Talk To Warren, Just Don't Tap Him To Give Inaugural Invocation

Dkos diarist John Campanelli points to this blog post on Rick Warren by Melissa Etheridge's partner.

It seems to me both posts miss the point. I doubt too many object to talking with Rick Warren (it is worth noting however that Ms. Etheridge's partner seems woefully ignorant about Mr. Warren's views on gays and lesbians.) I believe the objection is to President-Elect Obama's tapping Mr. Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.

In any event, that is my objection. Ms. Etheridge, President-Elect Obama and anyone who feels it would be productive should talk to anyone they choose -- but honoring Warren by tapping him for the inaugural invocation sends a terrible signal in my estimation.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Fort Dix Terrorism Trial Ends with Conspiracy Conviction, Attempted Murder Acquittal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'd happily sit down with the devil (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:46:20 AM EST
    I could ask him how jerry Falwell is doing down there. Seriously though, why does Obama want to pander to evangelicals and piss off so many  gays? Did he not see the controvercy coming?

    Of course he did. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:52:09 AM EST
    And the Village loves Obama and Warren for it (see, they are the adults, and those silly critics from the left and the right are the children).  

    And, it gives Obama more cover when he pushes off his "fierce advocacy" for gay rights until after the next election (or the election after that...and so on..).  


    Sadly, it looks to me (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    like it is working for him.  Some of the stepford-supporters are crowing about the political genius of "reaching across the aisle" as if the inaugural invocation  was a crafty legislative maneuver to secure needed votes; others, unsure, are yielding to Obama's superior political judgment, whatever the goal may be. Little call is heard for amelioration; dissenters, just suck it up, because you are missing the big picture.  My suggestion for Mr. Obama would be to dilute Warren out--let him remain as celebrant, but add a diverse group of clerics to serve as concelebrants, offering up an agreed upon prayer.  Not the best, but, hey, when a mistake is made, you usually have to pay for it (unless, of course, you are Bush or Cheney, or Obama?).

    The thing that puzzles me ... (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    is such people who defend Obama's decision to include Warren act as if Obama was firmly against Prop 8.

    In fact his opposition (or support in the clothing of opposition) of the bill was about as slippery as slippery can be:

    I've stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them.

    Obama agrees with Warren more than he disagrees with him on this issue.  


    Generally the constitution... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    ...is a about limitations on what the legii can do as the BOR seems to complete the flaws in the earlier documents:

    can't ban words, can't ban guns, can't raid your house...Then the constitution divides up the legislative powers to keep the ideologicalfactions in some sort of balance.

    The California prop system is a plebiscite that appeals to the lowest common denominator and almost always seems to limit freedoms and butcher  reasonable and sane progress.  


    Are only "gays" angry about Warren? (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    Salo, I take your point but it reiterates something specious about the Warren blowback: namely that it is coming primarily, or almost exclusively, from "gays" (aka the LGBTQ community). We heard this all last week, and ad nauseam on the Sunday talk shows.

    There are a number of problems with this meme:

    *It gives the convenient impression that only one, relatively small, demographic is disturbed by Warren.

    *This has the unfortunate effect of isolating the LGBTQ community and making it the party poopers, the skunk at the picnic, etc.

    *The sole emphasis on Warren's problems with "gays", also diverts attention away from the fact that Warren has other lunatic ideas on other issues that affect everyone.

    Let's not forget, Warren is also an outspoken opponent of reproductive choice; and he is an enemy of science and medicine, given that he disavows evolution and stem cell research. Surely there are Obama supporters who are willing to defend those issues and join the LGBTQ community in its denunciation of Warren. Furthermore, I would expect the vast majority of Obama supporters to also be incensed by Warren's active opposition to the civil rights of the LGBTQ community itself.  



    And I would expect... (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    that those here carry on a civil discussion of this issue without resorting to calling those TL commentors who may have a different point of view or way of looking at things as "homophobes".  

    Or accusing them of trying to "poke" people/having some kind of hidden anti-gay agenda (ie, "marching orders").  

    Or trying to shout down/ban those who aren't in lock-step agreement.  

    Or my favorite--the blanket condemnation of all straight males as "the enemy".

    You want me to make some noise?  Well, don't be as closed-minded/bigoted as those who you oppose.


    Sorry, I wasn't talking to you... (none / 0) (#169)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    And perhaps you're not really talking to me.

    I have never called any commentor a "homophobe" and I haven't called any commentor ("straight male" or otherwise) "the enemy". I'm just a hop, skip and a jump away from being a "straight male" myself.

    As to whether you perceive me as "closed-minded bigoted", that is your subjective call and you are free to make it.


    But you're totally without sin, right? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 09:25:59 AM EST
    I noticed you skipped over this in your reply...

    Or trying to shout down/ban those who aren't in lock-step agreement.

    Here's what you've said of late...

    I often can't tell if I am talking to a 12 year old or a thoroughly brain-addled adult. I see upwards of 30-40-50 comments by the some of these same people day after day.

    Insulting much?  

    You have already made 32 comments here today, and that exceeds what Jeralyn considers a reasonable limit; even for comments that aren't overtly belligerent toward others. Over and out.

    You seem to think that you speak for Jeralyn, but I sure didn't get that memo.  

    You've posted 21 (and counting) comments in this thread alone. That's roughly 20% of the total. It's a bit hypocritical to call others out for their excessive posting when you do the exact same thing, no?  

    Shall I go get your quotes calling for the banning of a certain poster here too?  


    Ooops... (none / 0) (#201)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    10%.  Too early for math.

    Teilhard de Chardin (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    believed in the Theory of Evolution--or so I always thought.  But he has fallen out of favor because he did not believe in the complete randomness of selection....So, someone whose written work was banned by the Vatican ends up in the same heap as those who believe the Earth is 6000 years old....

    It all depends on what one means by the Theory of Evolution....


    Do tell, just how 'nuanced' (none / 0) (#116)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    is Warren's rejection of the "Theory of Evolution".

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    I do know that the condemnations of Warren--including calling him a murderer, a ridiculous assertion--lack any nuance whatsoever and carry with them all the myopic, rigid dogmatism that he is accused of.

    Again, you're the only one (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    making the "ridiculous assertion" that Rick Warren is actually a "murderer".

    I called him a "homicidal sociopath", because his "purpose-driven" hate speech has the power to incite fatal violence; against people in the LGBTQ community, against people who support reproductive freedom, etc., etc.


    selection is not random (none / 0) (#119)
    by Nasarius on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but this frighteningly common misconception just kills me. The only part of evolution that could accurately be described as "random" is mutation, which provides some of the raw material.

    Natural selection simply means that life will adapt to its environment by gradual degrees, because those individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive. It's such a simple, elegant idea and it is the foundation and glue of modern biology.

    If one thinks that the development of life has been guided by something other than the natural environment, they are proposing something entirely different from Darwinian evolution.


    Thank you Nasarius... (none / 0) (#125)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    So, from what you're saying, we can safely assume that although Rick Warren may believe in "random mutation, he still rejects Darwin's Theory of Evolution since he believes that:
    the development of life has been guided by something other than the natural environment [i.e. GOD]...

    So, dear old Teilhard is on the heap (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    just like the fundamentalists....That was my point....

    fallen out of favor with whom? (none / 0) (#183)
    by sallywally on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:59:25 AM EST
    take a wild guess (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:58:19 AM EST
    I'm not writing a thesis (none / 0) (#122)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    It's a good shorthand summary of what happened

    It's classic triangulation (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    I aggree

    The problem, of course, (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    is how to triangulate on civil rights.  I mean, either people are equal under the law, or they aren't.  So far, it seems that Obama is choosing the idea that gays and women shouldn't have rights equal to straight, Christian men.

    Women should not have equal rights? (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:41:02 PM EST
    Where on earth did Obama say anything like that?  That is nonsense.

    On abortion, (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    let's start with this.

    And, not choosing to fire, or even publicly reprimand, his chief speech writer for making fun of sexual harrassment and rape fantasies sends a further message that women's rights over their own bodies aren't to be taken too seriously.


    Or, you could look at the (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    argument that conservatives made the he was THE most liberal abortion rights proponent in the Senate because he refused to support the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

    Obama has a strong abortions rights voting record--100% according to Planned Parenthood.  One could hope that this canard from the Primaries would have gone away...


    Well, if you think (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:52:54 PM EST
    that creating further restrictions to the mental health exception for women's rights to terminate their pregnancies, and trivializing violence against women is a good thing, then I guess you can just ignore me.  Nothing to see here.

    Obama never trivialized violence against (2.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    women....The arguments here today are so over-the-top and ridiculous.....

    Irony (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    Responding to a comment about trivializing with nothing more than an attempt to trivialize.  Funny.

    For That Matter (none / 0) (#107)
    by daring grace on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    Where did Obama say he believes that non Christians (men or otherwise) don't deserve equal rights?

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    couldn't care less.

    Rather than talking to Warren, (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:47:40 AM EST
    I'd spend my time talking to a wall.

    It'd be more productive.

    At least the wall doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    compare to be a pedophile.

    *me to (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:48:51 AM EST
    I'd rather (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    talk to my bartender.

    Talk (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:51:36 AM EST
    Obama can talk to Rick Warren.
    He can talk to Pat Roberson.
    He can talk to Rush Limbaugh.
    He can talk to whomever he chooses.

    This is not about talk.
    This is not about getting to know someone or their positions on issues. It is not about dialogue. Warren is not going to change his well-financed schtick to accommodate the heathens among us.

    This is about Obama having a connection with the evangelicals. Apparently they control a lot of votes and a lot of money.
    Apparently Obama does not feel that those who are on the left, progressives or whatever, have many votes or much money.

    Until progressives can prove that they have some muscle, that they can mobilize vast numbers of votes that are issue-oriented, that they will not compromise or be intimidated, and that they can also raise large sums of money, no one will pay any attention.

    Far too many (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    Flocked to his banner too cheaply.

    Yup ... (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    and let's just make this clear.  If JFK had tapped a pro-segregation pastor to give the invocation at his inaugural how would history now look at that decision?

    I think the answer is simple:  We wouldn't see it as a "call for healing."

    In fact, we'd laugh at such descriptions.  We see it as political pandering to bigots.  And we'd be right.


    A good point about JFK, (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    who probably was acutely aware of how important the increased turnout for him among blacks was in getting him (very narrowly) elected.  He was so sensitive about not offending this emerging Dem constituent group that he finally nixed his first choice for SoS -- segregationist senator Bill Fulbright -- after listening to Bobby warn it would send the wrong signal here and abroad.

    This hetero guy is with Barnett Frank on Warren.  This is a mistake.  And it will introduce a very unnecessarily negative and uneasy undertone to what should have been a uniformly positive and historic occasion.

    Most unfortunate.  The only negative elements to the Kennedy inauguration were two unforeseen technical mishaps, one involving a glaring sun in the eyes of poet Rbt Frost, the other an electrical short under the podium producing smoke which the droning invocation speaker Cardinal Cushing thought was a bomb, which he intended to shield from Kennedy by standing there speaking in a slow monotone, and taking one for the team.

    Lincoln's second inaugural had one negative aspect, also unplanned -- his VP Andrew Johnson showed up drunk and badly slurred his Veep acceptance speech, to the deep embarrassment of Lincoln and all assembled.  (Abe hardly spoke to his VP thereafter, in the few weeks he had left ...)

    I hope Obama re-thinks this one, though getting out of it at this point probably would require Warren saying something so breathtakingly insensitive that a revision in plans becomes the only option.


    Well (none / 0) (#184)
    by sallywally on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:01:48 AM EST
    Warren actually has already done that with his comparisons of gay marriage to incest and pedophilia.

    I thought the 600 Million that (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    Obama raised proved once and for all that he had all the money he needed and that the election proved that he didn't need the evangelicals vote either. That being the case, he can be civil to Warren, but honor him? I think that goes too far.

    You're leaving out (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    thinking about exactly where Obama's $750,000,000 came from.
    It wasn't from the little people sending in their spare change as the Obamabots would have us believe.

    Obama is as beholden to right-wing interests as any other big time politician.

    Follow the money and you have your answer.

    I would add that there are a lot more people that I to whom I would prefer Obama be civil. This guy is so obviously stupid. It makes Obama look equally stupid.

    He should try being civil to Chomsky.


    Agreed (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by joanneleon on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:55:44 AM EST
    It's as simple as that.  Talk is good.  Honoring him by having him at the inauguration is a big problem.

    In reading the comments (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:06:57 AM EST
    It strikes me that I failed to make an essential point - tied to the idea of redefining the Center.

    Obama's choice takes us backward on this issue.

    Instead of marginalizing the views of a Warren, it makes them mainstream.

    The Overton Window on gay rights was just moved to the right - by Obama

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    I think it's pretty obvious that the biggest problem is honoring/legitimizing Warren and his views.

    Same thing (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CST on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    by "honoring/legitimizing" his veiws, he is making them more mainstream and bringing them toward the middle.

    I thought that's what I just said (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:12:49 AM EST
    I disagree, in other words, that BTD failed to make his point.

    Yes but specificaly tying it to (none / 0) (#53)
    by Faust on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    the Overton windown might clarify the issue for some people and it ties the situation into BTDs ongoing "the center is a usefull rhetorical tool" critique.

    Not everyone who reads this blog is as politically astute as you or automatically understands the broader theoretical framework that BTD uses.


    Flattery will win you agreement! ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    And it shows once again ... (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:42:47 AM EST
    that people cannot see how all civil rights battles are the same battle.

    History will not look kindly on Obama's retrograde views on gay rights.

    I find it an embarrassing when he makes any statements on civil rights when he holds such untenable views on gay rights.

    He is either pandering or doesn't truly understand civil rights.  Neither reason is acceptable.


    Yes, right on, and (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    to become even more so, when the Reverend gives the best invocation ever--crafted by Jon Favereau in consultation with someone like Ted Sorenson.  Then, the Stepford-supporters will continue to not only miss the point, but also, will say, what was the big deal, the guy's prayer was great.  And, Obama will be hailed as standing up against the "gay agenda", by one and almost all.   Presto, Warren is mainstream.

    Quite a turnaround from yesterday (none / 0) (#66)
    by Pepe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    Yesterday WS wrote:

    The worst part is the Obama team like Axelrod were happy the left was upset over Rick Warren.

    To which BTD responded:

    This I doubt very much.
    Personally, I think it was an unintended consequence.

    To which I responded:

    Unintended consequence?
    I would hope you were kidding but you are not.

    How can picking someone who was guaranteed to piss off the gay community be unintended??? As if Obama and his entire staff was not smart enough to know and was just oblivious to that fact? Apparently they are not the only ones.

    Well I guess that even though you BTD are incapable of responding directly to my pointing out yesterday your gross oversight on this issue that at least you found a way to shift your view on this atrocity by Obama today.

    Maybe you will come around on you praising Obama for union hugging like you did yesterday even though he is in reality flipping off unions like the UAW.

    Slowly we are all becoming PUMA's now...

    And the guy has not even taken over the levers of power yet. Sure he will throw us a bone here and there and then, metaphorically speaking, give us the bone on other things.


    there is absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    nothing to "discuss" with the likes of "rev." warren. zero, nada, zilch. you don't "discuss" your civil rights with someone, to convince them you're entitled to them. as BTD noted, by doing so, you legitimize an otherwise obviously illigitimate position.

    this is what obama has done, by inviting the banally evil (and make no mistake, warren is an evil man) "rev" warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.

    sadly, this comes as no surprise at all: obama is a closet conservative, masquerading as a progressive. anyone lacking blinders knew this. anyone who didn't, or still doesn't see it, is an idiot.

    anyone (none / 0) (#43)
    by JThomas on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28:17 AM EST
    that would label Barack Obama as a conservative, after spending the last two years trying to overcome the label by NR as ''the most liberal Senator'' is ignoring factual voting records.

    But hey, why bother with his voting record...lets just accuse him of being a ''closet conservative''....

    Personally, I will wait until he actually takes office and creates actual conservative policies before I will start labeling him.

    But, why wait...get in now and beat the rush to judgement on him?


    Do I get a tote bag (5.00 / 9) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    when I join the Obama cult?

    Obama's social values are (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    moderately conservative. I have determined this in consultation with my pastor.

    Obama isn't a conservatice. But that (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    NR rating is bogus in the extreme. It also called Kerry the most liberal in 2004. If  Ben Nelson ever runs for President he'll get rated the most liberal as well.

    Progressive Punch usually ranked Obama at around the 10th or so most liberal.


    I agree that the NR (none / 0) (#83)
    by JThomas on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    tag goes to whoever the dem nominee is, but it is a real stretch to call him a conservative.

    As far as the tote bag...nah...I just voted for the guy and am rooting for him to succeed. Guess that makes me a cultist.

    You on the other hand, are sophisticated enough to think it is naive and childish to want a president to successfully help lift this country out of this disasterous hole we find ourselves stuck in...good for you. Maybe you will get your wish and he will fail spectacularly and America will suffer enough to make you happy.


    the reason why his rating was so high as the most (none / 0) (#196)
    by suzieg on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:59:03 AM EST
    liberal senator was because he was rated on his very few votes - there were not enough to balanced them!

    being labeled something, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    and actually being something are not mutually inclusive. sen. obama the "mostest liberalestest" of sens.? right. i have shares in the brooklyn bridge to sell you also. that was, of course, a laughable and discredited) claim, made by the equally laughable NR.

    But hey, why bother with his voting record...lets just accuse him of being a ''closet conservative''....

    his voting record is self-evidently supportive of my assertion. you might want to try another, more compelling, less self-destructive approach, in your feeble attempt to prove me wrong.

    yes, facts are annoying little buggers, aren't they?


    Warren as evil and Obama (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    as a conservative goes too far.....

    One thing that really bothered me about conservatives was the black-or-white, dogmatic absolutism that embued everything....Once you dehumanize someone, bad things happen....They become the enemy...


    In the book; "People of the Lie" (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    The author defines evil people as someone who is aware he is doing wrong and does it anyway.

    That definition makes sense to me. Once you are aware you are responsible.


    It may make sense on one level (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sallywally on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:04:49 AM EST
    but I think it also defines a sociopathic personality, and sociopathy is not a religious term. Such people have no conscience because their brains can't actually process any sense of connection to anyone else, so no empathy. Dr. Martha Stout has a good book on this titled "The Sociopath Next Door."

    Evil is a loaded and I believe a religious term and if you're going to be religious, you need to leave defining who and even what is evil up to God. Religious folks have not had a good track record of defining those categories well over the millenia.

    Just some personal snark: I thought Scott Peck was pompous, narcissistic, and therefore insufferable. I couldn't read his books because of that.


    Defining people as evil (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    is what conservative reactionaries do....

    I wonder whether MLK ever branded segregationists as evil....as apart from the idea....


    Things are what they are (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    Defining people as evil is what conservative reactionaries do...

    Is this your attempt at shutting me up? I mean, who would want to be a conservative reactionary, right?

    Or are you saying I'm a bad progressive?

    I stand by my post. Once you are aware of the harm you are causing others, and you keep doing it anyways, you are evil. It has nothing to do with demonic or godly stuff.


    True Liberals (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    would find Warren, not evil, but lacking in education and awareness--Rousseau's approach....And Conservatives often ridicule liberals by saying we believe that mass murderers just lack proper education.  

    As to gay rights, a lack of "education" does play a part.  The more openly gay people one knows, the harder it is to hold certain discriminatory views.....Look at someone who many liberals might call "evil": Dick Cheney.  He is opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  I cannot believe he holds those views because any gay activist got in his face.  Or, that he is naturally empathetic.  No, it was his daughter that changed his views....

    This occurs often.  After Prop 8 passed, it was interesting to read articles in the Salt Lake Tribune describing Mormons who opposed Prop 8.  Inevitably, this involved devout Mormons learning that their son or daughter was gay....


    "True liberals"? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sj on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    Are you kidding me?  You decided that you get to define what a true liberal is?  That thinking is just as rigid as that of "conservative reactionaries".

    Okay, then.  I can see there is absolutely no point in any further discussion.  


    Okay "classic" liberal (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    Most use the term "progressive," so I thought using the rapidly fading term "liberal" was context enough...

    But to be sure, there is a take-no-prisoners group among the Left that shuns the nice let's educate them approach....Whatever the merits of that approach, I think it is very limited in gaining acceptance of gay rights....BTD and his view of the politics of contrast and the Overton window may disagree.

    I think  it is the realization that gay people are normal that is the most powerful force for changing minds....That requires open minds....You can't get there by calling people "evil" or the like....


    You can have the last word ::shrug:: (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    There's still no point in further discussion.

    SJ, you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    regarding the commenter you are responding to:
    there is absolutely no point in any further discussion...

    However, we can still discuss this here with others who are open to reason.


    true dat (none / 0) (#131)
    by sj on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    And frankly it's a conversation that find fascinating... and valuable to explore.

    Sometimes you need to know what you're up against.


    Sj, ironic that I suggested you (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 04:07:30 AM EST
    follow your own advice and spare yourself the tedium of a no-win argument. Too, bad I took over where you left off and I just kept going and going further down the rabbit hole. Please, slap me next time.

    Oh my. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by sj on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    You did, didn't you?  I know how inviting that rabbit hole looks sometimes.  And, well, no one can say you didn't try.

    Maybe I should bookmark your comment for you :)


    You can set parameters (none / 0) (#126)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    Totally reasonable

    No, I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by sj on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    I don't think it's totally reasonable at all.  

    I can set parameters for what I think is acceptable.  Classic liberal, true liberal whatever BS term is chosen, it's just a freaking label.  But it's a label that one applies to oneself and it's personal and multi-layered.

    You don't get to decide for someone else.  Only for yourself.

    I happen to think you're completely wrong.  Does that change who you are?  I may think you're a faux liberal.  Does that change who you are?

    You don't get to decide for me, and I don't get to decide for you.


    You can set parameters (none / 0) (#127)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    Totally reasonable

    One of the favorite hobby horses (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    of conservatives is the refrain that liberals fail to acknowledge that evil actually exists, and exists in the form of concrete evil people.  This usually precedes an argument about invading Iraq and waterboarding....

    And no one is trying to shut you up...This is as silly as Warren saying those who voted against Prop 8 were trying to shut him up.  

    Once you label someone as evil (or a Nazi, for example), you of course end any kind of discussion...It can also be the precursor to violence...Who cares about evil people?

    And if one is to analogize gay rights to civil rights, I think looking at whether MLK called segregationists evil would be helpful....

    I suppose becoming radical and calling a majority of Californians "evil" may have some marginal benefit--but it escapes me how.


    I understand your point (none / 0) (#152)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    And yes MLK never label segregationist evil, as far as I know. I do know he did label segregation, itself, evil.

    One big difference here. MLK was a preacher who understood evil in terms of Satan and God.

    The kind of evil I posted about, as proposed by Steven Peck, in his book; "People of the Lie" is quite different and devoid of any such judgement. It has nothing to do with theology or God or Satan.  

    I am not saying Warren is evil in the traditional way evil is understood. I do not think he is that, and I want to be very clear about it.

    And how do you jump from talking about a single man, Warren, who I believe is aware of the harm he is causing GLBT people and still doing it because he profits from it to the majority of the  state of California?

    I suppose becoming radical and calling a majority of Californians "evil" may have some marginal benefit--but it escapes me how.

     Thanks for that label.

     I added radical to your post, to see how it reads.

    Once you label someone as evil (or a Nazi,  or radical for example), you of course end any kind of discussion...It can also be the precursor to violence...Who cares about evil or radical people?

    Reagan's Trick in the 80s (none / 0) (#154)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM EST
    was exactly that:

    Once you label someone as evil (or a Nazi,  or liberal for example), you of course end any kind of discussion...It can also be the precursor to violence...Who cares about evil or liberal people?

    It's been many years since I read (none / 0) (#160)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:15:51 PM EST
    M Scott Peck's "People of the Lie", but I have a fairly strong recollection of his description of at least one exorcism and the clerics who were with him in them.

    I think there was a great deal of theology and Devil v. God in how he describes and reasons evil in humans.

    He had examples that were as basic as missing empathy, and as dramatic as being possessed.


    Believing there is no such thing (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sj on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    as evil is what the sheltered do.  I don't hold that against you, but I envy you.  

    Having said that, I disagree with you.  In my view what the conservative  reactionaries do is believe (or at least behave as if they believe) that an evil person can do no good, or that a good person can do no evil.

    It's much more nuanced than that in my mind.  Which mind was filled with confusion over this issue until I, too, read "People of the Lie".  Not that it answered everything for me, but it definitely gave me context.


    Being accused of being sheltered (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:42:06 PM EST
    doesn't really work for me....I have learned that I am older than most here....

    Reading a book won't tell me about evil....That is something one learns about in other ways...

    Evil results when good people do bad things....One is naive if one does not understand that....

    If you are on the lookout for the "bad" guy, you will be blindsinded and never see the "evil" coming....Most people harm others, not out of malice, but rather because people just got in their way....in the way of their greed, fear, desire, etc.....Journalists who interview confessed murderers are often unnerved how "normal" the murderers are....

    Sure, there are people who deserve to be called "evil"--but doing so is often overdone and can substitute a knee-jerk bias for hard thinking....I never said one should apply Rousseau's concept of education across the board in all cases.

    But context is key.  I would not call Warren evil.  Nor would I call the 52% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 evil, either.  Gay rights activists do the cause of gay rights damage if they go there...


    Books are a good thing (none / 0) (#155)
    by mexboy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:38:48 PM EST
    Reading a book won't tell me about evil....That is something one learns about in other ways...

    Books have within them, the wisdom and knowledge of the author. We don't have to agree with them, nor is it license to give up our own analytical thinking, but they can guide us, to open our eyes, to different ways of looking at life.

    I sitll don't, know how you jump from this thread, to here:

    But context is key.  I would not call Warren evil.  Nor would I call the 52% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 evil, either.  Gay rights activists do the cause of gay rights damage if they go there...

    I've heard no Gay rights activists or anyone go there.


    I love books (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    What I learned about evil came not from any book but from experience.....I had wonderful discussions about evil in college....I learned about evil after college.  What was the saying about writing tragedy?--one cannot until after age 40.  Since 40 is, and has been, the new 30, I would put the age of writing tragedy in our time at 50.

    I have seen the fear, greed, desires and addictions of others inflict the most severe kind of evil imaginable--most of it by seemigly good people....and fortunately for me, I have observed most of this fall to others...Most of us old folks have seen "evil."  This whole idea of calling Warren "evil" or a "homocidal psychopath" shows a complete lack of understanding of what true evil is....  That assumes the accusation is anything other than a cheap rhetorical device.


    MKS, if not "evil", then what (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    word would you use to describe the Grand Dragon of the KKK and his ilk? What word would you use to describe the mind-set of the guys who beat Matthew Shepard to death and tied him to a fencepost; or the guys who decapitated James Byrd while dragging him behind their truck by a chain.

    I'm no psychiatrist and I'm no lawyer, but speaking in lay terms, I would call them homicidal sociopaths, does that work for you?  

    I would also call Rick Warren an homicidal sociopath since his hate speech cultivates and condones hate crimes - and HE KNOWS IT! Imo, "evil" understates the case.


    You lost me when (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:07:47 PM EST
    you called Warren a murderer.  You go way, way too far.

    I voted against Prop 8--and its predecessor years ago here in California.  I support gay marriage....I am (unfortunately) in the minority...and I find your comments on Warren wildly off the mark....

    The best analogy, if you want to use the 1960s Civil Rights movement as an example, is that many segregationists believed in an evil idea but were otherwise good people.  I cannot deny their humanity anymore than I could of African Americans....I lived in the South in the 1960s....I remember the uncouth using the "n" word and the polite calling MLK a Communist....But I would not call them all evil.  To Kill a Mockingbird is such a wonderful work....The one scene where the daughter calls out her neighbors by name--recognizing their humanity--when they had gathered in a mob in front of the jail shows what I am talking about....

    How on earth are you going to convince anyone when you have called them "evil," made them your mortal enemy?  It is either you or them....And right now there are more of them.  The key is making some of them, us.


    Or waiting for there to be more of (none / 0) (#134)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    us than them...which seems to be on course as they die off.

    Strom Thurmond accepted Civil Rights (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    You give up too easily....

    Hey, if Barack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:35:06 PM EST
    and Rick Warren want to have deathbed conversions toward approval of my federally sanctioned gay marriage thirty years or so after such marriage takes place, more power to them.  But their opinions would be irrelevant and a mere footnote to history, just as Strom's was.

    Oh darlin', I didn't "lose" you, (none / 0) (#145)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    because, fact is MKS, it's not you I'm trying to find. You're so vain!

    For the record, I didn't call Warren a "murderer", since I have no way of knowing that he's actually killed anybody himself.

    So let's be clear: I called Warren a "homicidal sociopath", because he knowingly preaches hate speech which incites others to actually kill people: like Matthew Shepard.


    If It Is Hate Speech (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:53:03 PM EST
    To call homosexuals evil, than it is hate speech to call Warren and his ilk evil.

    Two sides of the same coin.


    Well said (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    I wish more could see this....

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    Same difference.  

    Calling Warren a homicidal sociopath is ridiculous.....You really want to say that Warren knowingly incited someone to kill gay people?  Or even unkowingly incited anyone to kill someone who was gay?  Really? I don't think that those who killed Matthew Shepard had been reading The Purpose Driven Life.
    You lose all credibility with that kind of statement...


    Your estimation of my (none / 0) (#153)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    credibility is of little interest to me. Obama's credibility is at issue here and you are not defending his credibility by defending Rick Warren (who I will persist in calling a homicidal sociopath).

    I can't speak for the reading habits of the men who murdered Matthew Shepard. However, four-time murderer/kidnapper Brian Nichols, the so-called courthouse shooter, was a self-described born again Christian, who was quite impressed by Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life.


    So, are you saying (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    that reading The Purpose Driven Life caused the courthouse shooter to commit his crimes?   The story circulating on Larry King and other places was the opposite--that reading the book stopped the killing spree....Whether that had anything to do with it or not, you still distort facts to stew hatred of Warren.  

    Reading the book came after the killing. That makes your assertions ridiculous....

    I am no big supporter of Warren.  I do find very unnerving the invective here against him, and apparently against born-again people in general....I am hoping and assume this a rhetorical device to express disappoinment in having Warren give the invocation.  Otherwise, we have a truly disturbing line of rhetoric that aims to dehumanize.


    Here's the deal... (none / 0) (#168)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    I noted that the courthouse shooter was a self-professed born-again Christian who had no compunction about killing four public servants: a judge, a sheriff's deputy, a court clerk and a federal agent.

    But evidently, the shooter went easy on the woman he kidnapped: a fellow believer who "placated" him in part by reading from The purpose Driven Life. This particular religious lunatic is clearly signaling that if you're a believer, you may escape with your life.

    That's the subtext, and/or take home message, I also get from the hate speech of Warren and his fellow religious zealots like Jerry Falwell. I don't like it, do you?


    We can disagree without being disagreeable (none / 0) (#170)
    by liberalone on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:07:24 PM EST
    What were you saying about bigots and hate speech?  Did you mention anything about dangerously ridiculous sweeping generalizations?

    Oh, when a religious zealot (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:43:51 PM EST
    says that abortion is like the holocaust and compares LGBTQ sexuality to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, I have no intention of being agreeable.

    I'm sorry if you construed otherwise. When it comes to homophobic, misogynist zealots (like Rick Warren), I intend to be as fully disagreeable as a Jew would be toward a Nazi. (BTW, I am speaking as a Jew.)

    I don't want to engage in a futile attempt to 'persuade' these people that I am entitled to the same basic rights as any other human being. I want redress, and retribution, for having been denied my rights.

    I'll leave the agreeable schtick to Obama and we'll see how that pans out in 2010.


    The Nazi comparison (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    I knew it was coming.....

    It's my right dude, (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:30:45 AM EST
    especially as a Jew. So get over yourself. Anyhoo, why keep reading when you know what's coming? Are we LGBTQ folks and Jews and women so much more predictable than others?

    BTW, I imagine you're not the least bit offended by Rick freakin' Warren comparing ABORTION to the HOLOCAUST, since he's not actually using the "N" word, "NAZI" that is.

    Yeah, those heterosexual, white, male, right wing, born-again, Christian fundamentalists are so much more unpredictable than the rest of us.


    Your hatred of (1.50 / 2) (#191)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:48:23 AM EST
    of Christians reeks through every word you write.....

    You claim to speak for (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:38:50 AM EST
    all Jews and women too?  What arrogant bombast.

     Your hate speech quite predictably descended into stupid Nazi comparisons....


    Retribution (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM EST
    Reparations I assume.....Totally nuts...

    Civility is not schtick (none / 0) (#177)
    by liberalone on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:55:06 PM EST
    When you choose to draw connections between born again Christians and the Atlanta shootings, disagreeable is the most polite thing I could think of.  Calling Warren a "homicidal sociopath" is wrong and quite offensive.  There are many valid criticisms that one may make about Warren or even born again Christians without such inflammatory language.  

    I don't care if you are Jewish or Catholic or agnostic, your statements are no different in nature from the type of hate speech you claim to abhor.

    I am speaking as one who could care less about Warren or born again Christians.  


    You don't know what "hate speech" is... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:13:53 AM EST
    Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

    Rick Warren preaches hate speech from the pulpit, with the express intention of inciting "prejudicial action" against women and people in the LGBTQ community. He wishes to deprive and deny these groups of fundamental human rights, civil rights, and freedoms.

    It is true, I have nothing but disdain for Rick Warren, so call that by the misnomer of "hate speech" if you wish. However, I am not seeking to deny Rick Warren any of his rights: his right to bodily self-determination; his sexual orientation; his freedom of religion; or even his right to free speech.  

    With respect to free speech, please note, the United States is a democracy, a civil society, not a theocracy and Rick Warren doesn't have an inalienable right to pray at the people's inauguration of the President-Elect. It is a privilege and it should be denied to any person who espouses the profoundly anti-democratic desire to abrogate the rights of others.


    Calling someone (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:42:15 AM EST
    a murderous psychopath is hate speech....Are you not inciting people to vandalize his Church?  How is Rick Warren's speech incitement to violence, and your speech not so?

    Your hate has robbed you of any semblence of reason....


    In your wildest dreams, how can you possibly suggest that I am as much of a threat to Rick Warren as he is to an individual like me?

    For there to be an equal threat, Rick Warren and I would have to be on a level playing field, in terms of the extent to which our respective ideas reach and influence the opinions of the public at large. So let's compare and contrast.

    *Here's RICK WARREN: he is a multi-millionaire; he has written a widely read book espousing his demagoguery; he is the Pastor of a mega-church, where he preaches hate directly to 23,000 people every week; and he is giving the inaugural invocation for the President-Elect, in front of 4 million people.

    *Here's ME: writing to you in the comment section of a small left blog; where a handful of people may be reading some of this some of the time.

    He's Moby Dick and I'm a minnow. So, who's more likely to get eaten alive here?

    I seriously doubt that you are as thick as you appear to be on this issue. It's been a trip, but the ride is over. So, good night and GOOD BYE.


    So being an evangelical (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:04:06 AM EST
    causes one to go on a murderous spree?   What an astonishing broad brush....  

    What is there to talk about? (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:35:55 AM EST
    Warren has built a productive lucrative high profile career out of gay hate and baby holocaust emotions. Like that would change.  You are correct that Obama embracing Warren empowers and legitimizes the gay hate baby holocaust movement.

    Warren' views on gay rights and abortion (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    are not in sync with Democratic values....

    But, one would be really hard-pressed to attack Warren as greedy or financially motivated.  He gives 90% of his income to charity.  He lives in the same house that he did years ago in middle class suburbia....No mansion, no private jets, no ostentatious lifestyle or big bank accounts....


    And Warren's appeal (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    has not generally featured anti-abortion or anti-gay rights views....

    I live in Southern California.  And it was my impression, until Warren was picked to give the invocation, that he had taken a bye on Prop 8.  It was the Mormons who provided most of the funding and volunteers.  Next, were the Knights of Columbus.  Warren was largely absent as far as I could tell.  Warren did not rise to prominence bashing gays or abortion rights....

    I do not agree with Warren on gay rights, nor do I think Obama should have had him give the prayer at the Inauguration.  But, to oversimplify and to demonize Warren will not help either....That is what Republicans do, and it leads to poor judgment and thwarts the ability to persuade...


    Sorry, but ths speaks for itself (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    And like all "evangelicals", I'll take a look at all of his holdings and accounts before I proclaim him not monetarily motivated.  I graduated from a Christain school.  Can you beleive that?  Militarytracy finished her basic schooling at a nondenominational Christian school because she wanted to.  I liked how we all treated each other though.  I have been around people ministering Christ's teachings without being monetarily motivated and giving a lot of their income to charity.  Pastor Smith who opened the school and was the pastor of a church owned two VW beetles because he knew how to work on them himself.  Sorry, but Warren just does not fit the profile you are attempting to place upon him.  Someone who practices humility as Christ teaches doesn't end up in public spotlight and spewing hate mongering.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    Everyone assumed Warren supported Prop 8...But he was not on television on that issue that I noticed....

    YouTube: WARREN TELLS HOW TO VOTE ON PROP 8 (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST
    For pity's sake, MKS, I hate to use up the bandwidth harping on your errors, but LINK TO THIS, as MT already suggested. Warren says:
    "Let me say this really clearly, we support Prop 8. And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Prop 8."

    "that I noticed"..... (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:54:41 PM EST
    So this disclaimer, "that I noticed," (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by sallywally on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:08:08 AM EST
    all along meant you had no idea whether or not Warren supported Prop 8 and - given your post above, apparently that meant nobody should call you on it.

    But since you didn't have any idea what his stance was (though his views on gay marriage should have given you a clear idea of what was most likely),   you had no business implying he did not support Prop 8.

    If you want to be taken seriously, find out first, before you say anything on a matter. Otherwise you expose yourself as a shallow commenter who is wasting our time.


    No, you are wrong (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:34:39 AM EST
    Read what I wrote....

    I said I assumed that Warren supported Prop 8 (did you get that?) but that he was largely absent from actively promoting it.....He is much better known for supporting AIDS research and anti-poverty programs than opposing gay rights....

    Your ad homimen is what is shallow--you did not read what I wrote....You want a black-or-white approach, and when you don't get it, you use procrustean methods to get the clarity you seek.


    Thank you for (none / 0) (#159)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    referring commenters to that youtube, Fox.

    You're welcome, but Military Tracy (none / 0) (#187)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:20:42 AM EST
    deserves the credit, since she posted it first. It was being ignored, so I just said it again, LOUDER, you know...

    Well, then (none / 0) (#200)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 09:26:38 AM EST
    you are both great.

    I think the most irritating part of this whole (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by ericinatl on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    thing is the characterization of gays as some fringe "special interest" group.  And that our rights can be bartered away by the center (and left and right) for the sake of national unity.  It shows a total lack of respect for us as Americans and an important part of the Democratic base.

    And trotting out these D-list gay celebrities who pretend to speak on behalf of all gays is even more insulting.

    This has been framed as a homophobic (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    issue, but his anti-abortion positions, especially as espoused on the sit down with McCain earlier, are just as troublesome.

    As a gay man, I have to say, (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    this is yet one more sign of the misogyny of not only the Obama adminstration, and society as a whole, but also of the left.

    Warren's advocacy of stripping away women's rights to their bodily autonomy is just as much advocacy of second class citizenship as his role as one of the leaders of the Prop 8 movement.  Yet, most critics only seem to focus on the anti-gay issue.  This is, sadly, predictable.

    The difference in the left blogosphere's (I'm not counting BTD in this) attitude toward Favreau compared to Warren is further evidence.  Both incidents are symbolic, both move the Overton window rightward, yet only one seems to have riled up the left to any great degree.


    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by ericinatl on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    The focus for me and other gays has been on Prop 8 -- probably because it happened so recently and Warren was such a vocal supporter.  However, his views on abortion and a woman's right to choose are equally abhorrent.  

    Melissa is C-list; probably even B-list (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ericinatl on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    Her partner however is D-list.  :)

    A friend who is a huge Obama (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM EST
    supporter told me that David Brooks, a Republican NYT columnist, gave Obama an A for all of his cabinet/official choices.  When I told her that having the Republicans ecstatic over Obama's choices is not the goal here, she blew me off.

    Obama would appear more interested... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by pluege on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    in courting republicans than progressive Democrats. Is it because he knows he can take progressive support for granted and so feels free to ignore them and abuse their interests?

    He is courting the Village, (5.00 / 11) (#71)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST
    not Republicans per se.  This Village seems to agree with Obama's view that having a tepid support of gay rights (with a floor of complete inaction and a ceiling of separate but equal) can be unironically referred to as "fierce advocacy."

    Meanwhile, "progressives" who thought Obama ever wanted anything else were always deluding themselves.


    The only people (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    that think that Obama's victory was a victory for progressive values or a "repudiation of conservatism" are some myopic bloggers.

    Some things are constant (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:26:32 PM EST
    And this surprises you? He's had the same philosphy since the primaries. Only his true believers think he's going to suddenly blossom into a progressive when he takes the oath of office.

    Well, (none / 0) (#49)
    by JThomas on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    you certainly showed her.

    We certainly would not want your friend open to supporting the next administration,would we?
    And we must let David Brooks determine how we view the new adminstration,right?

    I mean if he likes the cabinet, we cannot.
    If he approves of Hillary as SoS...we must disaprove,right?
    Who cares if the economy is going down the tubes...we will not work together,just can't do it.


    Don't you have it backwards? (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    The point is that we should ignore Brooks' approval or disapproval, just as we should ignore whether Al Qaeda approves or disapproves of our political choices.
    Brooks' pleasure at Obama's choices is at best neutral news, and should definitely not be taken as positive.

    I agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by JThomas on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    that we should disregard his opinions on the cabinet when it comes to forming our own opinion.

    Just like garnering his approval should not make me dislike the cabinet, pissing him off should not make me like the cabinet.

    I will wait to see how they perform before making up my mind.


    Hairspray's point was very clear (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by ChrisO on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    Her acquaintance lauded Brooks' support as a positive thing, and hairspray replied that getting the approval of the Republicans wasn't the goal. All of the stuff about not supporting Obama's picks was added by you.

    Barney Frank made the same point on CNN. (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Iphie on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    "Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest," Frank, a Newton Democrat, said on CNN's Late Edition Sunday. "I found that deeply offensive and unfair. The president-elect was wrong when he said, `Well I invited him to speak, I'm just inviting him to speak.' If he was inviting Rev. Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing we should have these. But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally been given as a mark of great respect."
    I'm pretty sure that Obama is only marginally more interested in Barney Frank's opinion than he is of ours. Which is to say, not at all.

    I have one slot to give for my country (5.00 / 10) (#65)
    by Donna Z on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    Obama has but one invocation slot to offer to a person of the cloth or whatever you want to call it. The country is well aware of Warren's views, and those paying attention, already know that Obama talks to him. Therefore, granting Warren this spotlight is only about promoting and sanctioning those views.

    OTOH, there are many main-stream ministers who labor among the poor, the oppressed, and those in need, who are completely unknown to America. This was a unique opportunity to let their names and words be heard. How wonderful to let the religious right get a glimpse of what is happening outside the walls of mega-churches. Besides, if nothing else maybe the hardworking clergy might see an increase in their collection plate. Well, they would be hard pressed to equal Warren's $7,000,000 Sundays, but every bit helps.  Hey, I'll bet there are a few military chaplains who have earned their moment in the sun.

    My objections to Warren are many. Warren preaches against stem cell research, gays, women and then there is his wacky pop psychology that is being peddled to the masses. A group of people who are working to improve mental health care for the troops have to fight against a program based on the Warren mumbo-jumbo.

    Finally, as someone who does attend church, I find Warren's brand of religion which includes fear and hate and name-calling, a factor that automatically disqualifies him for asking for God's blessing for the nation. To me, Warren has no grace.

    Yes BTD, Obama is free to talk to whomever he pleases; however, promoting Warren, a charlatan at best, with this honored position is wrong.

    Your final point (none / 0) (#69)
    by Iphie on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    is BTD's entire point.

    But the entirety of Donna's point (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    is well worth the read.

    Yes, and so many good choices to make (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    and Reverend Warren is selected.  As one of the few sitting senators elected president in our nation's history, and the first since John Kennedy, it would have been a great recognition to the senate and an honor to the senate chaplain to give the invocation.   The views of the chaplain would likely be ecumenical, but even if not, the rationale would be a reasonable one and would not confer acceptance.

    Thank you (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Donna Z on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    And yes, BTD's post caught my eye (and encouraged me to write) because his post is along the lines I've thinking. I was just staying OT:-) Most of posts I've read about the issue circle around the point but miss the larger issue. This act of granting Warren this rare event is wrong on so many levels, and as a political act, it cuts deeply.

    I actually do think about things spiritual, and thus, I find Warren and his ilk, offensive. Garnering manna for hate ain't exactly Thomas Merton material. The nation would more enlightened after listening to Lewis Black.


    My answers (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    1. Someone I have never heard of - a spiritual leader doing good works in his or her community.

    2. Yes - Warren's views are abhorrent to me regardless of Prop 8

    California as liberal bastion (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    Right, if you're considering LA, SF and Santa Cruz. There is a whole lotta California that is not liberal. And in LA (where I grew up) many of the rich who supported JFK and RFK later supported Reagan. As far as I can recall, the state has only had three Democratic governors in my lifetime -- Pat Brown, Jerry Brown and Gray Davis. Then consider the growing population of Hispanics and Asians -- more often socially conservative -- and you have a real melting pot of views which can easily and unsurprisingly translate into passage of intiatives like Prop 8.

    The gay movement is making gains in New York and Massachussetts. California is, and has always been, a strange brew.

    Finally, yes I would still be pi$$ed about Warren at the inauguration, with or without Prop 8. The man has equated abortion rights with the Holocaust and believes wives should "submit" to their husbands. There are myriad reasons to despise the views of Rick Warren.

    Well, at least I'm not David Geffen (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by ericinatl on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    Boy, he must be a bit embarrassed right now.  Hillary and Bill cannot be "trusted" and yet Obama throws the gays under the bus before he even takes office.  Silly, silly man.

    His MOCA is going bankrupt... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:49:32 PM EST
    ...it's funny stuff really.

    Warren is a blunder in terms of strong liberal support--he's lost a lot of goodwill among professional liberal chatterers with this appointment.  


    This woman would make a good choice (5.00 / 8) (#91)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    She attended school in New Jersey, then went on to earn a Bachelor of Science in biology from Stanford University in 1974, and a Master of Science in oceanography in 1977 and a Ph.D. in 1983, also in oceanography, from Oregon State University.

    She earned her Master of Divinity in 1994, and was ordained priest that year. She served as assistant rector at the Church of the Good Samaritan, Corvallis, Oregon, where she had special responsibility for pastoring the Hispanic community (she speaks Spanish fluently). In 2001, she was elected and consecrated Bishop of Nevada.

    She is an instrument-rated pilot. She is a third-generation pilot, whose parents both flew.

    She married Richard Schori, an Oregon State professor of topology, in 1979. They have an adult daughter, also Katharine, also a pilot: she is a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, and has flown VIP's in VC-21 Learjets and now flies AWACS command-and-control planes.

    She's Katherine Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Episcopal church.

    Imagine the message choosing her would have sent.  Instead we get a pop-christian author.  Why?

    wow what a freaking resume. (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    And a lady priest too.

    Bishop Jefferts Schori (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:18:58 PM EST
    is no longer bishop of Nevada. She is the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the leader of Episcopalians around the world. Her elevation to this position was something of a last straw for conservatives in the Episcopal community, leading to the current crisis of some congregations splitting from the church rather than be part of a religion that accepts both women and gays as consecrated church leaders.

    She would have been a dynamite choice to deliver the invocation. Talk about inclusive.


    Many Unitarian Universalists (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    Could have delivererd an earth shattering human spirit rejoicing invocation.  Christians are welcome in a Unitarian Universal Church as well as me.........a Buddhist.  The teachings are about kindness and human decency without any hate mongering or exclusiveness of human beings.  Just for the record, Abraham Lincoln was a Unitarian Universalist!  So There Obama and whack jobs!

    One in Particular (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:59:09 PM EST
    Marianne Williamson was a very avid and outspoken supporter of Obama. I've never heard or read anyone speak against her, despite many who could easily reject her teaching of A Course in Miracles. As a very close friend of Oprah, I would have thought she could easily have been considered a good choice for this honor.  She's certainly never said anything to offend anyone.

    Can't have that (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:14:59 PM EST
    Unitarians aren't technically Christians.  Might as well have a Muslim.  Can't have a non-Christian deliver any presidential-type invocations.  Wouldn't be prudent.  Obama is nothing if not prudent.

    Looks like Joe Biden (5.00 / 8) (#99)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:00:55 PM EST
    didn't get your memo, BTD.  From the transcript of Joe's appearance on Larry King tonight:

    King: There has been much controversy over the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural.

    He's been a guest on this show an awful lot, and he supported California's Proposition 8, a measure that outlaws gay marriage. He is also very opposed to abortion. I know the gay community in America appears to be up in arms. What do you make of this?

    Biden: Well, I'd make of it [as] Barack Obama keeping his commitment.

    Barack Obama said you've got to reach out. You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.

    We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise.

    And I would say to the gay and lesbian community, they have nothing to worry about. Barack Obama, every aspect of his life, every aspect of his public life, and every commitment he's made relating to equality for all people, will be things that he will stick with and that they should view this in the spirit in which he offered the opportunity to -- to Mr. Warren.

    The only thing sadder than this garbage is that there are still many "progressives" who fall for it.

    My response to this: (5.00 / 12) (#115)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    Barack Obama said you've got to reach out. You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.

    We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise.

    is, to what end?  Is his purpose in reaching out to bring those like Rick Warren over to the position that there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that same-sex couples who want formalize their relationship should have the same status in the eyes of the government as opposite-sex couples do?  Is his purpose to convince Rick Warren and his followers that women should have the right to make their own reproductive choices?  Will he be working to convince Warren of the benefits of stem-cell research?

    If not - if he's looking for "middle ground" and "things we can all agree on," what are those things?  I'd really like to know what he's willing to give up, or what he's willing to accept, and how that's going to make things better.

    Obama and Biden make the mistake of believing that abhorrent ideas, presented in a polite and civil manner, are deserving of our attention, that the way a terrible message is delivered negates the terrible message itself.  Am I the only one who wonders if, for Obama, Warren is just Reverend Wright's replacement? In socially acceptable form, of course - white and lacking the fire-and-brimstone that scared the cr@p out of people.

    Obama is the same person who looked to Wright for spiritual guidance for over 20 years - he now calls Warren a spiritual advisor; what's changed?  How is Warren different from Wright?

    Why are these people still talking about "red and blue," when they should be talking "right and wrong," "just and unjust?"  How do people "come together" over things that are just wrong?  

    I really just don't get it.


    Yes you do. You get it (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    just fine.

    Juan Cole (good grief) has a pathetic column explaining it all away, to which a commenter replied:

    "Let me get this straight. Am I supposed to put aside my loathing for Warren's stand on gays because he's admirable in other areas and he's even likeable and friendly up close? That makes him more insidious and dangerous. He says vile things with such a calm demeanor he comes across as a sociopath. He classes gay marriage with polygamy and pedophilia. He demeans and cheapens the murder of millions of people by consistently connecting abortion to the Holocaust. Those blinkered and hateful sides of his personality, of his worldview, aren't canceled out by anything listed in his Nice Guy CV."

    Big mistake.  Huge.



    Reaching out across philosophies (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by sallywally on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:34:51 AM EST
    is fine. But Warren's is not a philosophy. It's a disreputable travesty of decent Christianity, decent democratic values and decent Republicanism.

    What's obscuring this issue (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by ChrisO on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    is the constant references to Obama "reaching out" to evangelicals. I don't think there would be anywhere near the outrage if Warren was among a group or series of religious figures that Obama engaged in dialogue. This is strictly an honor, and there's no indication that Obama intends to follow up on it. The inauguration is ceremonial, and the choice of the person to deliver the invocation is more symbolic than substantive.

    As we saw with Obama's speech on race, his supporters seem to think that addressing an issue one time is akin to opening a "dialogue."

    And as to the many references I've seen to the notion that the persons delivering the invocation at past inaugurations are forgotten, that's largely because they have been noncontroversial. I do remember Billy Graham at more than one inauguration, however, and I certainly remember Robert Frost and Maya Angelou playing significant roles.

    What really brings me back to the bitterness of the primaries, however, is reading the many Obama supporters who claim that Obama is using Warren, and now has him in his pocket. I've seen people say things like "Obama ids always three steps ahead of everyone else." So if we don't agree with what Obama does, it's basically because we're just not as smart as him.

    Did anyone read the article (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    by Linda Hirshman on the Huff post. Pretty funny.

    Another prong (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    In addition to Rick Warren's opposition to civil and human rights for all Americans, another feature of this cretin's agenda is a continuation and expansion of our current infatuation with war.

    This exchange between Hannity and Warren has been widely circulated:

    "Responding to Hannity's assertion that "we need to take him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out," Warren agreed, saying that stopping evil "is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers."

    It should be noted that the phrase "take him out" is not a dinner invitation. it is a passé mob euphemism for "kill" or "murder".
    Not only does Ricky boy go along  with Hannity's indelicate phraseology, he says that's why God put government on earth.

    This, my friends, is the person that Obama has chosen to bless the beginning of his term in office.


    Rick Warren 'hearts' war with Iran... (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:58:06 AM EST
    Excellent point, Lentinel. Is it too much to expect that Warren will be denounced for his war-mongering rhetoric, especially by people who supported Obama primarily because of his initial anti-Iraq war stance? Sound of crickets....

    Forgivenness (none / 0) (#5)
    by SOS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:49:09 AM EST
    Someones got to offer it.

    I'm all for repentence and redemption (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:09:38 AM EST
    Still waiting on the "repentance" though.

    Sorry - forgiveness is something which (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    one cannot offer to the wrongdoer.  The wrongdoer has to first ask to be forgiven, and then the person who would give the forgiveness can give it.  Not the other way around.  

    But, remember, forgiveness is only effective if the wrongdoer both admits the wrongdoing, resolves to do no more, and actually acts on that impulse.  That is not to say the wrongdoer might not slide back into old ways, but such a backslide is no excuse for just giving the forgiveness up front without the wrongdoer first repenting.

    What you are proposing is not "forgiveness", but "ratification", i.e., telling the wrongdoer that what he did was all right and that you won't penalize him for it.  That's the same stupidity that gets the Congressional Democrats running around seeking to such the sh*t out of Joe Lieberman's pasty behind and begging for some more while they sit down for a tea party with him and everyone is oh, so nice.

    All that ratification gets you is more of the same behavior, and more egregiously.

    And, please keep your concepts straight.


    Further ... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST
    in order to forgive you must be an injured party.  You must have been hurt or wronged in someway.

    Obama isn't an injured party here. Quite the opposite. Both he and Warren oppose full equality for gay people.


    Seems Pretty Injured To Me (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:13:56 AM EST
    Pols have the support of their constituency, that is their currency. Obama has lost quite a bit of support over this poor choice..  He is seriously injured over this gaffe, imo.

    Then he needs to forgive himself (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    because he did the injury to himself - a self-inflicted wound no less avoidable than Plaxico Burress'.

    And, to forgive himself, he needs to recognize that what he did was wrong.  Which, it seems, he shows no signs of doing.

    For more on this, read what Barney Frank has to say.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    I should have clarified, I was just addressing Robot Porters claim that Obama is not an injured party.  The fact that Obama has caused a self inflicted wound does not reflect on your comment.

    And obviously he f'ed up, but hasn't a clue..

    I hold out a ever so slight hope, that things will look better once we see the whole picture. Not holding my breath though..


    No, he hasn't (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    Obama has lost quite a bit of support over this poor choice.

    And he won't, because it's still OK to discriminate against GLBT people. Obama knows it, and he's working it. He understands that he can do this and get away with it.


    I think you're right (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by MoveThatBus on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:35:55 PM EST
    We've all been watching Obama get away with things that no one else could. And, he gains strength with every single one of them. He is proving to us that we won't do anything to stop him from doing whatever he d*mn well wants to do.

    That's my point Spamlet... (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EST
    Rick Warren's repressive demagoguery affects the lives of the vast majority of the electorate.

    So, why isn't Obama being roundly criticized, not just by the LGBTQ community, but by millions of people who support LGBTQ rights and women's rights; not to mention the rights of educators and scientists to teach evolution and pursue stem cell research?


    Why? (5.00 / 6) (#174)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:54:25 PM EST
    So, why isn't Obama being roundly criticized, not just by the LGBTQ community, but by millions of people who support LGBTQ rights and women's rights; not to mention the rights of educators and scientists to teach evolution and pursue stem cell research?

    Apparently because he's Obama.

    We saw this kind of noncritical response all through the primaries and the general election, and it continues as we head into the Obama administration.

    I'm not the first to say that swooning over a politician is a dangerous trend.


    My critisim/outrage has been split (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:21:35 AM EST
    between Warren and the new HHS rules. And while I think Warren deserves criticism on both the LGBTQ and Women's rights fronts, I've been directing more LGBTQ criticism towards him. It may have to do with seeing his offensive words regarding LGBTQ and marriage equality in the MSM and nobody is touching his other "issues". The new HHS rules are just getting passed over in the MSM from what I've seen . . .

    Can I just scream now?


    "Forgiveness"? Fine: but when and why? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    If Obama really to show (none / 0) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    Obama continues to flaunt these anti gay spokespeople. Maybe if he wants to really show both sides he should give a few gay activists the same platform level. By continuing his policy of annointed these hate mongers, the message seems to be that his decision on gay issues has already been made.

    Opening a dialogue with the Warren's of the world won't advance gay rights. It will only serve to advance their cause by giving them credibility.

    I look for nothing from him for the gay community. As an Illinois resident, I never saw him as an advocate for the gay community. But in fairness to him, I never saw him as a strong advocate for anything.

    not quite true, (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM EST
    But in fairness to him, I never saw him as a strong advocate for anything.

    he's a strong advocate for............barack obama!


    Absolutely Positively Right (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    I was going to include that in my comment, but then I though "Hey it's the Christmas season. Time to be charitable!"

    (Snark Just in case anyone misses it)


    The politics of inclusion (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jen M on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    I'm willing to go with it, for now.

    The problem with not tolerating the intolerant is... well... intolerance.

    But the problem (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    with tolerating intolerance is the perpetuation of more intolerance, no?

    There is absolutely nothing wrong (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    with being intolerant of intolerance. Indeed, it is a necessary component of your personality if I'm going to have any respect for you.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by lucky leftie on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    This isn't a mere "difference of opinion."  Warren is a bigot who believes certain Americans are second class citizens.  Our party should have zero tolerance for him and his ilk. Either you believe all Americans deserve equal rights, or you don't.  

    yes, there is no (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    Either you believe all Americans deserve equal rights, or you don't.

    middle ground here. this is not a point of "discussion" or "tolerance" for opposing views. you either subscribe to the founding father's (in all their "feet of claydom") stated purpose for this country, or you subscribe to the dictatorship of the majority.

    you may opine all you want, but the line gets drawn when you seek, by legislative fiat, to convert that opinion to law. circumscribing the rights of the few, for the comfort zone of the many, is not the american way.


    The issue (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    to me is not whether or not we tolerate Warren.

    He has tons of money.
    He has a platform.
    He has the focus of the national media.

    There are many who do not.
    Among them are people associated with different religions (and no religion) that are intelligent, progressive and are going about doing good without much fanfare.

    Obama hasn't the guts to present one of these people to a national audience. They're too Christ-like I suppose.


    Barack Obama is choosing someone who (5.00 / 10) (#56)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    stands as a representative of exclusion and discrimination to deliver what amounts to a national blessing.  At a time when we are still struggling to overcome discrimination on so many levels, why on earth would the first African-American president want a symbol of discrimination speaking on his behalf?  Why would he want the American people to believe that he does not find Warren's views objectionable, and to send the message that he is open to views like Warren's?  Unless, of course, he aligns himself a lot more closely with Warren's views than we knew, in which case, all bets are off.

    I think it's a huge mistake to take the position that we must tolerate the intolerable out of fear of being called intolerant; at a simple level, it's like parents being afraid to say "no" because their kids might not "like" them anymore.  Or maybe it's like not leaving an abusive spouse because, really, he's a good person and you don't want to hurt his feelings.  

    Inviting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation tells all those who share Warren's views that those views are just fine, that maybe someday those views can be the law of the land, that they are free to continue to discriminate: it legitimizes the whole mindset and for the life of me, I don't know why that would be a good thing.

    We can't stop people from believing what they want to believe, or preachers from preaching what they believe to people of like mind, but Obama didn't have to give Warren the honor of bestowing a blessing upon the nation, either; he isn't proving he's all about inclusion, he's proving he has no core beliefs, and the stand he's choosing to take on this puts him shoulder to shoulder with someone who does not represent the best this counrty has to offer.


    Saw Melissa in concert recently. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    She, for the most part, tore it up.

    Unforntunately for her music, imo, she considers her newer stuff "important."

    you nailed it (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarany on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    it all boils down what you wrote. It's fine to open dialogs, but not fine to confer honor and status upon non-progressives.  And when you've done that, you can't "balance" it by including people who hold opposite views.

    All the complex arguments I've read & heard ignore the simplicity of what the bare bones problem with Obama's decision to confer Warren with this honor

    A little digression here (none / 0) (#47)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM EST
    Don't all these little souls go to heaven?
    (Warren is not Catholic).
    If so, what's the problem with their deaths?
    In fact, if you take  the tenets of Christianity to their logical conclusion, everyone who "accepts Christ" should be immediately murdered, to guarantee their place in heaven, right? I mean, they might backslide.
    Of course, exactly this kind of reasoning was used during the Inquisition and the witch trials: if you killed someone innocent, it was not a problem, because they were going to heaven.

    BTD: 9.9, 9.8, 10.0, 9.9, 10.0, 9.9 (none / 0) (#58)
    by pluege on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    nails it again.

    (not sure who the 9.8 outlier is, but the lowest score is thrown out)

    The million dollar question..... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    It seems so foreign to many of us on this board, but the intolerance of gay marriage is the mainstream position in the whole of the US.  Equal rights for all is outside the mainstream.  Very sad, but true.

    Anybody who supports equal rights is not gonna stop because Obama honored Warren...I'm confident of that.  In fact, it has us sticking to our guns more than ever on this issue, its rallied the troops.  The million dollar question is...will anyone come around to equal rights based on the dialogue the selection of Warren has brought about?

    So, we should always (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    hope that Obama makes the wrong decision in hopes that it will rally more people to doing the right thing?  If making the wrong decision is such a great thing, why didn't we just all vote for McCain.  He probably would have made the wrong decisions more often.

    Or is making the wrong decision only ok when it applies to honoring people who advocate for second class citizenship of women and gays?

    Just trying to figure out the marching orders, sir.


    Jeez.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    I'm not sure there is a "wrong decision" on who gets to make the stupid prayer...every major religous leader seems to like to demonize and piss on some group.  The "wrong decision" is having an "official" prayer in the first place, imo...but that predates Obama.

    Oh, now I see (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    the silver lining.

    Maybe Obama has good reason (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    to be homophobic.

    I think some version of The Almighty (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    has been a part of our presidential inaugurations since G. Washington.

    Just how far back are those days you mention?

    maybe part of inaugurals (none / 0) (#106)
    by uncledad on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    I meant goverment in general. Before Reagan I don't remember religion playing such a prominent role in goverment. Politicians showed respect for others religion or lack there of by avoiding religious speak, It does no good since it violates our core (seperation  stuff).

    I hear tell from the old-timers that (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:35:33 PM EST
    religion was a big topic wrt the Kennedy election...

    Big difference (none / 0) (#141)
    by uncledad on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    between election and goverment. I object to all this christ crap seeping into everyday goverment decision making.

    Do you have evidence that Obama (none / 0) (#151)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    is letting this "christ crap" seep into his everyday government decision making?

    Obama plans to increase funding of (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    Bush's so-called "Faith-Based Initiatives" plan for starters.

    So, in answer to your question:

    "Is [Obama] letting this "christ crap" seep into his everyday government decision making"?

    It appears the answer is yes. Obama's going to stick with the "christ crap", well past Rick Warren's prayer at the inauguration.

    In fact, Obama is going to put his money where Rick Warren's mouth is.


    And... (none / 0) (#163)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:28:43 PM EST
    He's going to put his schlemis where Rick's bagrottel is.

    Well... (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:25:35 PM EST
    Putting this creepy fellow, Warren, front and center at the inauguration of a President of the United States is a decision made by a top elected official in the government (the president)  and is a bunch of crap that involves Christ.