolina have a ban on gay marriage, 

When did I ever say my community is so understanding? I hate the South East, it is a symbol of everything that is wrong with our country. And I'm leaving the state for medical school this summer. Thanks for reading what I say closely.

While I can't say I'm really "thrilled" with this news on the surface--it is evidence that Obama intends to do EXACTLY what we all elected him to do: Hear from all sides. And have them represented.

Exactly! We don't need inverse-Bush. We need someone who takes perspectives from all sides of every issue.

Homophobia and sexism is not a perspective. It's religious hatred of the right wing kind. Religion needs to be kept out of the government. Pure and simple.

Actually it IS a perspective.  Just because we don't agree with it (and believe me, I have no love for such myopia) doesn't mean that it ISN'T represented in the American pantheon of beliefs. 

I, for one, WELCOME the hard-edged discussion this choice will engender.  What could have become lost in the shuffle of transition will STAY at the top of the deck and force parties on all sides to really have a discussion...even if it's a disagreeable one.

If you don't believe me...lookit these posts already:-).

 What could have become lost in the shuffle of transition will STAY at the top of the deck and force parties on all sides to really have a discussion...even it it's a disagreeable one.

I'm sorry, but where is the discussion by both parties? This is bowing down to the conservative right. They're clear on their views and they don't apologize. Why must we always allow hatred for others to be a viewpoint? I'm not saying censor voices and views, but you don't have to invite hatred to your party. Hatred can hold its party down the street, in some abandoned basement.

I understand Obama's motivation and goal in having this man speak at his inauguration.  I figured out the other day that I am intolerant of the evangelistic churches that run around judging and trying to control other people.  Their mutilation of the Christian faith to fund, justify and propel their agenda is something that makes me feel ill.  Can one be tolerant of a group of people that advocate intolerance of views other than their own?  In my own way I guess I am intolerant of people with narrow minds that use faith to harm and judge others.  Thinking of this I end up in a quagmire of confusion.   Basically all I come up with is I am intolerant of those who are intolerant............???? 

Intolerance is when you try to stop someone from being heard. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not giving intolerance a platform in which to speak unless it's a part of a debate. Obama selecting Warren sends a message to the evangelical right that their hatred and intolerance is welcomed in the White House.

You're right!  Christanity should be tolerant and accept ALL beliefs and lifestyles.   What good is a belief or a religion if it can't adapt and change with the times?  Does Jesus still think homosexuality is a sick and depraved abomination?  Probably NOT!  He has seen how funny and cute it can be on all the sit-coms just like we all should have by now.  It's my understanding he was a pretty "cutting edge" kind of guy for his time.  I would go so far as to say Jesus probably thinks that man-boy love is cool at this point.  Get real you dumb Christians.  

Uh... the Bible says some pretty harsh things about homosexuality. Are you saying that Christians should compromise their beliefs? Or perhaps, to twist their beliefs to agree with mainline thinking?

If you don't believe an active homosexual can be a member in good standing of your church, based on your church's teachings, kick him or her out.  In civil society, however, homosexuals are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties as any other citizen, and you should be adult enough to know where your religious beliefs end and your responsibility as a member of civil society begins.  Not everyone is of your faith or subscribes to you belief in God.

I would respond to your question but it might blow my cover.  Oh darn, I guess I just did.  I have become very tired of arguing with far left liberals so I have resorted to siding with them to the point that it begins to sound ridiculous.  It's pretty easy and fun too.   How far can YOU expound on their agenda?  How absurd can you make it sound? 

Bakari

Obama selecting Warren sends a message to the evangelical right that their hatred and intolerance is welcomed in the White House.

I think Obama's goal is more to have different opinions and viewpoints represented.  However, I am having a difficult time with this one.  In a way at least to me it would be like having Hitler come up and give a speech when his whole being and essence was intolerance and extermination of the Jews.  Knowing this man's views and intolerance and the damage and hurt it has caused, how can one sit and listen to him? 

However, opening up the communication channels may help actually in overcoming the intolerance of these people.  Interacting with them and letting them see a different viewpoint in an intellectual way might bring change or acceptance. 

Intolerance is when you try to stop someone from being heard. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not giving intolerance a platform in which to speak unless it's a part of a debate.

You definitely get the Newsvine Award for biggest contradiction.

You are intolerant of Rick Warren; he (according to you) is intolerant of Gays. How is it different?

It's not being intolerant to not like someone that hates what you stand for. There's no law that says we have to like everyone. The gay community is not intolerant of Rick Warren. They just want him to keep his nose out of their business and leave them alone. That's not intolerance, it's not wanting to be attacked. Rick Warren openly attacks the gay community, so is it fair for the gay community to just accept being attacked?

In my own way I guess I am intolerant of people with narrow minds that use faith to harm and judge others.

This is how I think of Tolerance.

Tolerance is all of us who live together (under one government) agreeing to live with each other and accept each other unless one person is infringing on another person's right to self—ie, being intolerant.

If an intolerant person rises up out from a tolerant society, he can be legitimately quashed because he is not living by the fundamental rule of respect.

It's a lot more nuanced than simply saying, "Look at Leftie, he's being intolllerannnnt! I'm telling."

You know, as long as the Dems keep doing this @!$%#, we can never move forward.

The fact that Dems haven't done this @!$%# is precisely why they haven't moved forward. Barack got elected because he speaks to both sides - if you want your typical Democratic close-minded governance they should have elected Hillary or Boxer or Pelosi or Kennedy. I

for one am excited for the next four years because Obama is bringing change to both sides - and it is desperately needed.

I for one am excited for the next four years because Obama is bringing change to both sides - and it is desperately needed.

Yeah, right, you'll eat those words when the Republicans get their asses back in office four years from now. This is exactly why they keep coming back and "winning," because liberal mutha@!$%#as always bow down to them. Sorry for my use of fowl language, but I'm just too @!$%#ing pissed to be nice today.

Actually Bakari, the reason why the the Dems keep losing out is not the bowing down - it is the practical aspect of their inability to balance justice and business issues in a way that keeps the business interests placated enough to not try and drive the Reps back into office. While its all very well and good to talk about whose going to be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes, it does nothing to reflect on the reality of life in a capitalistic democratic republic. And it precisely your anger and reaction against this decision that allows them to undermine and misdirect your attention from the effective issues. As soon as you allow yourself to froth at the mouth about a single decision or to decry it as the utter failure of policy and a complete betrayal, you have played directly into the hands of your opponents. The victory of any ideology is the long game, not short-term policy or decisions. Both sides have lost significantly because of their failure to recognize this.

@MasterNav - great comment. One of the best I have ever read on Newsvine.

Yeah, right, you'll eat those words when the Republicans get their asses back in office four years from now.

Well being a true moderate (not just a moderate in the way everyone says they are a moderate) I wouldn't mind this. There are good Republicans and there are good Democrats. I for one am very excited about Barack in office - and the more he steps to a moderate, unifying voice the more I am going to appreciate him as the President of the United States.

Bakari..................."using fowl language"? I didn't hear you mention chicken once.  Hee. Calm down Bud, you're gonna give yourself a heart attack. Peace

Exactly! 

But I respect that Obama is reaching out to all Americans

Okay, Porta, so let's see him reach out to a gay minister and a rabbi, since he's all for being inclusive. 

There's a difference between tolerance and inviting scum into your home. Barack may not realize it, but this is no different then if he'd flipped gay rights supporters the finger. This is a huge screw up and a major disappointment.

Totally agree. It's like, damn, if its about tolerance, then maybe he should invite the KKK to the inauguration. They have a perspective too. 

gunsandreligion

Another one to be on the ignore list. Goodbye and I won't miss you.

"There's a difference between tolerance and inviting scum into your home." -R. Donald Snyder

Depends on your perspective, don't you think? 

There was a time when "blacks", "asians", "jews", and, believe it or not, "gays" could qualify as "scum", as you say, by one bigot or another who would use far more colorful names for each of them.

So now its "evangelicals", is it?

"Christanity should be tolerant and accept ALL beliefs and lifestyles.   What good is a belief or a religion if it can't adapt and change with the times?  Does Jesus still think homosexuality is a sick and depraved abomination?  Probably NOT!  He has seen how funny and cute it can be on all the sit-coms just like we all should have by now.  It's my understanding he was a pretty "cutting edge" kind of guy for his time.  I would go so far as to say Jesus probably thinks that man-boy love is cool at this point.  Get real you dumb Christians. " -gunsandreligion

This one is priceless!  This illustrates so tragically what can happen to a mind when one is Biblically illiterate.  It is written, 'Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday, and Today, and For ever.  (Hebrews 13:8)KJV   So He doesn't change.  He's Perfect, He's God.

Now the fun part.  Whose little boy is this?  Obviously he doesn't belong to the christians. So what is he, do you think?  Atheist?  Gay?  Satanist?   Antitheist?   Pedophile?

Let me point out that this, "man-boy love" business is what gives people like Reverend Warren ammunition.

To mend fences?! Uh, what hurt has been done to the evangelical right on the part of liberals? When have you ever seen these Christian thugs have a sad face or feel offended and marginalized? Pastor Warren et al do not need a platform in Obama's inauguration. They have an entire institution in which to be heard.

Actually, I'm a bit troubled by that as well. There's a sense that Obama is spending his time right now trying to get a jump on those that might be the most trouble for him while he's in office - bipartisan appointments, putting the Clinton machine in a place where they can't hurt him, reaching out to evangelicals, etc.

Perhaps this is a smart move. But it bothers me because it seems like it's just part of the same pattern - Democrats are always playing defense, it's up to us to "compromise" with the Republicans. We allow Republicans to frame all the debates and discourse, and then we get stuck arguing under a frame that compares homosexuality to pedophilia, or why there should be a 'death tax", or why all government is bad, bad, bad, etc. By allowing Republicans to frame everything, particularly when they appear to be out of touch with the country at the moment, we essentially are making that climb a little bit steeper before we attempt our ascent. Warren is being used as a defense against evangelicals - Look! Obama can't possibly be a scary anti-Christian or Muslim, he cares about evangelicals! He believes in your views! - thus legitimizing extreme arguments. And compromise is fine, but why the hell should Obama or Democrats mend fences with someone that believes that women should be submissive to men or that gay marriage somehow equals persecution of evangelical churches? These types of views are not shared by the majority of the country. Who are we "compromising" with here, really?

Yeah, when gays get angry at religion they just go out and attack styrofoam cross-toting old women.  They might even show up en mass at church congregations with offensive slurs while they grab their buldges at the women and kids.  But they never... I repeat NEVER hurt the feelings of the religious leadership.  Gay's are too couth for that!

What on earth are you babbling on about?

I'm assuming you are trying to play the "OMG GAYS R MEAN" game in order to paint them as deserving of a second-class status role, correct? Gays are acceptable to hate, because gosh, there was that one incident that one time?

I'll tell you what. When gays start actually killing and beating the @!$%# out of people for being Christians in the same numbers they are actually killed and have the @!$%# beat out of them for being gay, maybe your little persecution complex to justify bigotry will be convincing.

Bookmark this thread. I seriously bet if Obama keeps making these type of decisions, he'll lose the office in four years. This is one way that liberals always lose.

I have an ongoing bet with Obama fans that his approval rating will be under 30% by the end of June.

Oh, its just all over the headlines how many gays are being mugged and killed for being gay!  I see it every day!  You are right, it's almost like a holocaust for them here in America!  And all they wanted was a little tolerance and acceptance. 

Now, in the face of the Gay American Holocaust, Obama has the audacity to invite someone with the likes of Heinrich Himmler to speak for him.  Poor poor gays!  How persecuted they are! 

I seriously bet if Obama keeps making these type of decisions, he'll lose the office in four years.

I'm about as fervent of a Barack supporter as there is, but you're right. If he keeps doing crap like this myself and many others will stay home on election day 2012. I voted for a Democrat for president, not a moderate republican. All he's doing is pissing away his base of support and if he keeps it up he'll be a one term president that accomplishes nothing.

"If he keeps doing crap like this myself and many others will stay home on election day 2012....and if he keeps it up he'll be a one term president that accomplishes nothing."         -R. Donald Snyder

Soon to be our new President Obama never played you.  He told you he was a devout Christian.  He told you that "there will be times you will disagree with me, but you always know where I stand", he told you that he would reach across the aisle to bring this nation together.  Just because you disagree with the politics of the person that Obama has chosen to give the invocation at his own inaugural, ...  Where's the tolerance?  It will take less 5 minutes and it will be over with.  What if he had chosen an openly gay minister to give the invocation?  You'd be happy, then? 

And if that were the case, those who disagreed with it, you would call what . . .? 

Close minded bigots, haters, whatever you could think of.  So why are you being like the people you despise?

And lastly, if Bush could accomplish the catastrophes he did on his watch, and you and nobody else could stop it.  There is no way you can stop the miraculous "Change" that will transpires under the leadership of President Barack Hussein Obama.

agio post #11 -- From the comments I'm reading here and on other sites all over the Web (from both left and right sites) it doesn't appear that the evangelical right is ready to go along with PE Obama' sybolic move of mending fences.

Interesting, Ann- how so?

I don't have much of a problem with him being bi-partisan, so long as bi-partisan actually means bi-partisan and not "Do everything the Republicans want" like it usually does when Democrats are in power. That's not really the issue here though.

I have a problem with extremism, and pastor Warren is, by virtue of his own words, a bit extreme. I also have a problem with people that are trying to tell those offended that they have no right to be and that they should just shut up and get over it... again.

No...the problem is that the Obama supporters want him to think like they do, to do what they want him to do..doesn't work that way...You can't have everything your way. There are way to many points of view and somewhere you have to draw the line. The main thing is he concentrates on the important issues that affect EVERY US Citizen..if you think that your preference in sexuality is the main topic, your wrong. What's Important is your health, welfare and security. LOL  You people need to wake up, know oneis perfect, not one individual can repair the world, and everything comes in time.  I personally don't care who he invites as long as it's not a terrorist. As long as he don't try to shove his beliefs down my throat  so be it.  I believe in the Holy Bible, the constitution and the United States of America

Do people really think they'll agree with every decision made.  I don't "get" his appointment of Daschle, and he'll set policy....but that's OK, it's not a deal breaker for me.

There's a difference between expecting to always agree with everything he does (which we don't expect) and him slapping a group of his supporters in the face like this. Warren is too far to the right and is rabidly anti-gay. He doesn't stand for anything the bulk of democrats or Barack supporters in general do. Have a pastor there, fine, but not someone like him. There are far too many pro-gay rights pastors he could have invited to stab us in the back with this guy.

It's not really a black and white issue like that. If the election were still held today, I'd vote for Obama. But to claim that my voting for him means I'm never allowed to get upset or disagree with anything he's doing, and, god forbid, be vocal about that disagreement, seems a bit off to me.

Also, no one is saying that you personally have some sort of obligation to be upset. If Obama decided to have Richard Dawkins at his inaugural, I wouldn't care. But I also wouldn't go around telling Evangelicals (or any person of faith) that they have no right to be a bit irked at the choice, or that they shouldn't vocalize it if they did because hey, we're trying to have unity here, darn it.

If no one ever spoke up and let their representatives know where they stand, what's really the point in having representatives?

• him slapping a group of his supporters in the face
• too far to the right
• is rabidly anti-gay.
• stab us in the back

First, can we just rachet it down a skosh?  Perhaps I'm mistaken.  I thought we were here for dialog.  If it's meant to be a rant, then go for it.

When most of us voted for him, it didn't come with strings attached did it?  I'm sure the opposing party is having a field day.  I think the quote is, "I've never been a member of an organized political party.  I've always been a Democrat."

If we're going to lose our religion over a 10min benediction how will we ever correct our course as a nation or our standing in the world?

I disagree. It's still a slap in the face and not something I expected from someone with Barack's political savvy. I voted for him too, but I'm still going to call him on it when he's wrong and this time he's just plain wrong.

It's a non-issue for many, regardless of whatever Rick Warren or any other person says or believes, you will be true to yourself.  So will everyone else. Many could care less about who gives the benediction, the issue is that there is a real weariness which comes from every molehill being made into a mountain. 

This country is too diverse to please everyone. 

Do your thing.

1) Someone has already made the comment that religion doesn't belong, so you're making an argument that "we" "would" do something that's already happened.  Regardless, it's traditional for there to be an invocation, so I doubt too many people (even us nutty "libruls") would have much trouble with it.

2) Several people have made the comment that this particular pick is "divisive", and it is.  Warren was a loud voice in support of Prop 8, and that loss and its aftermath still resonate greatly with a number of Obama supporters.  There are surely thousands of more innocuous picks of religious preachers Obama could have made. 

3) However, it's the very fact that Obama could have made a more innocuous pick and he didn't by first making a pick that was sure to challenge his own constituents and second actually involved reaching across the aisle to someone with whom he disagrees with on any number of issues that does, actually, make this about "healing" and "unity".  It's not "unity" to make a high-profile, symbolic pick of someone who agrees with you on every issue of substance.  Warren is definitely not that to Obama, and his pick symbolizes more that disagreements do not result in a complete shut-out (unlike, say, the last two terms).

spiffie,

You know it. I know it. Newsvine knows it. The American people know it! If it were a Republican president-elect who invited this guy to the inauguration, this place woud have gone balistic in an insane, irrational rant about how evil the GOP is.

Yeah, because it's a real stretch that a GOP candidate would invite a pastor like Warren.  That's the point.  It's not a stretch for the GOP to invite someone like Warren.  It is a stretch for someone like Obama.  It's actually reaching outside of his own ideological comfort zone.  If George Bush had invited PZ Myers to give an opening speech, maybe that would have been as impressive, but let's not pretend this gesture is absolutely equivalent to a GOP invitation extended to Warren.

I know it's not equivalent.  You know it's not equivalent.  Everyone on Newsvine knows it's not equivalent.

Deny (or to use your terminology, non-equivocate) it all you want.

So your basic argument is that if a right-wing GOP candidate invited a right-wing pastor to speak, that's equivalent to a left-wing Democratic candidate inviting a right-wing pastor to speak?  Really?

No argument. It's an empirical observation based on evidence presented here. You can deny it all you want, but if it were a Republilcan president-elect who invited this guy to speak at the inauguration, this thread would be overflowing with how evil the GOP is.

If it isn't already obvious, you two aren't having the same conversation.

We do that more often than not, but I think we each made our points.  ;-)

If a Republican invited this guy to the inauguration, you'd all be going on angry tangents about how divisive the Republilcans are and how religion has no place in politics. Because it's Obama though it's about healing and unity.

Dev, speak for yourself...you can't speak for an entire party or about an entire party.

Did spiffie actually say anything?

;)

(Note: that's a wink emoticon above indicating wry humor)

 Funny I never heard all this chatter and calamity when Billy Graham Sr.  did the prayer for the last 30 years or longer.  He has never supported the gay community, ever!  No one was in a hiss about that, maybe that was because it was George W.'s inauguration.

Sadly, I must agree. And I'm Black. Obama is a part of the political elite which is ran by the conservative elements of this country.

He is the "Messiah" who has come to wash away our "sins" of the past.

No one in the Democratic party or any supporter of Barack has ever thought of him as a 'messiah". That's a load that the right wingers have come up with to try to say we're setting expectations so high so every time we disagree with Barack then they can come on here and crow things like what you just posted. We do not expect Barack to be a miracle worker and never said so. It's a phony strawman that the right sets up and then knocks down.

You may have never said it but it looked like the second coming in the streets of Chicago and San Fransisco on election night. 

Got sour grapes?

You may have never said it but it looked like the second coming in the streets of Chicago and San Fransisco on election night.

Perish the thought that Americans should be happy with the way an election turned out.

I guess when they heard him yell "Change"  they thought he was soley talking about change for their issuses. It will take a lot longer than 4 or 8 years to make the changes everyone seeks...let's try a lifetime. 

Didn't you read the topic? That's exactly what we ended up with!

I see no difference between "some swami witch doctor" and Warren.

Except that the "swami witch doctor" probably would have been an entertaining element, one you actually would want to watch...

Tane,

Great post!  To add to that just a little if I may.  I am a christian, baptised since the age of 10.  I was really disappointed in Billy Graham Sr. and I've always had a respect for the man.  He started a practice along time ago of having prayer with the incoming president of this country, matter of fact he has bragged about that honor.  Yet this year, the day after the election what do I hear on the news, "Reverend Billy Graham senior has decided to retire his services from the presidential office after many years, but he would be willing to pray for PE-Obama, not pray with but pray for. 

Now that most certainly is his choice and his right, however for him to make such a statement and the day after the election, lends the idea to me that he just wouldn't bring himself to give Obama the honor he has given many many presidents before him.  He may have thought nothing of this and I truly hope I am wrong, if I'm not then he went against everything a man of God is to stand for.  Love of all brethren, not just the ones that look and believe as you do.

It does kind of ring of sour grapes on Grahams part, but I think that McCain really had to pucker up to him this time around.  I remeber they did a thing on ABC I think about both the candidates, kind of a retrospective of there lives and McCain had previously shunned the Evangelicals and BG's crowd.  Then this time around the "new and improved" maverick had to pander to them.  This may have actually cost him some votes, being all wishy washy or just the fact that he alligned himself with this group. 

I do realize he has Parkinson's Fred, but thanks for making that point, good looking out for him.  I also realize he is one day older than Moses, however as I pointed out above, I really hope I was wrong in my initial feelings on this.  I just think that the later part of his statement says everything, here I'll repeat it for you, and I quote "he would be willing to pray for PE Obama, but not with Obama.  If he indeed is that ill, why wait till the day after the election to decide to retire from praying with the presidents?

Timing is everything or at least that is what I've always heard.