Top Liberal Group Hammers Decision For Rick Warren To Deliver Obama's Inaugural Invocation
This isn't going to help dispel the "Obama stiff-arming liberals" narrative. The news today that bigoted pastor Rick Warren is going to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration is sparking an uproar on the left, with the latest being that the venerable liberal group People For The American Way is sharply condemning the decision.
Here's the group's statement:
It is a grave disappointment to learn that pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama.Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.
I'm sure that Warren's supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church. But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.
Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn't need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.
To be clear, this isn't only Obama's decision. But the official press release describes the President-elect as one of the co-deciders, and it's unthinkable that it would happen without his explicit approval.
As you regulars know, this blog has argued that it's premature for liberals to get too agitated about Obama's cabinet picks and that we should wait to let his policies do the talking. But I'm not sure how you can defend this one, even if the two men are friends and the choice doesn't necessarily have actual policy implications.
After all, the decision really gives Warren an extraordinary platform -- not to mention yet another data point supporting the bogus notion that the radical Warren is some kind of "moderate." If the first black president doesn't mind him giving the invocation at his historic inaugural, how bad and bigoted can he really be?
More from Atrios, FireDogLake, AmericaBlog. and Steve Benen.
I now wish I could have last month's vote back.
December 17, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
December 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the case, you should have never voted for Obama. He's long made it clear that he and Warren are personal friends. He's made no secret of the fact that they talk and discuss matters of faith. Didn't knowing that he's personally close to Warren bother you?
Here's the thing: despite their friendship, Obama remains committed to abortion rights, stem cell research and opposed Prop 8. Warren came down on the opposite side of every issue. Kinda makes you think people can be friends and not "infect" each other.
December 17, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can be 'friends' with someone without providing them with a national forum for their 'effing ideas.
As I said - I wish I could undo my vote from last month. We have yet another panderer in the WH - and in this case it is TRIPLY loathesome.
I wonder if you would be quite so forgiving if Bush had asked Fred Phelps to give HIS invocation? Because that is the equivalent here.
I will NOT be voting for Mr. Obama in 2012.
December 17, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, Obama didn't ask Warren to give the invocation; that came from the Congressional committee that oversees the inauguration. They are also responsible for inviting Aretha.
Next, giving an invocation is hardly a "platform for airing one's views." Warren will give a 2-3 minute prayer and I'm willing to bet it will be the most bland, ecumenical, boring things you'll ever hear. I doubt the words abortion, gay, stem cell, abstinence will appear anywhere.
Finally, Obama has appeared in Warren's church several times during the campaign; he has called him his friend; he has stated they speak often but that they also disagree. You should also be offended by that and never should have voted for him in the first place.
Warren is also willing to give the invocation for a president he probably didn't vote for and disagrees with on every social issue. Does that make him a traitor to everything he's preached and stood for over the past 20 years? No. IMO, it makes him a grown-up who doesn't think he'll be "polluted" by sharing the same space with someone with whom he disagrees.
December 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah. Warren is going to take this historic opportunity just given to him and deliver a boring invocation. Right.
Second:
Do you have inside knowledge about this process that allows you to state so emphatically that "Obama didn't ask Warren to give the invocation..."
Finally, Warren and Obama can be BFF. I don't care. This is an official event, however. I do care. Warren prefers that a segment of the population have less rights than the rest. And now he's part of the inaugural events?
December 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, run by the House and Senate, put together the program for the swearing-in ceremony. They did the inviting. I'm sure Obama had veto power but why would he veto Warren when (a) he appeared in his church twice during the campaign and (b) they're personal friends?
And if you think Warren is going to get up there and start ranting about gays and abortion, then you're out of your mind. The reason Warren has this "moderate" reputation is because he avoids that kind of rhetoric, even though he is clearly on the other side of the issues.
December 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he's not going to rant about gays and abortion, and I never said that he would. He's going to appear to be the moderate thoughtful acceptable evangelical minister...thereby increasing his influence.
And your point about who did the inviting is a technical distinction. This was done with Obama's approval. That's disappointing. You can yell at me all you want, but I can be disappointed, deeply, with this choice. There are lots of ministers to choose from.
December 17, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how much people blow things up here.
Nobody is going to care who gives the invocation, and nobody is going to say, "Well, the guy who gave the invocation at the 2008 inauguration opposes gay marriage, so gosh golly, I guess I'll base my opinion on that!"
Do I like the congressional committee's choice? No, hardly, but the hyperbole here is just beyond silly.
December 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there are lots of ministers to choose from but how many of them are personal friends with the president-elect?
You want Obama to trash a man who's been a friend and very kind to him to keep from disappointing some group who thrive on being "disappointed" with one damn thing or another.
I'm sure the religious right is also "disappointed" in Warren for giving the invocation for a "gay-loving baby-killer" like Obama but he's doing it anyway.
December 17, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want Obama to trash anyone, freerider. Stop misrepresenting me. I'm disappointed he made this decision, but I'm not advocating, anywhere, that he disinvite Warren.
So just WTF are you talking about when you say I want Obama to "trash" Warren, anyway?
December 17, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it's pointed out who actually sets up the program and does the inviting, I'm told it doesn't matter because Obama has the final say so. Well, if he used that final say so to say "no" to Warren that would be trashing him, IMO.
You people act like Warren came out of left-field somewhere when Obama was in his church summer 2007 and September 2008 both of which were televised. Why weren't you having a cow then?
It's no secret that they're friends; its also no secret that they disagree on nearly every social issue. Warren doesn't pander to Obama and Obama doesn't pander to Warren. So I don't have a problem with it.
December 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's your definition of "trashing"?
"you people". Interesting choice of words.
I've known of Obama's friendship with Warren. As I imagine do a lot of people reading this. But I'm not objecting to his friendship with Warren. I'm objecting to the invitation. Different thing.
December 17, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You damn right I think it would be trashing to disinvite Warren. That would be the ultimate snub and say, in no uncertain terms, "you're not welcome at my inauguration and you're not welcome in my WH."
Tell me how you say this to a personal friend and it not be a diss.
You find "you people" interesting? Whatever.
December 17, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama 'diss' invited Wright, when he made his announcement for the candidacy of President of the USA.
I have no problem with him 'dissing' Warren.
Particularly, as ostensibly Warren will be taking Wright's place to begin with.
I think Kirby Jon would be a better choice.
December 17, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You people?" Who are you referring to?
December 17, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm referring to the people who are perpetually "disappointed" or "pissed off" by one thing or another that Obama does.
December 17, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll say it because everybody else is too polite to: Fuck you Freerider and your bigotry-enabling lack of convictions and balls.
December 17, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did the inviting.
The program participants were based on requests from the Presidential-elect and the Vice President-elect.
December 18, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever even watched an inauguration? I wouldn't make such silly predictions if you had, especially at the risk of looking like a hyperbolic ass.
December 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what are the "silly predictions" that you refer to? I'm not clear. I implied that I thought it was deeply unlikely, given the historic nature of this inauguration, that Warren would deliver the milquetoast invocation that Freerider suggested.
So tell me: what were my silly hyperbolic predictions?
December 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, hey there, I see you've boxed yourself into a corner and are now pretending you weren't responding to FreeRider's assertion that Warren would not use this as an opportunity to express his views on gay marriage. Well, you go ahead and do that, and when you want to stop acting like your interlocutors are illiterate dipshits, we can go right ahead with this conversion, mkay?
December 17, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly don't know why you responded this way, and I'm not assuming that anyone is a dipshit.
I'm asking where are the predictions that you refer to? Freerider is the one who's been saying that I'm assuming Warren is going to talk about abortion and gays, and I never said any such thing. So insult me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth.
December 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh.
Freerider said:
And you dismissed this assertion with:
December 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. Now I understand the comment about "predictions". I was being sarcastic, somewhat, in that comment, and should have made that more clear.
I tend to think that Warren will try and say something memorable, given the historic nature of this event. It's not going to be about abortion or gays, but this is a big opportunity for him, so why would he keep things boring and safe?
December 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true. I said Warren would give an boring ecumenical forgettable invocation and you strongly disagreed. I mentioned gay marriage and abortion as examples of things he won't touch. He'll offer a prayer that will be forgotten as soon as he says "amen."
But you know why this will be a big deal? Because of all the screaming and ranting and foaming against it will make sure that it lands on Cable News and Politico, that's why.
December 17, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and fuck you, too, Stroszek.
December 18, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and fuck you, too, Stroszek.
I’d like to second that.
December 18, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing: if you get the big ticket items you want such as healthcare, closing Gitmo, addressing climate change, end of torture and this administration has a great record on gay rights like ending DADT and still decide to vote against Obama in 2012 because of who gave the invocation at his inaugural, that shows how silly you are.
By the way, who'll you vote for in 2012--a Republican? Yeah, they'll really be great on the issues. Hey, maybe Nader will run again.
December 17, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the incessant dramas of BLOG RAGE!
Will you even remember this in 2012? I doubt it.
December 17, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAY GUISE DID U HERE BOUT DONNIE MCCLURKIN? OBAMA IZ DONE 4 LOL
December 17, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
he's not going to be giving a speech on why gays are evil.
he's just going to be offering up a prayer to the invisible man in the sky.
December 17, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it only fair since Rick Warren gave Obama the stage at the Saddleback Church to express his "Effing" views as well. If Rick Warren can show enough tolerance to do this and invite Obama into his house, shouldn't Obama do the same thing in return?? You want Warren to be a man of tolerance for Obama's views but not vice-versa??
December 17, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could extend that logic to David Duke...
December 18, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
...but of course, it would be rediculous to do that.
December 18, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And one could extend your logic of excluding any who disagree with you on this issue (or any other serious issue) to 90% of the clerics on Earth. Warren's position is not all that different from that of the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, all branches of Islam, Orthadox and Conservative Judism, Mormonism, the Methodists, a whole bunch of Episcopalians . . .
In fact, if you have to have a prayer, and the prayer has to come from a clergyman who doesn't harbor some view (beyond belief in God itself) offensive to some segment of the left, you're limited to a handful of Episcopalians, the Unitarians, UCC, Disciples o Christ or a handful of others.
December 18, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama's repeatedly stated intention is to unite the country, why is one of the country's leading dividers giving the invocation at his inauguration?
No one will convince me that Rick Warren speaks for mainstream America in any shape, way or form.
Once again, we'll be the laughing stock of the civilized world.
December 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if you want to bring people into the fold, you ask their 'moral leader' to speak so that they will listen and that they will open their minds to being something other than divisive.
This is smart to do from that perspective. I personally am disappointed because I do not like Warren's values, however, I do understand the reaching out.
Obama said the night of his acceptance speech that he planned to be President to the 46% who did not vote for him, and having Warren speak is an acknowledgement of all those Americans.
December 17, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free rider is a troll.
December 18, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for chrissakes. 8 years of George W. Bush's crimes against America and the world, and you're ready to throw out Obama over an invocation speech?
Get a grip and quit being such a drama queen.
December 17, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, me too. I'm so disappointed and angry that I could just poop my diaper.
December 17, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. I am really angry about this. It feels like a slap in the face. Truly outraged.
December 17, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was joking when I said I was pooping my diaper. I couldn't really care less who gives the fucking invocation at Obama's inauguration. Seriously. I'll be more upset if he picks an ugly tie. I mean, what are we--a bunch of fucking CHILDREN? Shit happens that we don't agree with. That's life. Grow up and get over it. He picked Hillary Fucking Clinton as Secretary of State, and I got over it. Does this non-issue even rise to the level of a minor annoyance? Not for me. Not even close.
December 17, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely smart move. Actually, Senator Craig may have some advice about how to unwind what you did. You *need* to be in the Palin camp, you're *so* right about that. Or go with Nader as so many petulant Americans did, yielding Bush his first victory via Scalia in 2000 -- worse President ever. You're still totally right, of course, that some things are more important than having a competent President, here's to ya. Or a good legislature as well, that's the hell's that worth?
Bill Clinton took his victory as a sign to stand up for gay issues after his election in '92 (who *knew* that the election was all about that, but he got it apparently) and his confused first two, meandering years in the Presidency culminated in New Gingrich's contract with America in which Clinton's righteous stance gave Repubublicans formidable majorities in both Houses and packed the legislature with religious nuts to rubber stamp the Jackass-In-Chief's most horrid predations. But so what, eh?
It's important to do what's right, even if majorities don't support the issues, fuck them, and no matter what the cost: we'll bear any burden. (In Iraq, many have.) That's why I'm with you: Palin's the real deal as Joe the Plumber recently assured, and I go him marked down as a one *shrewd cookie.*
December 18, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I warned everyone this was going to happen. Obama is two-faced. He says one thing and does another. You can bet that Pres Hillary wouldn't have done this. This is change that makes you want to gag and I forsee a failed presidency. He wasn't ready to be president.
December 19, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Warren is a repugnant bigot. This is disappointing.
December 17, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey CTvoter. He is? I don't know that much about him, but he didn't sound so bad from what I have heard. What's so bad about the guy?
December 17, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren helped spear the Prop 8 advertising with his donations, including that deceiving ad of Obama saying he supported Prop 8 when he said he didn't.
December 17, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that sucks.
December 17, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He supported prop 8, he claims that those who support gay marriage are going to make him stop preaching about that issue, he's vehemently opposed to choice for women...
He appears to be pretty affable and sane, but like he said, he's James Dobson for the 21st century.
December 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that double sucks. Thanks. I agree that he appears sane and affable. That's what I thought until you pointed out these issues.
December 17, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren is sane and affable like Mike Huckabee, who continue to defend his policy preference for interring gays early in the AIDS crisis.
I wonder how many people of the "who cares who gives the invocation" persuasion would mind if someone like David Duke or the late Khalid Muhammed appeared.
December 18, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Round 2 of the "Angry Left" meme, coming soon to a media outlet near you.
December 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody remember who gave the invocation at Bush's inauguration? How about Clinton's? Did anybody even remember it three months later?
I'm not the biggest Rick Warren fan in the world, but this seriously doesn't bother me. Only people who really closely follow religious politics in this country will be paying any attention to Pastor Warren.
December 17, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. Who cares. Invocations are forgotten as soon as "amen" is uttered. Also, liberal pastor Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction so it balances out.
YAWN. . .
December 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, who cares. He's not taking away any of our rights, so why should we give a flying F. Just so long as we're not affected, we could care less.
December 19, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I'm really disappointed, but I doubt that this is going to give Warren a huge boost of any sort (of course, I read Steve Benen's piece on it before I saw it over here, and he tends to have a soothing effect on me. Don't ask me why).
And seriously,Gathylican, you'd rather have any of the other candidates over Obama? I'm certainly not ecstatic about every choice or decision he's made, but he's lightyears beyond any of the alternatives!
December 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Billy Graham gave the invocation at Clinton's and Franklin Graham at Bush's. Personally, I'd prefer there not be an invocation, but you've got to give the religious types something. Better to piss off the left than piss off the right in my opinion. Although, as mentioned by others, I'd prefer a something a little more fiery. Perhaps the good Reverend Wright?
December 17, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall clearly that whoever gave the invocation at Bush's first inauguration invoked the name of Jesus instead of a generic God. I thought it was a bad sign then.
I wonder if Warren will stay generic.
December 17, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll remember now!!
December 17, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The inauguration is a government event, not a private one. Why is there a religious invocation at all?
December 17, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great question!
December 17, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did those rights Thomas Jefferson so eloquently described originate again?
December 17, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They originated during and throughout human evolution. No matter what Jefferson thought.
December 17, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, everyone should totally get their panties in a bunch about this because it will clearly have an enormous impact on the policies of his Administration. Democratic political appointees will walk around in D.C. for the next four years asking themselves what Rev. Rick would do because of this.
December 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, why get upset over a bigot who wants to treat a segment of the population differently, just because of who they are?
I mean, it's not like he's advocating that black and white people can't marry...he's just advocating that gay people can't. No biggee.
December 17, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
and obama says the exact same thing.
so???
i say this as a gay man, it just seems like such a trivial silly thing to get worked up about. Who cares who it is talking to the invisible man in the sky? i mean, really? what difference does it make?
December 17, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you really should get out more often. Out of your tiny, tiny circle of uber-liberals, of which I am one. But I know that when it comes to gay marriage, we are in the MINORITY.
In liberal California, Prop 8 won and a ton of folks who voted for Obama voted for that shit. I know tons of people who would never consider themselves bigots or homophobes but because they are "religious" can't bring themselves to support gay marriage. They have close gay friends and some even have gay family members. Would you like to throw them out of the Obama camp, too?
I'm also willing to bet that there are some member of the Obama cabinet who also don't support gay marriage but they've never had to give their views about on the subject.
December 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
the trivial superficial thing i was referrign to was Rick Warren's prayer. not gay marriage, just to clarify.
December 17, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free Rider, you are absolutely right. The focus on single issues just creates insanity in otherwise sand people. We see this with Prop8 and the lifers.
It is unhealthy and unproductive.
What I keep thinking about is how bad I felt at this time in 2000 and 2004.
Nothing like a Rev Warren speaking compares to the utter dejection and despair I felt when Gore and then Kerry loss.
I am going to savor this win and know that the person I voted for has the wisdom to not only be a gracious winner but a wise and judicious leader.
You can have the same players that lose year afer year and they get a new coach and become SuperBowl champions.
That is how I will look at this, whether it be cabinet posts or deputy directors.
My money is on Obama having the leadership ability and strategic vision to navigate the nation in an entirely different direction even if folks think he has the same ol crew on the ship.
It is his vision they will execute.
December 17, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest, I could care less. I just want to hear Obama's speech and see him take the oath as our next president "Barack Hussein Obama".
It's Obama's choice. Rick Warren and Obama may have their disagreements but I know they are friends.
December 17, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, mans_best_friend.
December 17, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How can I be a xenophobe? Some of my best inaugurees are closet Muslim socialists!"
December 17, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got it!
Warren is getting a big honor, and he'll be sure to use it. He's not so bad, see? He gave the invocation at the historic Obama inaguration...instead of the media presenting a clear image of Warren, this will just cement the image of a "moderate" fundamentalist.
December 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm way in your camp on this CT, and it's nice to see you arguing circles around these doughfaced dupes.
December 18, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As you regulars know, this blog has argued that it's premature for liberals to get too agitated about Obama's cabinet picks and that we should wait to let his policies do the talking. But I'm not sure how you can defend this one, even if the two men are friends and the choice doesn't necessarily have actual policy implications."
And why is that? By your own logic and the reasoning in your fifteen (so ironic) previous versions of the Angry Left and Obama (or is it the shrill Left and Obama, or the far Left and Obama, or the Left loonies and Obama, or the DFHs and Obama), even if Obama brings in bigots and haters there is NOT NECESSARILY any POLICY implications. Let's all relax and give him more time. After all the APPLAUSE MONITOR is still ON; the Obama chorus is still singing; and Mr. Sargent has already told us to CLAP louder. Time for another Pew poll. Don't worry, Mr. Sargent is on top of it.
December 17, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would certainly not take my vote back, and I have not had many problems with cabinet choices; Obama is a realist, and we are better off for it. But allowing this hate-filled bigot to participate in a great moment in this country's history is a stab in the back to every person who gave time, money and voted to make this moment happen. Rick Warren will gain even greater unearned attention from this, and four years from now he'll support one of his narrow-minded colleagues in the effort to supplant Obama. Finally, the president-elect has made a move that I despise.
December 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign, down to the very last sentence.
If Obama wants to be friends with Warren, it's none of my business. However, this inauguration is going to be covered like no other in history, and Warren now has a role in it, and of course it's going to receive attention. Why bestow this honor on Warren? If Warren were advocating that black and white people couldn't get married, would people still be saying "No big deal...Yawn...let's just relax and stop criticizing Obama...."?
Somehow, I don't think so.
December 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
News Flash: The vast, vast majority of Democrats (including Obama) nominally oppose gay marriage.
Is that a lame fact about our current political climate? Yes.
But given that and McClurkin-gate and all the other possible reasons to be outraged, it just seems bizarre that people have chosen this moment to declare their refusal to vote Democrat EVER AGAINZZZ!!!
December 17, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get the refusal to vote Democratic ever again, because the alternatives...well, there aren't alternatives.
But you know what? People can get "outraged", if you want to use that term, over anything. I'm not outraged. I'm deeply disappointed with this decision. There's no need for Warren to appear, in my opinion, and he's going to reap political benefit from this.
I'm not advocating that Obama be impeached before he's even inaugurated because of this decision--I'm simply expressing my disappointment with this.
If I'm supposed to shut up because everyone else decides there are more important issues to get up in arms over, well, thanks...maybe people can tell me what I should think, and then I wouldn't have to do it myself.
December 17, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah dude, I'm such a Nazi, coming to knock down your door and SUPPRESS YOUR FREE SPEECH!!!
But hey, wait a second... you're suppressing my right to say that this issue is trivial! Nazi!
Maybe you'd just like to mail my talking points directly, MAN! Fascism on my very own internet! Who would have ever suspected?!
December 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're getting blowback from Gaylthacan's very first comment (and Gayl, I spelled your name wrong in my first post--sorry!). I'm disappointed but not entirely surprised. I don't think that anyone other than us or total Rick Warren fans are ever going to remember that he gave the invocation, though.
December 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miochi:
No biggie! :)
"THAT would be 'change.' Instead we get populist pandering instead of a real symbol of religiosity in America. Not only that, once again we have a white, straight, portly protestant guy. "
Again - exactly right! It is MORE OF THE SAME - not CHANGE. Instead of tapping a minister who, I don;t know, had a NEW and LOVING message of change - perhaps the newly-annointed GAY ARCHBISHOP from New Hampshire Gene Robinson - we get the same old dreary and hate-filled retreads from the bottom of the religious barrel.
December 17, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK--that's a good suggestion. I'm disappointed I didn't think of it myself; it's possible that they were looking for a pastor from an evangelical background, though, given the church in Chicago that he was attending all those years.
December 17, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I don't think they oppose gay marriage. I think they cringe at the word because in our environment here in the US, it would be unacceptable for a politician at this point to say otherwise, at least if he is ambitious.
December 17, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I get the historical comparison and there is much validity to it. But the flip side of it is that there were plenty of fundementally decent people in the bad old dying days of Jim Crow who believed that intermarriage between blacks and whites was contrary to Biblical teaching who eventually were able to overcome and accept it.
Here and now, this is the reality: a politically significant number of people in this country have a religion-based belief that homosexuality, and gay marriage in particular, is morally wrong and socially destructive. By politically significant, I mean that there are enough of them who hold this view to block, or at last greatly impede, progress. Is that, at least, not clear?
Prop 8 passed in one of the bluest states in the union. Blame who you want, claim that it wasn't fair, blame black voters, or hispanic voters, or the Pope or Rick Warren or the Mormons or whoever you want, if that makes you feel better. Regardless, the reality is, here and now, there are enough people, with enough money, to enact their religious based objections to gay marriage by referendum in California of all places, and if they can do it there, they can do it anywhere.
The long term good news is that this is a generational problem--they are not succeeding in transmitting this belief to their kids.
The shorter-term good news is that, like a lot of people who harbored deeply racist beliefs in the old days, some segment of the people who have this a religious basis for anti-gay prejudice are, nonetheless, fundementally decent and are capable of being brought over to a more enlightened way of thinking. Some can be pushed into the light before change happens, and some can be drug into it after. And some can't.
So, you've got two choices. The first is the generational option: wait until these people die out and their kids are the grownups. That's going to take longer than anyone wants to wait.
The other is to separate the basically decent from the totally irredeemable black-hearted haters. Unless you do that, you're stuck with waiting for their kids to inherit the Earth. That's it. Those are really the only two options.
This guy is a leader to a lot of the people who can be be brought over to acceptance, or at least irritable acquisience. If you alienate isolate, demonize, and ostracize them, all you will do is mobilize them.
Obama is going to be the most pro-GLBT president in the history of this country and his policies will follow. His whole career, and all of his public pronouncements indicate that much. And just possibly, having thrown a few symbolic bones--with no practical impact--to Rick Warren and his followers will turn out to make some difference in how far he can go and what he can make stick.
No, that's not emotionally satisfying. No, in the grand cosmic scheme of things, its not just that people who are in the right should have to treat with those who are wrong, and, in particular, it is unjust that the the oppressed should have to conciliate or cater to feelings of their oppressors. That sucks.
But one thing I've found as an attorney is that real victories are infinitely better than moral victories. I've found that getting to real victory sometimes means doing things I don't like, up do and including temporarily accepting injuries to my dignity, suffering injustices in silence, and dealing with people you don't really like. Most distateful of all, I've found that foregoing actions that would be immediately emotionally gratifying but, ultimately, counterproductive is essential. And in the end, I've found that invariably, all of those slights and injuries together are less distastful than outright defeat, and that outright ultimate victory is sweeter than any number of emotionally gratifying hits that don't move me toward the goalposts.
December 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate the thoughtful response, NCSteve.
December 17, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>This guy is a leader to a lot of the people who can be be brought over to acceptance, or at least irritable acquisience. If you alienate isolate, demonize, and ostracize them, all you will do is mobilize them. >>
Absolutely true. Shutting out people who disagree with you is totally counter-productive. I've watched people come around to my way of thinking on many issues like choice and gay rights because I didn't treat them like the enemy or like they were stupid.
Mind you, they were more sheltered than bigoted and because we kept the lines of communication open, they changed their views. There are many, many good, loving people out there who oppose gay marriage based on their religous teachings. They are not bigots or hateful or opposed to gay rights and we shouldn't lump them in with the haters.
December 17, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word up NCSteve. I really appreciate your thoughtful commentary. I find it is rather hard to not have a knee jerk reaction to any idea, person or thing that is even a few millimeters right of center after 8 years of Bush abuse! But I have to remember what Obama told me in the long process up to his election - he would reach out. Someone (probably you!) said that Obama says - here is the goal, now how do we get there; NOT we will use this ideaology and see where it takes us. I need, I want, I respect and admire a leader like Obama, that is why I voted for him. I DO NOT want someone like me that shouts "Off with his head" at the least notion I might be slighted. (But come 2016 watch out world :)!)
December 18, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing how when Republicans PANDER, they are evil hypocrites - but when DEMOCRATS do the same thing, they are 'realists' and 'courageous'.
The ability of some people to ignore reality and live in a blinders-controlled-world is simply amazing to me. (Maybe if I don't look at it, it will go away!)
December 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone needs to get a grip. All evangelicals are not created equal. If this strengthens the Rick Warren wing at the expense of marginalizing the Dobson/Robertson/Perkins axis, then much good is done. You can find his policies bigoted (eg, prop 8), but he is a thinking (though not overly bright) person who has been willing to admit that evangelicals have been on the wrong side of things like AIDS. It's a solid play, incomprehensible only to those who have the simpleminded view of all evangelicals as the same.
December 17, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd:
Gee, my bad. It's just the pedophile/child molester in me coming out.
I'll try to do better in the future.
December 17, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is how shallow all of this actually is. I am just finishing Kearn's enlightening book in the context of Obama's Transition Team and it is more than ironic it is close to the level of absolute divide that has impaled this nation.
Obama is clearly playing the middle like Lincoln played the middle between his Radical Republicans and his pragmatists, the Democrats and the Peace at all cost Democrats, the Know Nothings, where his goal was not the idealogue but the pragmatic basis of saving the Union. The Emacipation Proclamation was as much a practical solution of bringing in new blood into the Union Army as it was depleting the South's supply chain and labor force as it was to move the nation from slavetocracy to keeping Europe at bay from meddling in the Civil War.
Few were happy with his appointments or timing and he even had his Sec of Treasury opening conspiring to run for President in '64 while Lincoln kept him as long has he did a good job funding the war. He cut one of allies son's who was in the powerful Post Master General spot to effectively politically remove Fremont from a 3rd Party run.
This guy Warren is merely a symbol. Sexual preference rights will move forward even if Warren makes a speech and prayer for to move this nation forward it will demand that the middle and moderates must come to terms and Warren who wants to be part of the solution on many things. It is a master stroke. Obama is not from the cast of clothes that has cemented America since Nixon.
And your reactionary emotions are to be respected but are just that---reactionary and shallow.
Read Kearns---all of you and you will see a blueprint of Obama's structure. Next up is Alter's book to see his a blueprint on his legislative strategy.
BTW...Cheney's warning that the GOP will fall into a generation of minority party status is not all there. Once Obama takes away one of the G's in the 3-G strategy of Guns, God and Gay[hate] they will be akin to the Know-Nothings...
Wait to Obama has to hold torture and crimes against humanity trials over Bush's pardons...the devil will really be in the details.
December 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anything, Warren is worse than Dobson, because he's so palatable to so many people who are so uninformed about his actual positions.
But hey, I've just got to "get a grip", grow up, be serious, soak in the moment, chill, and give Obama a free-pass on every single thing he does because why?
Who has a simpleminded view of events?
December 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT:
PRECISELY!!
It is the well-spoken, seemingly benign pedagogues who end up dong the most damage - because people are reluctant to call them out as what they really are.
December 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second. This is very disappointing. It's one more "insignificant" insult to the left side of the Democratic party and Obama figures he can get away with it because we have no place else to go. But it is one more pin prick letting air out of the balloon of excitement and enthusiasm Obama's candidacy and victory created. And that enthusiasm is not going to be maintained and shaped into a movement for positive change by a bunch of living room socials on health care -- especially when actual liberals come to see their status in the Democratic party. Looks good now -- post-partisan and all -- but Obama is drawing down his reserve of good will among the Democratic base one "insignificant" decision at a time.
December 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hang in there Nola. I'm with you on this. There are evangelicals who voted for Barack. There are evangelicals like Robertson who continually called him a socialist and anti American.
December 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In honoring the civil rights movement, Mr. Obama has asked the Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, dean of the civil rights movement and co-founder with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, to deliver the benediction.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/aretha-franklin-to-participate-in-inaugural-ceremony/
So, he's asking Warren to deliver the invocation, but getting Lowery to pray the benediction.
I think this is a good decision. Obama has to be a president for us -- including Warren and the evangelicals. Besides, I didn't think a lot of liberals were hung up on prayer.
Who cares??? I'm a Christian liberal, and I could care less.
December 17, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is suppose to be a day when the Left and the Right get together and celebrate the Inauguration of our next president.
I just can't get worked up over this. Rick Warren is getting flack from the Right for this because Obama is pro-choice and supports civil unions. Obama is now getting flack from the Left for this because Rick Warren is pro-proposition 8.
Again this is Obama's choice and if people don't like it than don't watch the Inauguration. I definitely will. It is too historic for me as an African-American.
December 17, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maritza:
Then perhaps we should get a minister from the Aryian Nations so that the entire religious and political spectrum is represented?
No?
Why not? On what principle will you object - given your acceptance of a bigot and homophobe?
Or do you only welcome those whose social and religious principles do not impact YOU.
December 17, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know on what principles people will object to anything Obama does...
December 17, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question.
I think in this instance, the answer is obvious. One does NOT single out for special consideration or attention someone whose political and social principles are at such odds with ones stated positions and beliefs.
Unless one wishes to PANDER.
Others may speak for themselves.
December 17, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And given that the entire premise of Obama's political career has been about finding common ground, even with those disagree with on important moral issues, I guess you could say Obama is like, the Prophet of PANDERING!!!
Which, again, leads us back to the question...
had you just not been paying attention when you voted for Obama in 2008? It certainly seems like it.
December 17, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you vote for Obama?
If so, you knowingly voted for a candidate who opposes gay marriage and gave a "platform" to Donnie McClurkin.
OMG! YOU COMPROMISED YOUR PRINCIPLES! SHAME ON YOU!
December 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Obama does not 'oppose gay marriage'. In fact, he was AGAINST Proposition 8.
He merely thinks it should be a decision left to individual states.
There is a big difference.
December 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong.
Barack Obama:
He also specifically advocates civil unions as an alternative. He may not advocate active opposition, but he does not personally believe or advocate marriage equality.
December 17, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you do not read fluent politico speak:
" I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman":
translation:
1. I believe that TRADITION. (Hell - so do I - it is, after all, tradition.....)
2) 'my religious beliefs say". Note, please 'MY beliefs' - but 'my religious beliefs'.
Every Democrat (and many Republicans) know that Obama would not only ADD GLBT protections to federal agencies, but VETO any attempt to disenfranchise gays on ANY federal level.)
And, of course, that NO national political candidate could come out in FAVOR of gay marriage at this point and win the PResidency. Most of us recognize that fact.
But there is a HUGE gulf between his political beliefs and his SINGLING OUT and PLACING IN THE SPOTLIGHT someone who is so diametrically opposed to not only his personal values, but his STATED POLITICAL VALUES as well.
He can have this bigot as a 'friend' if he likes, but to put him in the national spotlight for NO GOOD REASON is a crime.
December 17, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong. Obama's STATED position is that he personally opposes gay marriage. He's said it clearly many, many times (although I think he's lying because he knows supporting gay marriage is an untentable position).
He has said that he opposes any legislative attempt to strip rights from its citizens, that's why he opposed Prop 8.
December 17, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I just said that. - Twice.
How can I hold a STATED position against him when I KNOW that he doesn't really mean it - that it is political jargon for I REFUSE TO ANSWER BECAUSE IT WOULD MEAN UNELECTABILITY. And YOU know it, too - since you say so explicitly in your comment.
What is so difficult about that concept?
And, of course, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE of 'singling out for attention and spotlight' someone with whom one should be profoundly DISAGREEING.
December 17, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight. You won't hold his stated opposition to gay marriage against him but you will refuse to vote for him in 2012 (regardless of what legislation he enacts surrounding gay rights) because he allows a personal friend--with whom he has publically made his disagreements known on critical issues--give the invocation??
Vote for him even when he states a position that could actually impact your life but vote against him over something (allowing Warren to speak) that won't make one iota of difference in your life. Now, that's using the ole noggin', ain't it?!!
December 17, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is personally opposed to gay marriage. However, he does not beleive his personal views based on religious should hold sway in terms of our civil laws.
Moreover, he has stated that anyone who has religious beliefs, must be able to frame the issue in a secular manner to advocate for/against it in order that it have constitutional validity.
So, he will not accept religion as a basis for opposition to any laws.
Ergo, he is against the DOMA and for civil unions.
December 17, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I voted for Obama.
It was a serious question. On what issue will people disagree with something Obama has done? Torture? Health care? FISA? The environment?
If you disagree, you open yourself up to interesting attacks ("you really out to get out more"), and while I think Obama is an extraordinary individual, and we're lucky to have him as President, I also think there's a bit of hero worship, for lack of a better term, that's not all that healthy for a democracy.
But what do I know? I need to get out more.
December 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait? There's an issue here? I thought Warren was delivering a formality alongside a liberal minister in a gesture of national unity, not drafting a constitutional ban on gay marriage to be signed as Obama's first official act. Well, if that's the case, then I vehemently oppose this decision.
December 17, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, you're not answering the question.
December 17, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you when I'll oppose Obama--when he renegs on his campaign promises re healthcare, Iraq, Gitmo, torture, economy, etc.
You see that matters; they make a difference in my life so I care. I don't give a possum's puss about shit like Warren saying an invocation.
And, guess what, he never campaigned on saying he would have his invocation given by a Unitarian minister. He also never promised that he would appoint any particular person to his cabinet so I'm not going to get exercised about "centrists" v. "liberals" as long as he holds to his campaign promises.
If he starts backing away from POLICIES, you'll see me here mad as hell. But because of who gives the invocation? Not so much.
December 17, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he already reversed himself on policies. He began his campaign opposing FISA renewal and vowing to vote against any bill that contained retroactive telecom immunity. Then he decided (for reasons totally opaque to my mind) to switch and vote for just such a FISA renewal bill.
I do not say this to indicate that you ought to be outraged at Obama. I simply point this out because your answer to CT Voter's question is clearly does not take her question seriously. Whatever your reason for not being outraged at Obama, it cannot depend on a supposed distinction between policy and non-policy.
December 17, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say he reversed himself on his campaign promises when he changed on FISA DURING THE CAMPAIGN? If FISA was a deal-breaker, I wouldn't have voted for him. It was not for me, and apparently it wasn't for most people here.
December 17, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally violently disagree with his pre-election decision to uphold the existing warrantless wiretapping/FISA (i.e., not allowing the communications biggies to be sued) vote. I've been talked around to seeing it as a pragmatic decision at the time to get him in to office. I really do trust him to do the right thing now that he's been elected, but we can't change everything overnight (at least, that's what I keep telling myself).
December 17, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually didn't disagree with FISA, thinking, at the time, that it was a political decision, and that, oh, I dunno, everything would be fine. That even though Obama voted that way, he didn't really approve of that bill. Some such nonsense on my part.
I'm reconsidering that. Not in light of the invitation to Warren, but that didn't help, obviously. I'm watching to see what he decides for Guatanamo, rendition, and torture.
December 17, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a good question. I wondered the same thing during the great brouhaha which followed the FISA reversal.
December 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. I started asking myself just where the line is. In spite of some poster's attempts to paint me as a hysterical idiot who NEEDS TO GET OUT MORE AND GROW THE HECK UP...this issue isn't the be-all, end-all for me. But I am curious about when, if ever, people will be disappointed with anythingn Obama does.
December 17, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's Obama's choice so be it. If someone doesn't like it than don't watch it.
I plan to. I am a practicing Catholic but I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. I haven't left the Catholic church even though it is pro-life and anti-gay marriage. I still am Catholic because there are many things about the Catholic religion which I love.
That's just me. I can live with something eventhough it doesn't believe 100% like I do.
I am very much looking forward to the Inauguration. I am looking forward to Yo Yo Ma's cello playing, John Williams' music, Aretha Franklin's singing and most of all Obama's Inauguration speech.
December 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between 'living with something' and PROVIDING IT An EFFING PUBLIC PLATFORM!!!
Perhaps if this were a REPUBLICAN president and his selection was someone who had publicly referred to black people as MONKEYS or APES, you might 'get' it.
But apparently, to you, calling someone you do NOT share a certain trait with a PEDOPHILE or CHILD MOLESTER is perfectly fine. Just a little quirk to be ignored. Even forgiven.
I would love to get you onstage in a forensic debate being scored on points. :)
December 17, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay--you're making me do something I loathe to do--defend Warren. I don't think Warren wants to start firing up the ovens for gays, so can we stop with the hyperbole.
With that said, if you're so outraged, why don't you and a bunch of your friends go over to change.gov and let Obama's people know how you feel. I did. Why wait until 2012 to "punish" him. If enough people raise a stink about this, perhaps Obama will do something about gay issues--for example appointing some openly gay cabinet member, repealing DADT, or maybe, just maybe, push for a civil union bill. I don't think he'll drop Warren from he inauguration ceremony because he doesn't want to seem weak.
But Obama is sympathetic to GLBT issues. He's got a GLBT liaison--I may be wrong, but Bush didn't have that. His Sec. of Education pick opened a high school in Chicago for gay kids. And finally Joseph Lowery, a Civil Rights icon and pro-gay supporter, is doing the closing prayer during the inauguration.
I know none of this will change your mind, but I thought I would show other people here that Obama isn't a gay-baby-eating SS member.
December 18, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if he had picked Rev. Wright?
December 17, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or better yet, why not Rev. Pflegler
December 17, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's such a thing as taking this concilatory crap too far Barry!
December 17, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed!
December 17, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am straight, but I will say this: despite the opposition of many black and hispanic Americans, as well as entrenched white Americans who ostensibly oppose equality on religion grounds, this IS the civil rights struggle of the times.
The same sort of rhetoric was sputtered as little as fifty years ago regarding the 'mixing of the races,' and as little as forty years ago, for God's sake, President-elect Obama's parents could not even have married in the Commonwealth of Virginia! Why is our collective memory so feeble, and our collective sense of compassion so weak?
Anyone who so clearly espouses the positions Pastor Warren does—as he is clearly free to do—has no right to the inaugural platform. None. Despite their friendship and my admiration generally for reaching across the divide, I find this choice appalling.
I see this as all give, and no get. For America. And, that's what it's all about: America and what it represents, not about one half-black individual who has managed to ascend to the office of President less than fifty years after the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Though that, in itself, is no small feat. I am left to wonder how long it will be 'til a coupled, openly gay candidate is able to achieve this…
December 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sex is not a civil rights issue. To conflate sex as a behavior with the civil rights race struggles of our time is just nonsensical.
December 17, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rick Warren is part of Obama's America too.
"We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
folks, this is the kind of thing obama meant when he said he wanted to unite us. Not so much that we all had to agree with each other, but that we could civilly disagree and all be a part of this democracy.
December 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He could have invited David Duke as well then, yes? After all we're all a part of this American Democracy!
December 17, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Duke, whether you like it or not, represents part of America. And the David Dukes of the world will either be our enemies or they will be convinced to change their ways. Hope (the audacity of it) convinces us that every person on the planet can be turned away from evil and turned toward good. But if we see anyone as irredeemable--if we convince ourselves that some people are static and incapable of growth as human beings, if we condemn them with our own condemnable thoughts--then it is WE who deserve condemnation. Our enemies will remain enemies as long as we see them as unworthy of our good thoughts. If we are able to grow and change and improve ourselves, then they are as well. If we belittle them by denying them this basic human right--to be better tomorrow than we are today--then it is we who are irredeemable.
December 17, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh-heh-heh... etc.
December 18, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your either hopelessly naive or a right wing troll.
December 18, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's "you're". As is "you are" full of shit.
December 18, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a progressive evangelical. I don't agree with Warren on all of his theological positions. I don't agree with Warren on all of his political positions.
We (the Democratic party) will lose in 2012 if the base reacts like this. America is big enough to have a pro-choice, pro-gay president who asks a respected, moderate evangelical to give the invocation at his inauguration.
December 17, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice to see someone out there can see the bigger picture...
December 17, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, exactly, is "moderate" about Warren's politics? I think it is indistinguishable from that of Jerry Falwell. The only difference is in the quality of the rhetoric.
December 17, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think his attitude towards AIDS is why people think he's moderate.
It's quite an illusion that Warren has created.
December 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I carry no brief for Warren, but I think that it is pointless to object to characterizing him as "moderate." The word means nothing. It is simply a way of describing someone you like (or at least do not dislike), just as "extreme" is simply an equally vacuous way of describing someone you dislike.
December 17, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of many reasons I supported Hillary. I could support all the other decisions Obama's made so far but this enrages me.
I was already having a bad day. Moderate, middle of the road I can deal with. There's nothing moderate or middle of the road about Rick Warren.
I thought we would be done with this shit when we got rid of Bush.
December 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary belongs to a not entirely informal prayer circle composed largely of right wing "family values" fascists in the Senate.
December 18, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's next -- James Dobson invited to be the White House pastor??
December 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anita Bryant for Secretary of Labor?
Asking Warren to be there is pretty Bushy, if you ask me.
December 17, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute, isn't Obama having Satan do the invocation, and isn't he placing his hand on the Koran?
I. Am. So. Outraged!
Seriously, though, as offensive as it is to have the inauguration sullied with any kind of religious bullshit, one priest is as bad as the next, as they are all a bunch of child-molesting, wife-cheating, crack-smoking hypocrites.
December 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Barack had shown some imagination with the inauguration prayer. What if he had picked a team of leaders to pray - a rabbi, an imam, a Catholic Priest, a Wiccan and a protestant of some sort. THAT would be 'change.' Instead we get populist pandering instead of a real symbol of religiosity in America. Not only that, once again we have a white, straight, portly protestant guy. If he says, "I just wanna..." as he prays I am going to puke...and I am a pastor.
December 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have preferred Rev. Wright.
December 17, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a Pastafarian invocation?
December 18, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much for the myth that tolerance is a liberal virtue.
We don't have a liberal America and a conservative America, we have the United States of America.
Don't think of it as an invocation, think of it as a eulogy for Jeremiah Wright.
December 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So much for the myth that tolerance is a liberal virtue."
Yeah, no shit. This page reminds me of something you'd see on RedState.
December 17, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That repugnant, homophobic, ignorant little bigot? Ugh!
Someday (it is my sincere hope!) we'll be allowed to elect a truely secular president. Someday we'll not have to worry about religion being so entwined with politics. Someday.
Until then...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/loki_redux/2008/12/this-ones-for-barack-obama-and.php
December 17, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet Jesus. It's an invocation. You'd think he was being appointed to the Supreme Court.
Most people here do not agree with Warren's positions. Guess what? Obama doesn't, either. But one of the reasons he was elected is because people think he can bring people together. That becomes pretty meaningless if you include only those people with whom you agree. As NCSteve pointed out, Warren represents the views of a significant number of people in this country. They're not all evil monsters. Mostly they're decent human beings that just happen to have a different worldview. You'll get a lot farther working with them to find common ground than fighting them tooth and nail for every inch of progress.
If Obama is friends with Warren, that tells me he thinks he's the kind of person he can work with to effect real change. His judgment has been pretty good on this sort of thing, so I'm inclined to give him a chance.
December 17, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you are on to something there. All we have to do is give up on every position we do believe in and concede the argument to the other side!! Wow, I think that will work. I think that will bring us together!! We won't get anything we want and none of our values will survive, but we'll be together forever you, me, and the far right. How sweet.
December 17, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not fully on board the Obama-train, are you?
December 17, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't care where you are going, any train will get you there. I'd prefer to know the destination before I climb aboard. Besides, the train is getting so full of the center right establishment and their baggage, I'd be hard pressed to find standing room.
December 17, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ostracizing everyone who disagrees with you" was never a position held by myself or most liberals, for that matter.
December 17, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright was ostracized. Warren is being honored.
December 17, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright was ostracized by Obama AFTER Wright went to the Press Club and did his level best to take Obama down! He essentially stated that Obama was a liar who agreed with his most inflammatory statements; he said that Obama only gave his race speech to get elected.
That's why Wright was ostracized and he should have been. When Warren disses Obama and calls him a liar and tries to take him down politically, then I'm all for ostracizing him.
December 17, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do the pro-life and pro-choice forces lock horns over abortion or do they work together to reduce teen pregnancies.
December 17, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
mbf:
You (and several others here) MISS THE FREAKING POINT!!!
Obama can be 'friends' with or 'prosyletize' anyone he damn well cares to. That is not my concern. (And they have been friends for 'years'. Just how long does one have to 'work at changing minds' before one realizes a cause is lost?
The POINT is not the friendship - but the ELEVATION OF THIS MAN TO A POSITION OF 'selected representative'. THAT is the point. And such a choice should be an INCLUSIVE and BROADLY SUPPORTED representative who appeals to the best in EVERYONE.
I hardly would include this Reverend in that short list.
THAT is the point.
December 17, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point is that you're pissed off because Warren opposes gay marriage. But I don't get it. So does Obama, and you apparently voted for him. So what's the dealio?
December 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just "gay marriage," but any form of civil recognition whatsoever.
Judging from his comments comparing homosexuality to incest, bestiality, etc., Warren doesn't even condone basic public comity with gay people.
That you defend Warren while denigrating those who question his selection about sums it up. Continuing to defend bigoted beliefs and the bigots who express them make you a bigot. It's just that simple.
December 18, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, he "elevated" Warren when he and McCain appeared at the televised faith forum back in September. Before that he elevated Warren when he appeared at the political forum along with Sam Brownback in summer, 2007.
Obama has "elevated" Warren a LOOOOONNNNNGGGG time ago. You should have walked then or weren't you paying attention?
December 17, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the tone of some of the comments here, I can't wait until Obama meets with Ahmadinejad. There are going to be some exploding heads for sure.
December 17, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least you're making the proper comparison. ;^}
December 17, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it could have been worse:
Obama could have picked James Dobson to give the invocation and Alan Keyes to give the benediction.
December 17, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way... this is not about the anger or disappointment of "the Left." Many, many moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are repulsed by people like Rick Warren. Intolerance and homophobia are things that create revulsion in many thinking people of many different stripes.
December 17, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Joseph Lowery who is pro-gay marriage giving the benediction at the Inauguration?
Again I just can't get worked up about this.
December 17, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a god damned outrage.
Is it a sign that this country is going to continue to pander to these money-grubbing, hypocritical, bigoted assholes?
I've been giving Obama every benefit of the doubt until now.
What have we gotten ourselves into by electing this compromise freak?
December 17, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not blinked at one pick PE Obama has made, nor criticized one move he has made. However, that being stated, this truly angers me. It is fine and dandy to be friends, it is another to give this man this type of showcasing. He is a bigot and an intolerable human being on gay rights. This is a huge disrespect to LGBT all.
Shame on you President-elect Obama.
December 17, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, Amelie.
(Whew! That's better than arguing over Caroline Kennedy.... : ) )
December 17, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
December 17, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren is also opposed to abortion rights and stem cell research so please explain why we're only talking about how gays feel about this?
I'm a pro-choice, planned Parentood activist and his beliefs are totally contrary to mine. If Warren had his way, I would lose control over my reproductive rights. But, guess what? He doesn't have any say and standing on the inauguration platform isn't going to give him any. He won't be making or influencing WH policy.
Folks who are ranting about this sound like right wing nutjobs in reverse. They're always talking about how pro-choice people and gay people shouldn't be allowed in certain places because of their beliefs and lifestyles, as if it's going to get into the water system or something.
They are stupid and seem threatened by anyone who is or thinks differently. The same can be said for many here.
December 17, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking about gay rights because it is THE issue in civil rights at this moment in time. It is also a personal issue I care deeply about, and this is not about influencing Obama or on the flip side, changing the course of politics. It is an affront to gays, period. It would be no different from having David Duke up there. He would not be making a statement, nor influencing policy. But EVERYONE knows where he stands on race and giving him that large of a platform speaks volumes, even with the mute button on.
December 17, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, that is total bullshit. Warren opposes gay marriage; that's not the same as hating gays and wanting to wipe them off the face of the earth.
I support gay marriage, gay adoption and equality on every issue but I know that there are many people out there who don't support these things yet are good people who are simply misguided.
December 17, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have picked someone without controversy. Instead he chose R. Warren, who didn't exactly act like a friend at his forum during the presidential race.
December 17, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would a white supremacist playing a formal role in the inauguration elicit a similar "different strokes for different folks" type answer?
The strength of your social views is in inverse proportion to the logic that sustains it.
December 18, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
False equivalence. We're on the side of tolerance, they're on the side of bigotry, now matter what kind of fancy suit you dress it up in.
December 17, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? Was James Dobson not available? Philisophically, Obama is much closer to a moderate Republican than he is to a true Progressive. This choice is abominable and indefensible but it isn't surprising at all.
December 17, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a damn about Warren's religious princples. Whichever minister they selected would have some kind of dogma that would infringe on someone's civil liberties. The thing I find troubling is, you know Warren and his followers all supported John McCain, like he was some vessel of virtue!
December 17, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best part of this is that it will piss off religious conservatives as well, because they'll see it as Obama "using" Warren to provide cover for his "liberal" agenda. And they'll hate Warren for doing it. Hoo-boy. Ain't gonna long before both sides are throwing shoes at Obama as fast as they can pitch them.
December 17, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does every freaking thing the man does have to pass a litmus test of "Progressiveness"?
This is overkill. The worst kind of guilt by association, practiced by some of the same people who decried it for months during the campaign.
The man is giving the Invocation, not sitting on the fucking Supreme Court, for Pete's sake.
December 17, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my post above. This isn't about "progressives." It's about empathetic, thinking human beings. That encompasses many, many people. Right and left.
December 17, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you weren't talking to me then.
December 17, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does any one remember Obama's victory speech? he said.
"Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long"
He also said,
"And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."
I guess we are already forgetting how it feels to be in an Administration that was not all inclusive.
December 17, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not red states and blue states, we're the United States.
It's very clear in these discussions who understands what Obama means when he says this, and who does not understand.
Rick Warren is an American who speaks for millions of Americans. I disagree with him on some fundamental issues, as does Barack Obama. I agree with him on some issues too, like AIDS funding and ministering to the poor, as does Barack Obama.
I have colleagues at work, like most of us probably do, who support marriage for all; I have colleagues who want to ban gay marriage and who would curtail abortion rights. But I do not shun or condemn or even attack the colleagues I disagree with. They're my friends. They're my fellow Americans. I hope to influence them in my direction, not beat them or humiliate them.
Barack Obama is determined to change politics in this country, and what better way to begin than at the very start of his presidency?
I'm not afraid of Rick Warren or his ideas. Neither is Barack Obama. GayIthican, though, is terrified.
Sad for him. I can't wait for the inauguration!
December 17, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is appearances, that's it. And it appears so wrong in a public forum. You don't pick someone controversial on such a historical day. It is a day of uniting, and this move just divided.
December 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is unity to invite the involvement of those with whom you disagree. To exclude those with differing views is divisive.
You got it bass-ackwards.
December 17, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't an inauguration the place you start asserting what you stand FOR? I didn't know it was supposed to give equal time to ideas you oppose? But then I'm still clueless as to whether Obama has any strong beliefs about anything. He seems most comfortable being all things to all people. To govern is to choose, and he's going to start facing some stark choices pretty darn quick.
December 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
December 17, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To CT Voter
December 17, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The conversation here points up, yet again, why the separation of church and state is so vitally important. Personally, I'm dismayed and somewhat alarmed that the gay community seems to be so hell-bent upon fighting to help strengthen the bond between religion and government. By fighting for the right to be married by the state, the gay community is tacitly endorsing the notion that the state has the power to sanctify a relationship. Marriage is strictly a RELIGIOUS rite. State-sponsored marriage should never have been allowed in the first place. ALL marriages should be performed IN A CHURCH. If gay marriage one day becomes legal, we will all be weakened, as it will further blur the line between church and state. Far better for the gay community to work to make ALL legal marriages illegal. State-sponsored marriage is unconstitutional.
The church should marry people. The government should not have the right to be even peripherally involved.
December 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on target.
December 17, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit.
December 17, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think it's bullshit, then bow down before your master: The State.
December 17, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the difference between the religious and the secular. No "masters" for us. No bowing either. But hey, whatever rocks your world dude. Heh.
December 17, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with what you are saying. This is the main reason I oppose gay marriage (however I would have never voted for yes on Prop 8)but support civil unions. Marriage ITSELF is religous, a civil union is state. Keep it that way.
December 17, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
When my wife and I got married, we wanted a church wedding but not a legal marriage. We were told that it is ILLEGAL to be married in a church without getting a marriage license. That is completely fucked up (and unconstitutional). I'm amazed that anyone cares whether their marriage is legal or not. Gay marriage advocates are playing into a farce. We should all stand up and be married ILLEGALLY. We should be married by the thousands in tolerant churches across America, and when our marriages are challenged by the State, we should take it to the Supreme Court. Because legal marriage is ILLEGAL. It is a violation of the separation of church and state. The State should have nothing to do with marriage. ALL State-sponsored marriages should be civil unions. There should be NO SUCH THING as a legal marriage.
December 17, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very disappointing. It's more of the same, and worse people who should know better. I read here, people who have worked for a better America just are just shrugging? (those not shrugging THANK YOU)
And what is it with the President-Elect and these off center ministers?
Note TPM ran ads supporting prop 8 so its not that we all have to agree, it's just about who really cares about change?
December 17, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really care about change. Did I pass your litmus test?
December 17, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No,
December 17, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is Warren takes himself out of this.
December 17, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that decision I could him for making.
December 17, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respect his decision to withdrawal.
December 17, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting sick and tired of progressives BAAAWWW!ing every time something happens that they don't like. This is the proverbial tempest in a teapot. The guy is going to be on the stage for about two minutes, giving a prayer that has been vetted, scanned, scrutinized, and poked at six ways to Sunday. There will then be another man who is a die-hard progressive giving the benediction right after. In other words, there will be representations of both sides of the map...however little and shrunken the other side of the map may be.
It's also disingenuous and quite a bit sick to liken Warren to an Aryan Nation member. AN people? Yeah, they would gladly walk up to me, my Jewish friends, Asians, anyone non-white and shoot them. Point blank. They're sociopaths with no regard for non-white humanity. They like to kill. They want to murder people in as bloody a way as possible. They're terrorists. Rick Warren has NEVER said that he wanted a gay person dead, shot, shipped off, or anything. Don't be like those sick-ass Rethugs and bend the truth to suit yourself. You may not agree with him - I surely don't, not on a lot of things - but that sort of semantic dancing is just disgusting.
We liberals are cruising for a bruising in the long run if we don't get real and stop projecting our own vision of Perfect! Obama! onto the P-E. There is going to be a LOT of times when he speaks, shakes hands, or even shares a stage with someone we might not like. You know what? They're Americans, too. Warren has his good points, just like he has his bad. I accept him for being a human being. I don't have to love him, and I'm not going to doom him or the new administration to Hell for his presence on that stage for all of two minutes.
If every one of the self-righteous folks here can map out their lives and loves, and have absolutely no ties to people that others may find objectionable in some fashion, then I'm jealous of you and your pristine existence. Until Obama screws up big-time, I'm still with him. I'm not going to turn all Republican-esque and turn on the waterworks for such a trivial thing. There are bigger fish to fry.
December 17, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am tired of being the fish that gets fried :(
December 17, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, quit your pity party! You're not getting fried or anything close to it. Some fat preacher who opposes gay marriage is giving the invocation and you make it analogous to a lynching or being banned from a restaurant.
The day Obama starts gay-bashing and proposing discriminatory laws then you can say you're being fried. Until then, realize that there are people in the world who disagree with you and they still have a right to exist!
December 17, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two gay men have been killed within 1/2 mile of the stage your the minister will preach from. The flashy mayor of DC still refuses from meet with the gay community as he is too busy getting ready for the festivities.
Sooner or later someone has to draw a line - Obama just isn;t the guy to do it. From South Carolina to the Inauguration- At least he been consistent!
ps: I'll match your pity name calling and raise you to cavalier and dismissive ;)
December 17, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Rick Warren kill the two gay men in DC? Did Rick Warren advocate or rejoice at their murders? Then what the fuck does that have to do with him giving the invocation?
And why should Fenty meet with "the gay community" about those murders? Shouldn't he be trying to find out who did it and bring him to justice? Wouldn't it be better if these tragedies are treated like human tragedies instead of "gay" tragedies, which might see them relegated to the back burner?
Yes, you are having a pity party and it's quite unbecoming.
December 17, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy to be dismissive when it does affect your daily life, which I suspect is the case. As far as violence vs. Warren, his bigotry towards gay has fueled the fires for all we know.
December 17, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
doesn't affect
December 17, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does Warren giving the invocation effect ANYBODY'S life?? It doesn't! His views *would* effect my reproductive rights *if* he had any authority; just like they would affect gays ability to marry *if* he had any authority.
And that's why I have no patience for this kind of ridiculousness, getting all bent out of shape about symbolic bullshit.
After living through the past 8 years, seems like you'd care about things that really do change the way we live our lives and take away our freedom instead of getting your panties in a bunch over a 3 minute prayer.
December 17, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you are just being an ass.
December 17, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm just being on point and waiting for you to tell me how Warren's invocation would effect your life or anybody's life.
You're just as bigoted as the people you're complaining about; if someone disagrees with you, you want them silenced.
And while you may not have compared him to the Klan or the Aryan nation, there are plenty of people here who have.
December 17, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like the symbolism. I have said that over and over. It is that, and only that. And with all due respect, I have two gay kids, so hell yes, Warren is very offensive to me. He opposes equality for all and he should be offensive to Obama also.
December 17, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, everybody who opposes gay marriage is "offensive" to you, eh? Now, who's an intolerant ass?
December 17, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty. That's me. A big ass for wanting equality for all and finding Warren offensive enough to not be given a platform on an otherwise amazing, wonderful day.
December 17, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liar. You don't want equality for ALL. You want equality for ALL WHO AGREE WITH YOU! Those who don't should be silenced completely, even if they don't speak on the issue with which you disagree with them.
The sad thing is that you don't see the irony in your position.
December 17, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have put too many words into the mouths of those who disagree with you.
Where and when did Amelie say that?
You know, at least you should have imagination to see how much many GLTB people have gone through in the face of discrimination. You don't have to agree or disagree with this Warren decision -- regardless, if you see those people have good reasons to be upset from their life experience, you wouldn't have called them a liar or engaged in a labeling game.
Think about it.
December 17, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
She said exactly that. She said Warren should not be allowed to speak because of his beliefs. Period.
that's just as stupid and bigoted as those who say gays or pro-choice people shouldn't be allowed to have communion or speak in certain arenas.
Having suffered discrimination does not entitle you to shut up people who disagree with you.
December 17, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the question to you: should tolerance tolerate intolerance?
For the record, I personally think this may actually be a politically shrewd decision on Obama's side even though by principle I'm not happy about it. I'm merely asking you the above question because, the way I see it, that question is what pretty much defines the way this thread has developed.
* Oh, and you calling Amelie a liar was totally uncalled for. I agree with you when you say "Having suffered discrimination does not entitle you to shut up people who disagree with you," but see, Amelie was NOT lying.
December 17, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tolerance means being tolerant of different views. yes. I think we should respect the views of people who are opposed to gay marriage and work to bring them to our side instead of trying to have them banished to some deserted island.
I think we should always work to oppose active discrimination such as fighting against laws that create two classes of citizens in a country that is about equality.
December 17, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
December 18, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And now you get to tell Obama who he should and should not be offended by? Well, if Obama was offended by and shunned everyone who opposed gay marriage, that would mean 60% of the black community.
December 17, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>As far as violence vs. Warren, his bigotry towards gay has fueled the fires for all we know>>
I'm just now seeing this and have to say, you are an embarrassment to progressives. Where the fuck do you get off implying that Warren is somehow responsible for these murders? You don't know under what circumstances these people were killed or if it had anything to do with their sexual orientation, yet you are quick to say that "Warren's bigotry" might have fueled the hatred.
I've asked you to show me where Warren said something "hateful" and you haven't.
December 17, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't implying. I was saying we don't know what fuels things. That was why I put 'for all we know', because we don't. I have absolutely no knowledge of any murders discussed.
I also never have said Warren said something hateful. Every time I post your take my words out of context.
December 18, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's also disingenuous and quite a bit sick to liken Warren to an Aryan Nation member. AN people? Yeah, they would gladly walk up to me, my Jewish friends, Asians, anyone non-white and shoot them. Point blank. They're sociopaths with no regard for non-white humanity. They like to kill. They want to murder people in as bloody a way as possible. They're terrorists"
Gee, talk about progressive bawling, how about "moderate's" hyperbole. Good grief!
After reading this post and the comments, some have carried on here for hours; I really have to wonder about people's independence. There are legitimate concerns about giving folks like Warren a national stage and the credibility that comes with it. When someone so stridently opposes those concerns I wonder if maybe they have ulterior motives. Could Obama, or more likely Emanuel, have staff monitoring some of these sites? Keeping the rif-raf in line?
December 17, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...now that you mention it.....that kitty/bunny looks sketchy. I think he's the mole.
December 17, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That made me laugh, thanks.
December 17, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
December 17, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's team response:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/gay-activists-decry-pastors-role-in-swearing-in/
"Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama’s presidential inaugural committee, said the upcoming ceremony would be the “most open and accessible” inauguration in history and defended the inclusion of Mr. Warren.
“Clearly, the president-elect disagrees with him on issues involving the LGBT community,” she said. But Mr. Obama has consistently stressed the need to “seek common ground with people with whom we disagree fundamentally.”
Ms. Douglass noted that the benediction, or closing prayers, would be offered by the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon who has expressed support for gay marriage, and that the Lesbian and Gay Band Association would march in the inaugural parade, the first time such a group would do so."
December 17, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of these posts have been bizarre and way out-of-line. I am a Catholic. WI ould have seen clergymen in my faith tradition maligned if one of them had been chosen because of my church's stand against gay marriage and abortion? The vast majority of clegymen in an afro-baptist tradition aalso would have been attacked. There is way too much venom in this post. Chill everyone.
December 17, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
GIVEN: Warren opposes gay marriage.
BUT: Somebody please point out where Warren said the hateful things about gays that have been alleged here, such as calling them pedophiles, etc.
Here's what he said about why he supported Prop 8: "If you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. We should not let 2 percent of the population change the definition of marriage."
Now, I disagree with him and think he's wrong but (unless you can show where he said hateful things) it's totally unfair and a smear job to compare him to the Klan, etc. I'm prepared to be proven wrong if he, in fact, said those things. Please do so.
December 17, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, I was not comparing him to the Klan. I was pointing out that people have perceptions and therefore, their appearances carry that perception. To embrace Warren in this venue is contrary to what the spokesperson said. She doesn't get it either. Pick someone neutral. Pick a gay minister. Whatever.
December 17, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Obama need to put out a statement says it all. Bad choice.
December 17, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
For that matter, the fact that we are having almost 200 comments reiterates that this is a divisive person, so it is bad choice by whomever.
December 17, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you people seriously saying that the Warren pick is fine and dandy??
So, anything goes?
December 17, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most people are saying that they don't give a shit about Warren and neither should you.
December 17, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not terribly happy about it either. But it is of a piece with other decisions he's made and it looks like he is trying to construct the largest constituency he can, because governing is going to be quite difficult and he will need to start the race with as big a base as he can assemble.
Bush as left him a government almost totally defunded and delegitimized. Congratulations Grover! He is going to have to take that broken machine and try to face the worst crisis we have seen since 1941. He will be (and already is) faced with incessant GOP attacks that aim to raise his negatives (read: erode his base), and dilute the energies of his administration.
Warren, in my eyes, is purely a political, not a spiritual, or ideological choice for the invocation. He is one less decision the right wing can attack and sends a reassuring I-am-a-centrist message out to a public that is slowly growing alarmed.
That's speaking politically.
Speaking spiritually, I wish we had gotten someone more on the lines of HH the Dalai Lama, or, less celebrated, almost any Catholic trappist monastic. Our national karma would have been the better for it.
December 17, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the sanity, Lux. There's absolutely nothing wrong with tolerance and forgiveness. Sometimes it's best to recognize that the reason to do what we don't want to do is because it truly doesn't matter. It would be good for those who are angry about this to remember that Obama is a Christian. Matthew 5:43-48.
December 17, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree Hreb. (BTW got my firefox loaded up with NoScript and downloaded the IE7 security patch. Thank you.)
December 17, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is just a bit too funny! Do you always tell strangers what should be important to them?
Anyhow, I'll pass on your recommendations.
December 17, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZMf9mPB_nE&eurl=http://www.towleroad.com/2008/12/pastor-rick-war.html
Here, The minister likens gay marriage to incest and pedophilia (he is given the opportunity to clarify and wont)
And note he supports gays how got AIDS "because' of their lifestyle"
Also he introduces the rights take on Divorce.
He doesn't like that either.
December 17, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares? Seriously, why do you give a flying fuck what Rick Warren thinks about anything? Obama didn't appoint him to his Cabinet. He's just giving the invocation. WHO FUCKING CARES WHAT HE THINKS?!?!
December 17, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
fuck obama.
he gets pleasure out of fucking over the people that worked hardest for his election.
December 17, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's probably jerking off, thinking about how much you are suffering.
December 17, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
December 17, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
but it is sure you and freerider are jerking each other off.
December 18, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET! ALL IS LOST! RICK WARREN IS DELIVERING THE INVOCATION AT OBAMA'S INAUGURATION! THERE'S ANOTHER TWELVE SECONDS OUT OF OUR LIVES! NO MATTER WHAT OBAMA DOES FROM NOW ON, WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO TRUST HIM AGAIN! HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY HAS BEEN TAINTED BY THE STAIN OF THIS UNFORGIVABLE, TWELVE-SECONDS OF HELL THAT WE, THE RIGHTEOUS, WILL BE FORCED TO ENDURE! LET'S ALL KILL OURSELVES AND BURY THE BONES! LET'S REND OUR GARMENTS AND GOUGE OUT OUR EYES! LIFE IS NO LONGER WORTH LIVING!!!!!
December 17, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see emotions flying here but by friday noone will be talking about this, just saying..........
December 17, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are SO WRONG, dude. By Friday we'll be taking up torches and storming the castle.
http://www.angelfire.com/mn/mastercartman/images/frankenstein23.jpg
We, the righteous, must never allow imperfection to enter into our midst.
December 17, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got my pitch fork ready. TIME TO STORM THE CASTLE!!
After a 2 year campaign of alot of "day to day news stories" I tend to realize people have an uproar but in a few days or a few weeks its not even on a person's mind anymore. At the latest, by monday this will be a non story. Unless someone goes on one of those "this isn't change" rants.
December 17, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait wait wait wait. People are bashing O for Obama and then say he should have chosen a Gay minister to give the invocation? The incredible incredible incredible ineptness of that statement is truly unbelievable. Forget the left, AMERICA isn't even that far left. A gay minister would have swayed everyone's feelings? Are you serious?
December 17, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was sarcastic.
December 17, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't even see you write that post sorry. I actually saw it on Daily Kos and wanted to say it here as well. I get the outrage I really do. I don't see this rage lasting very long though.
December 17, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right.
December 17, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
O for Warren*
December 17, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that's what I am seeing on here.
Pretty pathetic.
December 17, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
FreeRider you are AWESOME! You've represented TRUE tolerance through this entire thread. There's one statement you said earlier that stuck out, out of all the others I've read on this post. You said, "...you don't want equality for ALL. You want equality for ALL WHO AGREE WITH YOU! Those who don't should be silenced completely, even if they don't speak on the issue with which you disagree with them.
The sad thing is that you don't see the irony in your position."
That's all I have to say about that...
December 17, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This discussion has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.
December 17, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say ridiculous to childish!
December 17, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I'll remind some here of something Warren did.
In the summer of 2007, he invited Obama to speak at some religious/political forum at Saddleback, which included a bunch of republicans including Sam Brownback. The invitation created a stir among evangelicals and parishoners who said Obama had no place at Saddleback because he supported abortion and gay rights. They ranted and raved at Warren that he was disrespecting their views and those of the pro-life community and demanded he rescind the invite.
Warren refused to budge. He said "Barack is my friend and a Christian. We don't agree on these things and probably never will but he is and always will be welcome here."
By having Warren at the inauguration, Obama is repaying the favor in kind. Nothing more, nothing less. For gays to make this about them is just as wrong-headed as it was when the religious right-wingers made Barack's visit to Saddleback all about them.
December 17, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
True tolerance!
December 17, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and such a difficult and controversial position for Warren to defend. A real credit to his liberality.
December 18, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, yes and yes. We're supposed to be better than them. If that's the case, then we need to show the right what the word "tolerance" means, and we need to cut the crap and walk the talk.
December 17, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the comments I have read.............WOW it's the first time I read some comments and immediately thought of the right wing nutjobzealots who say we are treasonous. Some comments have been just as bad.
December 17, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I read bad comments on BOTH sides.
December 17, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point. Democrats shouldn't be getting down to that level, it's unfathomable to me that a fellow Democrat would say some of this shit. When it comes to tolerance it isn't that you tolerate someone's beliefs because they tolerate yours. It's that you tolerate someone's beliefs because THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. For us to live together, raise kids near one another, and survive together you MUST tolerate one another because that division lead's to the self destruction of both.
December 17, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I SECOND THAT....My thoughts exactly!
December 17, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's better than okay to commiserate with gay bashing right wing evangelical ideologues: a tribute to Obama's superior tolerance, indeed.
I wonder how many of you would be singing along with this BS if the vigilante Minutemen, the Nation of Islam, or David Duke were summoned to appear in the name of "diversity," of all things.
This is nothing but a shallow attempt to pander to a ready-made voting bloc that espouses an insidious, antisocial ideology of hate.
December 18, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. I gotta agree. I've always said that the far right and the far left are two sides of the same coin. We're supposed to be the tolerant ones--open to other viewpoints and defenders of differing viewpoints. When did we become such a bunch of fucking intolerant fascists?
December 17, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometime in the 1880s or 1890s, as best I can tell.
December 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no discussing. I said poor choice, my opinion, and wow, I am dog shit, and CT Voter too. I thought TPM bloggers were a little more tolerant than this to adverse opinion. I don't mind if people are indifferent or happy Warren is there. But the attacks here are really bad. And to log on at the last minute and start calling someone names is just classless.
December 17, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I thought TPM bloggers were a little more tolerant than this to adverse opinion."
Many are. But that includes Rick Warren's opinion. And Obama's.
December 17, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, some of the clear eyed, tolerant, rationale I have seen in some posts (including yours) bring me hope yet.
December 17, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, let me apologize for calling you a liar but you said some very bigoted things here in your opposition to bigotry, such as labeling everyone who does not support gay marriage as "offensive." You also said that Warren might have been complicit somehow in the murder of two gay men.
But expecting TMP bloggers to tolerate adverse opinions when you can not do the same is hypocritical.
Again, my apologies. It just burns me up when I see the left behave like those "my way is the only way" right wingers.
December 17, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said anything about murder, that was ArlingtonTom. And I said it was offensive to me, not that everyone is offensive. It is nice of you to post this and I appreciate that. I think we are all on the same page in our goals, this is just a really hard issue and we can agree to disagree.
December 17, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
Rick Warren, it appears, retains deific powers to warp the minds of so many into rabid gibberish. We are asked to ignore their own free will to ignore Warren if they do not like what he says.
There is no legal standing for "dislike." As has been said, there is no threat from what will be a vanilla statement. I do not like it one bit, not so much for Warren, but for the continued intrusion of religion into public life.
But on the 1 to 10 scale of Fish in Dire Need of Frying, I give this a 0.000000007. And I'm feeling generous.
Take a lesson from PE Obama: disagree, yes, but do not waste your dissent on this. It will be needed later to conjure prosecutions for war crimes. If Obama calls this man friend, no one here is qualified to judge the honesty of that community.
No one.
Otherwise, we're coming for YOUR friends, too.
Pax,
M.
ps. If you do not believe in war crimes, observe how the Senate scrambles to derail Holder.
December 17, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, isn't that the truth? I am kind of dismayed at Leahy allowing more time, though I understand why he did it. The Republicans are just going to make hell for four years even though the country is living through hell. They (some) really don't give a crap about any of us.
December 17, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they do not. That came out in spades during the auto debacle. Richard Shelby and Bob Corker possess forked tongues. And they are well aware of what they are doing, and could give a dry shit for he country, or the debate that keeps it going.
And there is but a single reason they persist: because they are allowed to.
After this election, these folks have earned the right to be shut out for at least two years, and no one will shed a tear, nor does a power base exist outside the in-bred Old Sooth to confront what is coming.
Can we swear the man in already?
Pax,
M.
December 17, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Join the Stop Rick Warren Group at My.BarackObama.com
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/StopRickWarrensHateNOW
December 17, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Join this one too:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/StopThePettyFuckingInfantileWhineyBullshitNow
December 17, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sign me up for this one.
And let me sign the "I'd rather eat a bbq glass sandwich than hear anymore whining about Obama betraying the left" petition, too!
December 17, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
HREBENDORF is cracking me up...
THEONE is too...
FREERIDER is making too much sense...
I'm just lovin this.
December 17, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your a troll, plain and simple.
December 18, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee thanks!
December 18, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dobson is not doing the convocation because he and Obama are not friends.
By having Warren give the convocation Obama is making a non-partisan statement, not a a political statement.
Has anyone commenting here wondered what the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are making of all this?
I'm an atheist. I would like to see the day come when NO convocation is given, but given the current climate in the US, I completely accept this gesture celebrating ecumenism, friendship and non-partisanship.
December 17, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually a good question, I wonder how the religious right is taking this one.
December 17, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No your name is not Sara F.
Mine is Sarah F.
Isn't that crazy!
December 17, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
TWIN!!!!!
December 18, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little advice from some of my liberal friends: Since most of us will be watching the inauguration on television, if you don't like it, change the channel.
December 17, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Works for entertainment. Still not fair that taxpayer dollars fund even a brief speech by the radical cleric Rick Warren.
December 18, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tonight has been interesting, to say the least. I basically got my ass kicked for having strong a objection to Warren. In any event, I have checked many sites on the web after this "discussion" and this is a big deal. Many people are outraged (not me, just don't like the choice) and I believe it is going to fester. It certainly took the blush off the rose for many people.
Yes, we should be inclusive and tolerant. But Pastor Warren has said horrible things about homosexuals, really awful. Also, if you are not gay or close to someone who is, I think it is truly hard to grasp how hurtful and maybe to some, even threatening, his comments have been.
December 18, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A thread on a potential labor secretary not too long ago left me shocked at the "tolerance" people demand of gaybashers.
December 18, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I missed it.......
December 18, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here 'tis, check it out: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/momentum_builds_for_openly_gay.php
December 18, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but Obama's action on Warren speaks louder than his words and so far, he's signaled that the LGBT community is politically expendable. "Unity!.....except for the gays." I absolutely do not support Obama on choosing Warren to give the invocation; to give him such a national platform signals that the LGBT community is just another nuisance to keep quiet and under the rug.
Maybe the Obama team has become too blind to realize that people are still seriously PISSED about Prop 8.
December 18, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today, a lot of us got a bucket of shit thrown in our faces. Thanks, Mr. President-Elect.
All these years (decades, actually) that I've spent reading up on our involvement in the affairs of southeast Asia forty years ago, and I keep reading in the press of your intentions in Afghanistan. I remember living in the jungle out near where the border joined those of Cambodia and Laos, and I remember living in the capital of Chile under the regime of Pinochet (my ex's one-time boss had visited with Tricky and Henry in the Oval Office and demanded his mines back).
Whatever that you will have to say on inauguration day today was, has already, been diluted for me. Bill Clinton mastered the game of playing both sides of the fence at once and it cost him greatly, long-term. They called him slick, years before they ever called him slimy.
Good luck with your Mideast venture, and goodnight.
December 18, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I just read through all of the comments finally and does this site ever have a lot of homophobic bigots. "Who cares about the gays! Sweep them under the rug! They're just a nuisance!"
Disgusting.
December 18, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I just read through all of the comments finally and does this site ever have a lot of homophobic bigots.
These people belong on Red State or Free Republic.
December 18, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will assert my right to express my disappointment that Warren has been given the honor of participating in the inauguration at this time when our first black president is sworn into office because I do think it reinforces the fight against gay americans having the full rights of ther citizens among other things.
However I completely object that expressing disappointment makes me childish etc. I simply feel disappointed. I don't feel it was wise on the part of people making these decisions. I think it is a mistake.
Compared to other things it may not be something to make a big deal about but I guess that is easier to say if your are not a citizen who is being denied to get married to the person they love and want to commit themselves to. If you have all of your rights in tact, I guess it's easy to say everyone is making too much of this.
December 18, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
i sincerely hope that those of you who believe that rick warren is a detestable choice by virtue of his religious views understand one thing: just because someone disagrees with your point of view does not mean they don't have the right to hold it. you're doing the exact same thing that accuse and judge others of wrongly doing to you-- taking your rights and freedoms because of your unwillingness to waver from your beliefs and lifestyle.
So yea, rick warren may not equally represent everyone in america. no one is ever going to do that. no religious leader, politician, superstar....anyone, ever. and he's not being asked to. that's not his job. if obama asked one of you to make a speech at such a large function, would you not be outraged if he took the advice you're giving him on this situation and apply it- ask you to step down because you think ill of others in america who don't share your views? that would be ridiculous.
but again, barack obama has stated numerous times that his beliefs differ greatly from those of warren. but he is willing to speak and stand next to people he doesn't get along with. how is the man ever supposed to get anything done or make any sort of progress if he only works with those he agrees with? and i guarantee, when it comes to foreign policy, you're going to hope he possesses the quality that you so truly detest right now- otherwise there will never be any way to affect change, build partnerships, or accomplish anything in this country or the this world if we don't get over these little things and start getting things done.
so again, i understand the sheer anger and frustration that arises from the situation, but seriously.. warren isn't making the choice about your rights. and obama isn't letting him change his mind about the rights you should have as an individual. in fact if anything, partnerships like these can only help your cause, because lets be honest here.. just because obama's in now doesn't mean america changed overnight. that means its starting to change. slowly, unfortunately, and thats not just for supporters of gay rights. and that change is going to be all the more slow if you continue to shun people at the drop of a hat without considering the benefit of having them not even as a friend, but as someone you can talk to without blowing your top, who will one day, maybe one day, be able to see your point of view and work with you on it.
so because your rights aren't in their fullest, don't deny those of others. i'm not saying its right to be denied, trust me i know, but if people keep denying one another's rights, regardless of what side of the issue you're on, no one has a valid argument. and no progress is made. someone's gotta do the right thing. otherwise it just crazy double talk if i've ever heard it, and it turns into.. "well he hit me first, so he deserved to get hit." which may be true, but in the end u both get punished. fair is fair. simple as that.
December 18, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was gorgeous!
December 18, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
O.K., let's get theoretical and yes, way absurd:
It is 1963 and newly elected U.S. president Golda Meir, having won her election with the avid support of progressive black citizens of America, selects the right Reverend George Wallace of Montgomery, Alabama to give the spiritual invocation at her inaugural.
It is 2016 and newly elected U.S. president Caroline Kennedy, having won her election with the avid support of progressive jewish citizens of America, selects the right Reverend Moammar Kadafi of Flint City, Michigan to give the spiritual invocation at her inaugural.
It is 2012 and newly re-elected U.S. president Barak Obama, having won his election with the avid support of fundamental & extremist, right-wing bible bangers of America, selects the right Reverend John-The-Wad Holmes of Laurel Canyon, California to give the spiritual invocation at his second inaugural.
And now it is 2008 and newly elected U.S. president Saddam Hussein, having won his election with the avid support of the entire Mormon faith of America, selects the right Reverend Richard Simmons of West Hollywood, California to give the spiritual invocation at his first inaugural.
Some people manage to always get themselves used and then other people are just very good at making use...
December 18, 2008 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the same thing and you know it. I was waiting for someone to use that warped analogy. This reminds me of the vid of a white OBAMA volunteer trying to sign up new voters to vote for OBAMA. She is confronted by some black panther type fools who go on a rant about "the white man" and instead of rising above it you know what she does? Goes into her own attack about how they are "low life, going nowhere, scum, N-bomb n-bomb n-bomb. It was fascinating to see an Obama volunteer spew crap like that so easliy. Two sides of the same coin indeed.
December 18, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony is that a generation ago Rick Warren would have been repulsed by interracial marriage.
December 18, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You depersonalize the individual and attribute to him a rigid worldview based on a stereotype.
Classic bigotry.
December 18, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we finally found the Angry Left...
December 18, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
No joke.
I barely dipped my toe into this thread last night before deciding I'd better pull back lest someone bite it off. It's looking like I made the right decision.
December 18, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smart decision.
December 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
fascinating to see how many people here are convinced they know the "message" that obama is sending with his convocation choice: it's decidedly anti-gay, a betrayal to all his gay supporters, a sure sign he can't be counted on to keep any of his promises, etc. etc.
I suggest that if you want to know what his message is (or anyone's, for that matter), that you ASK him. Hopefully, a good journalist will do that soon.
December 18, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet, why not listen to the prayer and draw our conclusions.
December 18, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez.......and so it continues. I have no problem with Obama having someone that is against gay marriage, civil unions, etc. It is a free country. I do have a problem with someone who has been vile in their comments about gay marriage and civil unions. How hard is that to understand? After last night, obviously very hard.
I am really disappointed in the defense of this guy (anyone can check out on YouTube regarding his comments). I think a few folks here blogging are Warren in disguise.
And word up, never say one thing about Obama being anything other than perfect or it is ass kicking time.
December 18, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please try not to fall into black/white false dichotomies. Is anyone calling Obama perfect here? Have his supporters ever called him perfect? Does not criticizing him for choosing Warren mean we think he's perfect? Is disagreeing with someone about their POV considered ass-kicking?
Also, remember, fellow democrats have said some pretty vile things about obama too, and each other. It's not pleasant, but it is free speech.
December 18, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one called Obama perfect, you are correct. It is just my personal experience that the first time I questioned an action of his, wow, game over. It was very mean spirited on here last night. Frankly, why even discuss when it resorted in name calling and not even reading a post before reacting to it?
Again Sara, it is not about disagreeing, as I have said like 10 times now. It is about the level of disgust this man has for a segment composing a tenth of all people in this country, and before people jump on that one, it is a scientific fact. One in ten people are gay, although they might not be openly gay nor living a gay lifestyle.
December 18, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yes Sara, calling me a liar, an intolerant ass, an embarrassment to progressives, childish, etc. is pretty much ass-kicking.
December 18, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The selection was not about policy or program, it was for an individual to render a spiritual invocation at the outset of what many have thought would be whole new era. To me, that makes it worse.
Yesterday, a lot of us got a bucket of shit thrown in our faces, by Barak Obama. Right at the outset. Over and out.
Goodnight.
December 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
From PZ Myers excellent post on Alternet today:
"As we've pointed out several times before, in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were "non-negotiable" issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone. He criticized Obama's answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice. He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying "there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." He's declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office."
"Obama had a chance to set a non-sectarian, progressive tone at this event, and he has chosen to kow-tow to the wretched evangelical movement."
Why is it that so many at TPM are defending the choice of Rick Warren? Those individuals who have promoted tolerating the intolerable are straight out of the wingnut playbook. I sincerely doubt if ANY of these commenters are progressive in any capacity, but wingnut trolls having cynical fun with the supposed jargon of "liberal intolerance." If not, then I wonder how anyone can be so convincingly naive. It's a neat verbal trick to accuse those who speak out against intolerance as being intolerant themselves. As long as this tactic allows the delusional avoidance of the truth regarding the REAL ISSUE.
Warren is a wealthy right wing evangelical who EXPRESSES INTOLERANCE every single f*****g day, and then somehow manages to get away with it. His participation in Obama's inauguration sends a very loud signal as to exactly where the president elect's priorities reside. The incoming Obama team had to realize that the choice of Warren would create a negative backlash, yet proceeded to choose him anyway. We have had eight years of increasingly alarming right wing evangelical power within the White House, and additionally the judicial system. How absurd is it for Obama to have someone who has equated abortion with the holocaust as pastor of anything? Warren is the embodiment of the hypocrisy of so called Christian values-- yet he will be allowed a national platform of recognition, however brief. He is much, much more than merely a symbol of Obama's supposed lack of partisanship. Interesting to compare Warren to the Rev. Wright. It's very difficult to discern who is the extremist; while Obama has eschewed Wright as some sort of anti-American nut, for the sake of his pres. campaign, Warren is the more eerily powerful as well as demonstrably dangerous.
It will be interesting to watch and see how long it takes the "Obama team" to undo some of the damage perpetrated by Bush. Bush's HHS has recently adopted the "new anti-choice" parting "gift" regulations. Additionally, how long will it take Obama to rescind the global gag rule, etc.? On the civil rights issues of gay marriage, etc., I doubt if he will express additional tolerance or advocate for civil rights for gays.
Someone mentioned marriage is a religious based institution-- that is completely false. Marriage began as a matter of convenience, a prudent "business" deal for the male in order to claim the woman as his property. Remember, a wife had no legal property or personal legal rights of any kind. If government had not intervened in what at the time constituted legal forms of marriage, there would be many unethical religious based marital practices still in existence. Although not eradicated, polygamy is one example. That is why it is important that gay marriage be recognized legally in the CA or any other state Constitution. Marriage IS a civil rights issue, not a religious one, period. BTW, it was a very small majority which enabled the passage of Prop 8 in CA.
As a straight, married feminist who opposed Prop. 8, and voted against it, I'm sickened by the choice of Warren in ANY capacity. Symbolic or not, it DOES matter that Warren was chosen. Wake the f*** up. Change we can believe in for sure.
Obama should be questioned every single step of the way, that is what intelligent progressives do. It is crucial to QUESTION the leaders of this country, not turn them into idols who cannot make mistakes. Been there, done that, and do some of you really want to go there again?!
December 19, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink