Obama defends choice of Rev. Warren at inauguration: ‘We can disagree without being disagreeable.’
Obama defends choice of Rev. Warren at inauguration: ‘We can disagree without being disagreeable.’
Yesterday, news broke that Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church would be given the honor of delivering the invocation at President-elect Obama’s inauguration. Warren has a record of deeply anti-progressive views, including likening gay marriage to polygamy and incest. Members of the progressive community, including PFAW and Human Rights Campaign, swiftly criticized the announcement. Today in his press conference, Obama attempted to defend Warren:
OBAMA: [I]t’s important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. [...]
[W]hat we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.
Watch it:
Obama also pointed to the fact that he has invited Rev. Joseph Lowery, who has “deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren,” to deliver the benediction at the end of the inauguration.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sometimes a person can hold a “view” that is not only disagreeable, but down right cruel and ugly.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:29 amI have no tolerance for intolerance, and neither should Obama.
OBAMA: And I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak…
___________________________________________________________
So this is just reciprocal? Obama owed him an invitation?
Believe it or not, I think we can probably survive this. Obama holds his views with confidence, and isn’t likely to change them to suit Warren. I just hope that Warren has the good taste to deliver the invocation without gay-bashing or other divisiveness.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:31 amIrregardless, I think the choice of Warren is very telling.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:31 amDefinitely not change I believe in.
nellre,
December 18th, 2008 at 11:32 amProbably a good reason then that Obama is the diplomat and not you.
Um, NO.
I don’t have to make nice with effing BIGOTS.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:32 amWhat’s that sound?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:33 amObamamania coming to screeching halt.
Is this his bow to the progressive community?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:33 amBy choosing Warren to lead the invocation, he implicitly endorses Warren’s agenda.
That is simply an inescapable conclusion. Nobody’s gonna be up on the dias sticking “horny” fingers up behind Warren’s head, or otherw3ise signalling this slick, lying, theo-fascist, millionaire/demagogue phuque is worthy of contempt.
I been saying all along: Obama can say what he wants, but it’s actions that count. This invitation–which he cannot now retract even if he has misgivings about it–is an act of deep sumbolic importance. With it, St. Barry shoves yet another shit-encrusted digit into the eye of his progressive supporters…
December 18th, 2008 at 11:40 amThis was a very poor choice for bringing us together. Warren has views that cause controversy, so why start off your administration with someone like that? Surely there must have been better choices, more neutral than Warren.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:41 amWhat about speakers to also represent the differing views of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, etc?
I’ll be happier when we can simply forgo the religious homages at a secular ceremony entirely, and instead focus more on the Constitution.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am#11 : very well said. Agree 100%
December 18th, 2008 at 11:42 amI have no tolerance for intolerance, and neither should Obama.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Tolerance of intolerance is the christian way, as long as it’s xians being intolerant.
But woe betide should you reverse the polarity…
December 18th, 2008 at 11:42 amMr. Progress Says:
When will you Progressive get it. Obama used you because you have loud mouths. He’s a DLC Democrat.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
________
And just two months ago you people were calling him a Marxist. Make up your minds, please.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:44 amSamWeller Says: What’s that sound? Obamamania coming to screeching halt.
Nope. It’s the sound of Democracy, in which people can disagree with their elected officials without being put on a terrorist watch list or worse…
We disagreed with him on FISA too, but that didn’t stop us from believing that he will 95% of the time make the right decisions. Far better than Bush…
December 18th, 2008 at 11:44 amThis is truly a revealing, sad choice. Glad I didn’t vote for him.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:45 amMr. Progress – Do you actually have something to say instead of just gloating about this? But it IS consistent with Obama’s views – anyone who watched Barry during the campaign had to note his view that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be ‘allowed’ to marry. What is especially troubling is to VALIDATE the Rick Warrens of the world by including them. As noted above, hate-filled bigotry dressed up in ‘civil’ language is still hate-filled bigotry. So instead of Ann Coulter, we get Rick Warren.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:45 amThis is a slap in the face to the people who Obama counted on to put him in office, but it’s hardly the most critical issue of the day. I’m much more concerned with his picks for Agriculture and Interior.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:46 amI give the Obama “honeymoon” 6 months. Tops.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:46 amI think Obama’s desire to be inclusive is admirable. However, by trying to please everyone, he’s going to wind up just pissing everyone off. There are some people, who in the last 8 years especially have made themselves known, that don’t deserve to be part of the political process anymore. If Obama keeps turning his back on those that got him elected, it’s going to be a 4-year presidency.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:47 amtokin librul Says: By choosing Warren to lead the invocation, he implicitly endorses Warren’s agenda. That is simply an inescapable conclusion.
I escaped it just fine, as a more logical conclusion is that he’s doing his ‘unity’ approach by including someone who represents the Right. Unfortunately, he didn’t realize in mainining his ideology of reaching out to both sides, he’s over looked the fact that Rick Warren is the equivalnet of waving the Rebel Flag to appease the racists.
He’s going to have to get over being 100% true to his ideology when it means letting the modern KKK have a place at the table.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:49 amSam – WHAT honeymoon? The Republicans have so co-opted the media that the media is doing this stupid song and dance about Blogojevich tied to Obama. They’re ginning up to pillory Arne Duncan because he was instrumental in setting up a ‘gay high school.’ The last bastion of hate that is acceptable is hate against gay people. The ‘left blogosphere’ is rightfully up in arms about Rick (Rich) Warren, but there won’t be a peep about it in any of the regular papers (what’s left of them, anyway…).
December 18th, 2008 at 11:50 amGeeDubs Says:
The last bastion of hate that is acceptable is hate against gay people.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
_________
That’s not completely true – we can still hate on Muslims and Hispanics with relative impunity. But it’s definitely open season on gays.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:51 amChill, people. Obama can use it as an opening to talk about creating a better atmosphere for equality. Think of it as moving from the era of intolerance into the era of openly admitting that a good portion of Americans are still holding an outdated, prejudiced view that will now be on display as such when there are so many civil people around who hold the opposing view.
And look what a great opening it gives you all to discuss the issues….
December 18th, 2008 at 11:52 amWhy hasn’t Obama been more forthcoming re: Ill. gov. scandal?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:53 amThe more quiet his staff remains, the more doubt.
I wish people would stop overreacting to this. The guy was invited to do the brief invocation, not to decide Obama’s policy towards the gay/lesbian/transgender community.
Also, Obama is trying to build a coalition of support in order to enact his legislation. If you thumb your nose at people like Warren who have large followings, you will never reach left-leaning evangelicals. You would basically just concede evangelicals to the Republicans, which will lead to more election defeats in the future. That would guarantee more discriminatory policies towards the gay community.
As liberals, it’s our duty to talk to people like Warren and his supporters and show them all the things we agree on (things like helping the poor, opposing war, or even universal health care) while trying to get them to see that they are wrong about gay people.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:54 amSamWeller, we know you’re just foaming at the mouth to teach us a lesson, but 5 posts in less than 20 minutes? Give it a rest son.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:54 amYou can disagree, without being disagreeable, and still not give someone who offends a large segment of the population a national and international platform — and a prime spot on it — from which he can increase his visibility – both for the agreeable parts of his message and the disagreeable ones.
He could have found some small town preacher who just preaches love and kindness – given some new voice a national voice. But no, a handout to one rather undeserving.
This we can disagree without being disagreeable cannot be the answer to every expression of outrage at the olive branch Obama feels the need to extend to the other side. At some point, the offensive aspects of the other side’s views become their message to the vast majority.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:54 amSamWeller Says:
Why hasn’t Obama been more forthcoming re: Ill. gov. scandal?
The more quiet his staff remains, the more doubt.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am
_________
Um, because it’s under active investigation and they’re not legally allowed to be “more forthcoming,” perhaps?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am#27, ok. Dad.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:56 amGeeDubs Says: The last bastion of hate that is acceptable is hate against gay people.
Don’t forget the Atheists and poor people. There’s still a lot of hate going around for all three groups…
December 18th, 2008 at 11:56 amMr. Progress Says:
That is, until you are all raptured away and we have heaven and peace on earth. Kumbaya, Mother F*****
December 18th, 2008 at 11:56 amIf Obama is trying to be inclusive perhaps he should try including the progressives who worked tirelessly to bring down the Bush administration and get him elected to office !
December 18th, 2008 at 11:57 amBrianFL Says:
As liberals, it’s our duty to talk to people like Warren and his supporters and show them all the things we agree on (things like helping the poor, opposing war, or even universal health care) while trying to get them to see that they are wrong about gay people.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
________
So then why not invite a KKK Grand Wizard to deliver a speech as well, while we’re being inclusive? I mean, if we’re gonna be tolerant of all viewpoints, we need to embrace our white supremacist community as well, right?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:57 amSamWeller Says: Why hasn’t Obama been more forthcoming re: Ill. gov. scandal? The more quiet his staff remains, the more doubt.
It’s really tough to talk about something that doesn’t exist…
Obama was thoroughly vetted during the campaign, and he had no real skeletons in his closet – yet you now want us to think he’s going to suddenly change his ethics and do something illegal over something so not worth it? Doesn’t make sense…
December 18th, 2008 at 11:59 amWould a Republican President-elect be so “inclusive”?
Didn’t think so.
That being said, why are people surprised (or upset) that Obama is doing exactly what he has consistently said he would: i.e., encourage inclusiveness and opposing views to come together civilly?
If anything, Obama is allowing Democrats to stake out the high ground. It may not make everyone happy, and it may not (probably won’t) make the opponents of a progressive/liberal agenda or Republicans rethink how they conduct “bidness”, but it shows Obama to be a man of his word – and that alone is rare in Washington these days. I for one prefer to set the example to follow, even if some are too incorrigible or ignorant to come along.
Much ado about nothing, imo.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:59 amMr. Progress Says:
I’m sure you Progressives would love it if Obama named a Muslim Imam! Hey news flash Christians are majority in this nation. Get used to it! Obama is a Christian so too bad! Ha ha ha ha!
December 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
___________
I thought he was a secret Muslim. Don’t you remember – he even listed his religion as “Islam” on his school registration in Indonesia! You were telling us that just two months ago! Did Barack Hussein Obama suddenly secretly-convert??
And yes, I would love it if an Imam gave an address at the inauguration, as would my Muslim allies.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:00 pmMr. Progress – Are you stupid or merely delusional? This country is supposed to support the rights of the minorities in this country. Equal protection under the laws – GET IT?? And if you’re such a Christian, why are you such a hate monger?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:00 pmhussein toasterhead ,
I bet you would invite a Muslim Imam thought, right?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
_________
Absolutely. Anyone but a fake “Christian” like Warren.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pmAnd if you’re such a Christian, why are you such a hate monger?
Because a Christian’s idea of being persecuted is when the state won’t let said Christian persecute others.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pmSymbolic gestures to ideological adversaries is not the same thing as giving them policy-making authority.
If Obama were to appoint someone like Rick Warren to any position of influence with regard to LGBT issues, *then* the outrage and sense of betrayal would be justified. But that’s not gonna happen. This is a perfectly proportional crumb off the table to social conservatives. Let ‘em feel good about one of their own being allowed to intone some irrelevant superstitious mumbo-jumbo in a strictly ceremonial capacity, with no license whatsoever to impose an agenda on the new administration.
And even in the superstitious mumbo-jumbo department, there is balance. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, associate of Martin Luther King and a staunch gay-rights advocate, has been invited to deliver the benediction at the same inauguration at which Warren will give the invocation. If the Warren invitation is to be taken as an insult, then in fairness the Lowery invitation should be taken as a gesture of solidarity. So maybe the best response is to reset the symbolic-outrage meter to zero and get on with the stuff that matters.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pmHow come the trolls aren’t over on the other threads defending their torturer in chief and George The Simple?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pmMr. Progress Says: I’m sure you Progressives would love it if Obama named a Muslim Imam! Hey news flash Christians are majority in this nation. Get used to it! Obama is a Christian so too bad! Ha ha ha ha! Complain all you want but we rule this country, not you losers!
The fastest growing religious group in the United Staets is NO RELIGION. Will you accept it when we Atheists and Agnostics become the majority? LOL. Silly self-centered hypocrite who has never read the Constitution… You are becoming an endangered species.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pmoh! i just found this thread… talking to myself about it on the FAST thread… heh…
i get it… still don’t like it…
this is from FAST:
caller to stephanie made good points about pRick warren…
i guess it helped to “talk me down”, some…
it is a simple reach out to the more moderate, more reasonable, more popular (i hope) portion of the religious right…
unfortunately, the right barely listens to Jim Wallis…
at least it’s not someone worse… still, too bad…
and, i doubt he could change his mind at this time anyway…
BREAKING:
December 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pmobama has made a statement defending that choice…
so, ok…
Because they disowned him months ago. Some are even spouting the meme that GWB was a clandestine liberal.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pmMr. Progress Says: “Complain all you want but we rule this country, not you losers!”
Aah, so its the ‘ruling’ Christians like you that are to blame for a ruined economy, an illegal war, torture, the unnecessary deaths of over 4,000 soldiers (and over 30,000 maimed),increased poverty, unaffordable health care, increased unemployment, and so on.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pmGood of you to admit it, I’m sure.
lol pwned
December 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pmalmanac1951 Says:
Symbolic gestures to ideological adversaries is not the same thing as giving them policy-making authority.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
____________
No, but it legitimizes their hate-filled agenda as something acceptable to mainstream American society, instead of the fringe cult that it deserves to be relegated to. Shitheads like Rev. Warren have too much of a voice in this country as it is – they don’t deserve a national stage.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pmSamWeller and Mr. Progress will never have anything constructive to say. You see, trolls like these will spend the rest of their pathetic lives trying to justify the disasters of the Bush Adminisrtation, happily ignoring the countless lies, broken laws and tattered Constitution left in their wake. No person, much less politician, is perfect and trolls like these will be awaiting any and every opportunity to underline Obama’s imperfections. Remember that it’s fools like these two who saw nothing wrong in attempting to impeach Clinton at the expense of countless millions spent and lost time which could have been spent on positive legislation in Congress. They will cheer the extreme Right Wing in Congress on if and when they start screeming for Obama’s impeachment at the slightest whiff of an impropriety once again happily ignoring the past eight years. Trolls like these live their lives for “wedge issues”. They, much like a literal wedge are about as smart as a piece of wood. They don’t care about what might cause the betterment of our Nation but spend all their time and energy, particularly in such a dyre time as we now face thanks to their boy-king and his criminal VP, in the dark recesses of Republican morals and ideals. Nope don’t expect anything constructive from these knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers. They are and will always be morally unreachable in their blind support of GOP father figures.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm“There are some people, who in the last 8 years especially have made themselves known, that don’t deserve to be part of the political process anymore.” –the brown acid
I came here to say this. Thanks, acid.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pmWarren’s giving of the opening benediction is balanced by the choice of Lowery giving the closing benediction. I’m more concerned about the future court supreme court rulings and legislative maneuvers in an Obama administration. A progressive agenda is yet to be played out… And I have no problem with an inclusive approach (however unpalatable)if it gets us closer to the desired outcome.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:09 pmNot good enough. Warren is a homophobic slime bag who needs to be shunned at all turns.
There is a line over which the 1850′ers (like Warren, Dobson, Chimpy, Hague, et. al.) should not be allowed to cross – this is one of those times.
Obama should publicly repudiate this scum and be done with it.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:10 pmWarren sold you out against Mcwars and now you have him and his views opening up the inuaguration, what gives?Reach across party lines and all they due is chew you up, that`s what I like about being progressives we keep coming back for more and more of this Reich Wing TYRANNY, when does this BULL$HIT end???????????Why not have a women Pastor with PROGRESSIVE views open the ceremonies?????
December 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pmIt disturbs me that President Obama considers being gay / legally married to be a social issue. Part of me wants to be inappropriate and ask about adding in other points of view, but I really do want to be better than that.
The thing that is really upsetting though, as a gay person, is that this move disrespects people in the same manner as the many proposition 8 proponents. They all fail to see that they are dealing with a relationship, which is private and obviously very special to the people involved. And maybe it’s just that so much of the gay community pinned their hopes on him that I guess I had higher expectations as well, but in a personal sense, all it takes is a glance at my sleeping girlfriend to be upset by the total lack of respect.
Too many people fail to consider that they are dealing with real people in real relationships, and President Obama seems to have failed to consider that this is a civil rights issue. Just because this is cloaked in religion, like other civil rights issues he does recognize, should not make a difference. And the people like Rick Warren are the wrong path for reaching out; we shouldn’t have to take our religious fights to congress in a country that respects separation of church and state.
This whole mess should have been tucked away with Jefferson, with gay people merrily dancing down the aisles for the last 50+ years. Instead we get to be wary of holding hands in public while people like Warren are honored. (See why we might be a little upset yet?)
December 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pmAs for 4,000 deaths, how many traffic accidents there were last year?
Real good argument there! Are 10 years old?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pmThe progressive community has been invaluble in bringing down the presidency of George W bush and is now safely in it’s crate under the Obama Christmas tree , with a bow on it .
December 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pmObama should be sure to read the message inscribed on it before removing the wrapping paper……HANDLE WITH CARE !
Mr. Progress Says: 5th Estate, as for 4,000 deaths, how many traffic accidents there were last year?
That were the direct result of an illegal war? Several hundred in Iraq I should think. None in the US, though. WHy do you ask?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pmWe can disagree without being disagreeable.
Giving a spot on the grandstand for a hugely watched event? That’s MasterCare worthy. Obama or/or Emanuel wants Warren to owe them one.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pmThey are and will always be morally unreachable in their blind support of GOP father figures.
I have never supported or voted GOP.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pmI look forward to him extending invitations to racists, anti-semites, holocaust deniers, flat earthers, neo-confederates and a whole assortment of those with different beliefs than his. you know, so they can all agree to disagree all gentlemanly like. what, no invitation for them? They’re americans too aren’t they?
what is it with democrats? dont they get it? there are beliefs you can disagree over like who is the best left hand pitcher and then there are toxic beliefs that are simply evil, ignorant, and wrong, and you shouldnt give the time of day to people that hold them let along invite them to appear at your inauguration, even if they have a genial personality and think global warming is real.
funny when the right screamed he dumped his very own pastor but when the left screams…
December 18th, 2008 at 12:25 pmRick Warren has serious Ten Commandment issues, particularly the part about LYING.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pmThis seems like more of a reach around than a reach across any aisle.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pmSamWeller Says:
“Glad I didn’t vote for him (Obama).”
“I have never supported or voted GOP.”
If you did not vote you have no place here posting your inanities, nor any right to complain about what happens concerning this Country. Or maybe you are too young to vote. That would explain your immaturity, poor grammar and lack of intelligence.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pmNo, but, I did vote. Not Dem or GOP.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/openly-gay-man-backed-for_n_152027.html
Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White, chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, to be the next secretary of the Navy – a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm—-
I’ve also read (on Huff Post) that Warren is getting ALOT of flack from prolifers for accepting invite to give opening benediction
unbelievable Says:
“I’ll be happier when we can simply forgo the religious homages at a secular ceremony entirely, and instead focus more on the Constitution.”
Hear hear!
December 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pmScrew religion!
The world would be a far better place without it.
Well, let’s pass a measure banning Christians from getting married and see how convivial Rick Warren and fellow bigots are.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pmMr. Obama….
December 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pmIn turning away from your own Pastor because of his statements about the evils of past American foreign policy and pointing out the obvious , that the toppling of other governments ,assassination of elected leaders and the training and deployment of death squads is un Christian , you are bargaining with the devil for political gain.
Is there no place to be set for truth at the inaugural table ? The money changers have taken over the temple of American integrity and no change will take place for good if it can not be made profitable for the aristocrat .
The secret to George W. Bush’s “success” is that he at least kept his base….Obama better be careful.
¶ AIO
December 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pmRick Warren=Ayatollah of homophobia and misogyny
December 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pmIf Barack Obama was in my house today I would spit in his face. We can “disagree”, but you can’t take away people’s right to marry. I hoped that Obama’s lukewarm support for civil rights would prove to be real support once he was President. Instead, it looks like we are in for another eight years of triangulation. It’s better than overt bigotry, but playing politics with people’s right to happiness is very cold indeed.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pmThe primary and general election proved one thing about Obama: he is a savvy and shrewd politician. Therefore, I have to assume that he was fully aware that there would be a progressive stink about Warren and I conclude that Obama has strategically done this. It is such a relatively minor “infraction”, if you want to consider it in these terms, that I would suspect it will have a much larger pay-off down the road. I do not see this as any great honor or positioning for Warren (and everyone here should know how strongly I believe in many of the issues at hand).
December 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pmHey Sam Weller, writing in Sean Hannity’s name on a ballot is NOT voting.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pmI can understand Obama wanting to bring us all together, but Rick Warren is not the way to go about doing that.
I’m disappointed in this choice.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pmThis is the message I submitted at http://www.change.gov/.
I can hardly express the extreme sadness I feel to find out that Barack Obama is a bigot who will not even stand with the gay and lesbian citizens of America who are fighting for basic civil rights. The choice of Rick Warren to give a prayer at the inauguration is a slap in the face to every person in America who supports civil rights. I look at Barack Obama and see the culmination of Martin Luther King Jr’s legacy. Today, I see instead the end of that legacy. King never gave in to burning crosses, but he will be taken down by the soft bigotry of Barack Obama.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pmWell said, Miss Molly at #2.
I disagree with Obama on this – perhaps he is a better person than I – perhaps he sees the need to include everyone into our circles even those with whom we strongly disagree – perhaps he sees the need to tell evangelicals they don’t have a lock on religion – perhaps this is also political in preempting those who oppose Obama’s views on homosexuality and abortion. I do not believe Obama has betrayed us in this small yet symbolic act – although I feel insulted today.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pmI do believe he is looking at a broader, all encompassing administration wherein he will need everyone from all walks of life to find something in common with him if he is ever to pass the massive reforms and legislation needed.
Note that the benediction will be given by Rev. Lowrey, a known abortion rights advocate and gay/lesbian supporter.
I don’t have any respect for Rick Warren, but a lot of people do. Many of these people fought hard to keep Obama from getting elected. Many of them have irrational fears about him as President. Fox News is busy even now trying to undermine his legitimacy, and these irrational, ignorant people will now have to struggle with the fact that ‘one of their own’ presided over Obama’s inauguration. To some extent, Warren’s role in the inauguration de-legitimizes their paranoia. Some proportion of them will remove their blinders and engage the underused rational parts of their brains.
The Religious Right has held disproportionate power in this country for many years now. Not all of this power has evaporated with this election. As much as I’ve been tempted to wish for the dressing-down that would put these idiots in their place, Obama has made it clear all along that this is not his style. He’s optimistically thinking that calm rationality may ‘grow’ them into better citizens. When the Democratic Party picked him as the nominee, we knew he wasn’t a fire-brand and that this would be his strategy. I think we need to give him a chance to let it work.
Fox News and our own trolls have given us a skewed view of the nature of our opponents; they have amplified characteristics of the most radical among them. I find them distasteful and I avoid contact with them. Consequently, I am neither able to judge their true numbers nor their true characteristics. Obama has been traveling the country campaigning for two years or so. I’m willing to concede that he may know more than I on this.
I’m not particularly worried that he will be unduly influenced by Rick Warren in policy matters, so for me, this can be excused as a matter of tactics and strategy.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pmHey RHF, don’t you have a comment on the list of donors Bill Clinton released today?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pmBrianFl and Peter C — also well said.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pmRHF, your brand of “you’re either with us or against us” isn’t any better than Bush’s brand. Peter C presented a calm, respectful post and in no way deserves a “f**k off!” from you or anyone else.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pmMissing the point as usual RHF. Hillary would have had to release this list if she’d won the nomination. What do you think the McCain campaign would have made of all the foreign officials making million dollar donations?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pmApparently RHF is off his medication.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
The primary and general election proved one thing about Obama: he is a savvy and shrewd politician. Therefore, I have to assume that he was fully aware that there would be a progressive stink about Warren and I conclude that Obama has strategically done this.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
____________
I don’t doubt this for a second, but it’d be nice if he’d fill us in on Step 2 of this plan. I can understand the concept of having people inside the tent pissing out rather than in, but do we really need to include the people who want to burn down the tent as well?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pmHey Sam Weller, writing in Sean Hannity’s name on a ballot is NOT voting
Oh. There you go. Showing your true intelligence again.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pmI have no problem with the list. And I would have voted for Hillary if she had been the nominee. My question was how would the Republicans have spun this list during a general election?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pmRHF thinks WE’RE the ones with Clinton derangement syndrome.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pmShayne Says:
Apparently RHF is off his medication.
and i had such hopes, after his relatively reasonable reply to
zooey @75
back to irrelevance…
December 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pmhussein toasterhead Says: I can understand the concept of having people inside the tent pissing out rather than in, but do we really need to include the people who want to burn down the tent as well?
It’s harder to be uncivil in person, especially in someone else’s tent. I guess I see this as similar to my own history of avoiding my church’s bible studies because I did not hold to the fundamentalist views but, as my wife frequently told me, that did not give me the opportunity to engage those with whom I disagreed and to win them over. Once I did engage, I found that some of my fellow congregants held similar views as I do and I was able to change the thinking of some others. I look at what’s happened because of Warren’s inclusion – two blog threads here, an interview about his views on MSNBC, etc. That is exposing Warren’s views to discussion rather than letting them operate freely. I really don’t think that would have happened otherwise. So, I think Obama is stronger and Warren weaker as a result.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pmseems like the inexperienced Obama is poor on decision making but maybe maybe is he the Manchurian candidate?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pmjb Says:
Well, let’s pass a measure banning Christians from getting married and see how convivial Rick Warren and fellow bigots are.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Pass all the laws you want. Christians would still get married. Christians know that the government isn’t necessary to have a marriage between a man and a woman.
Same-same gender marriage, so-called, promoters, on the other hand, know that the government is required to produce something called same-same gender marriage, so-called. This is why marriage, an institution older than both government and religion, is said to be a civil right by these promoters.
Someone please remind bit, when it was discovered that same-same gender marriage, so-called, was a civil right?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pmRHF, let me translate for Obama. When he says “we don’t have to be disagreeable”, this is a polite and civil way of saying “we don’t have to be insulting, hostile, verbally abusive, holier-than-thou, arrogant, obnoxious, foul-mouthed, shouting people”. You know, like you.
A “social issue” is one that concerns itself with how a community of people is organized, relates, and manages itself. Thus, “civil rights” are “social issues”.
In my opinion, you continue to look for “evidence” of how brilliant, insightful, astute, and superior you are to have supported Clinton over Obama.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pmRHF,
I am with you on gay/lesbian rights as an imperiled minority who deserve much better than they have gotten, and I appreciate your fervor. I am disappointed with a number of the other stances that Obama has taken during the campaign (FISA, ‘competition’ as a driving force in public education, the role of the military in Afghanistan, ‘universal’ as a substitute to single payer healthcare), but I’m worried that the past 8 years have left the country seriously F’ed up.
I have almost no influence over Obama, but I have none when I attack him over tactics. I hope I have a tiny bit more with rational and sympathetic appeals (though I still fear that their is no mechanism for being heard, even by the good guys). I hope he will do more for good causes by de-powering the sails of those most damaging to our nation. I think we have the largest chance to wield influence with rational moral appeals. Certainly, we’ve never had as much access to power through rationality and civility in the past 8 years.
I’ve resigned myself that the best I can do is let Obama try to heal the country his way. I hope a healed (or healing) country can move where we want it to move.
On the other hand, I’m sick to death of Reid and Pelosi and their concessions, so perhaps I’m being hypocritical. I want them to FIGHT! But, to be fair, Obama has never taken that route. I don’t think it is realistic to expect fighting tactics from him, alas.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pmbitblt Says:
Someone please remind bit, when it was discovered that same-same gender marriage, so-called, was a civil right?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
______________
December 10th, 1948, when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
The UDHR is the law of the land in this country and all other ratifying states. I see nothing there that says “only a man and a woman” can get married. It says “men and women.”
Therefore, same-same gender marriage, so called, is a civil right.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pmSomeone please remind bit, when it was discovered that same-same gender marriage, so-called, was a civil right?
Shortly after the Second Enlightenment which began in the early 1960’s with the civil rights for blacks and people began to recognize the inequality of separate but equal laws based on narrow definitions of “personhood”.
Some please remind PLC, when it was discovered that Biblical law, so called, was the foundation of American jurisprudence?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
I look at what’s happened because of Warren’s inclusion – two blog threads here, an interview about his views on MSNBC, etc. That is exposing Warren’s views to discussion rather than letting them operate freely. I really don’t think that would have happened otherwise. So, I think Obama is stronger and Warren weaker as a result.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
____________
That’s fair, and I do agree that it’s better for all involved if this issue is discussed openly rather than festering in silence.
It just irks me a bit that in 2008 the burden rests on people who were born a certain way to convince the rest of the public that they deserve the same fundamental human right that everyone else is entitled to.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pmObama is a man who has said he would even sit down with the likes of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so I’m not sure why people are so shocked that he’s willing to invite Warren to do an invocation.
To me, the Iran diplomacy situation is similar in many ways to this one. The choice is either shun and ignore the person you disagree with (which will change absolutely nothing), or to sit down with them, talk about things you do agree about, then try to work out or at least understand your differences on the other issues.
If you talk to them, you might have a chance of changing their opinion. If you ignore them, you have zero chance of changing anything. So Iran will continue developing nukes, and in the case of Warren, he’ll never change his bigotry against gay people.
I don’t think inviting Warren is any endorsement of his past anti-gay statements at all, just like meeting with Ahmadinejad is not an endorsement of things like his rants against Israel.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pmIm sorry Barack. I supported you, I voted for you, I even got a few people to change their views on you, so with respect I say F**K YOU. Your excuse is a load of bull poop. There is a difference between having different views on issues but another to be a bigot.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pmHello bitblt. It’s good to see a fellow atheist here.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pmJust as an exercise, try substituting the words “Deaf” and “hearing-impaired” for “gay” and “homosexual.”
It’s a pretty close comparison, in fact. Although Deafness is sometimes brought on later in life by disease or accident, in most cases it’s hereditary. Deaf people have their own community, language, culture, and society that’s quite separate from hearing society, even though we occupy the same cities and towns. And it’s sometimes possible – though quite controversial – to “convert” Deaf people through surgery.
So imagine that we’re arguing over whether or not two Deaf people have the right to marry. After all, they’re likely going to produce another Deaf child – is that good for society? And what if they produce a hearing child – will he or she be raised in Deaf culture and thus unable to function in hearing society? This is quite dangerous for traditional hearing families, isn’t it?
Deaf marriage presents a grave threat to this country. They seek to redefine marriage – how can one say wedding vows if you can’t say your wedding vows?
Just sayin…
December 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pmhussein toasterhead Says: It just irks me a bit that in 2008 the burden rests on people who were born a certain way to convince the rest of the public that they deserve the same fundamental human right that everyone else is entitled to.
It irks me much more than a little bit! I just do not see the strategic benefit of isolating the leaders of those who think otherwise. All that does is give them additional status. And, in reality, gays and lesbians will never be able to gain status in this society alone. Just as it took white people to bring about more civil equality for blacks, it will take the support of straight people and religious people to fight for the civil equality for gays. I also think some “battles”, though not the whole “war”, can be won with less militant tactics. We should not forget, either, than Obama still carries the burden of the “angry black man” meme and he has to be sure that does not interfere in the bigger picture.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pmhussein toasterhead, you’ve enlightened me! I thought deafness in marriage was often a benefit, not threat, to marriage.
OK, before I’m virtually killed, I am kidding. It seemed time for some levity in this thread.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pmI understand why Obama did it.. as a community organizer, he is bringing all belief systems to stand with him. I just happen to disapprove of this particular one.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pmlook, no one in here agrees with warren. that’s no surprise to obama. i voted for him and would again today. you gotta figure obama knows what he is doing. he’s a big picture guy.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:40 pmI’m sorry, is he crafting policy? He’s just doing the event, I
don’t think we’ll get a bill out of this.
If there’s a Hindu speaker, most of aren’t Hindu and don’t agree about Shiva etc., but can accept the speech.
Just because someone wants Roe overturned or is against GLBT equal rights doesn’t mean they’re not Americans. We should work to uphold the Constitution (which should include regardless of orientation, government out of reproduction, etc.).
December 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pmOK…so working to uphold the Constitution would mean equal protection under the laws – the LAWS of the United States, not taking away rights that have been conferred. Warren can babble all he wants about this being a free speech issue – which he know full well it is not – it’s about LYING to get a group of people you don’t like marginalized. How can Rick Warren profess to be a Christian if he is willing to LIE to promote his agenda? How Christian is THAT? And why would anyone want anything to do with a person that does those things? How can it be Christian to promote the killing of a foreign leader we don’t like because someone deems him evil? Does that mean the Ayatollah in Iran is empowered to assassinate the president of the United States? They think Bush is evil. The whole thing smacks of, as was said before, triangulation…and how well did THAT work out, eh?
December 18th, 2008 at 3:10 pmI was going to let this thread go but, here’s my take.
Personally, I think anyone who devotes their life to promoting a myth is bat-scat crazy. Popes, priests, preachers, pastors, shamans, witch-doctors, and reverends are all effing nuts by definition. I am far more bothered by the fact that we have invocations at inaugurations than who is giving them. Alas, we are not mature enough, as a country or species, to set aside the fantasies of childhood.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pmWell then why dont we see a racist giving the benediction?
December 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pmi don’t see obama adopting any of warren’s policies so i don’t know how you can consider this triangulation. warren hasn’t a clue but obama does, so i figure obama has his reasons.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pmWow, what a lot of Obama haters.. rhf is really over the edge and several others have jumped the tracks too.
Funny, Obama talks to and includes his adversaries in open dialoges such as this and you act like he’s sleeping with them…..
Too bad the tunnelvision has you guys in a dither. Can’t see the big picture.
No matter how bad you claim this is or how bad you claim Obama is, he is a vast improvement over the last 8 years. Time will bear this out.
In the meantime, try not to cut off your noses to spite your faces…..
December 18th, 2008 at 3:34 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
.
.
.
Some please remind PLC, when it was discovered that Biblical law, so called, was the foundation of American jurisprudence?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
bit would not call the following quotes conclusive, but rather highly suggestive of the idea that American jurisprudence was founded on Biblical law. ( bit will not call attention to the facade of the SCOTUS this time in support of this idea.)
Sir Edward Coke, 1552-1634
This is the likely source of “Nature’s God” in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. It’s a paraphrase of a Biblical statement from Romans, bit believes. The law of nature is part of the quotes below.
William Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Law” 1723-1780
Wm. Blackstone. 2500 copies of “Commentaries” were sold in America prior to the Revolutionary War. If you read law in the Colonies in the late 1700’s, you knew Blackstone.
Some please remind PLC, when it was discovered that Biblical law, so called, was the foundation of American jurisprudence?
Sorry, bit can’t pinpoint it more exactly, but he’d have to go with “before the U.S. was became the U.S.” as the answer.
Oops! Sorry, again. Almost forgot James Wilson.
James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Signer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the
U.S. Constitution
Yeah. Looks like the answer is before the U.S. became the U.S.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pmbitblt as usual is full of it.
Was the United States founded as a Christian Nation?
The truth is absolutly not:
please read this baconlettucetommato(blt)
also please note from the writings of the founders:
December 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
hussein toasterhead Says:
.
.
.
December 10th, 1948, when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
The UDHR is the law of the land in this country and all other ratifying states. I see nothing there that says “only a man and a woman” can get married. It says “men and women.”
Therefore, same-same gender marriage, so called, is a civil right.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
bit sees that you have stated you opinion: “I see nothing there that says “only a man and a woman” can get married.”
However, bit doesn’t agree with you. Universally marriage is understood to be a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, any authority capable of changing that relationship would need to change it unambiguously. bit expects that this “unassailable truth” would have been more “unassailable” in 1949, so to speak.
If it doesn’t say f-f marriage, so-called, or m-m marriage, so-called, then it means m-f marriage.
Do you have any other documentation from
December 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm“December 10th, 1948, when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:”
that makes it clear that marriage is something other that the universally understood man and woman marriage?
hey baconlettucetommato, here’s another quotable quote for ya:
See why we don’t trust any religious nuts?
December 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pmwhat’s with all the nonsense
December 18th, 2008 at 4:02 pmFred Says:
bitblt as usual is full of it.
Was the United States founded as a Christian Nation?
The truth is absolutly not:
.
.
.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
If bit is so full of it perhaps Pete should not respond to his posts.
Nonetheless, bit would appreciate being honestly represented, and you’re not doing that, Pete. bit believes you can’t find one of his posts on TP that says the U.S. was founded as a Christian Nation.
bit doesn’t even call the U.S. a Christian Nation, but he does say the U.S. is a nation founded for a Christian people.
So, Pete, you might want to note that bit responded to this question from PLC:
Some please remind PLC, when it was discovered that Biblical law, so called, was the foundation of American jurisprudence?
Care to respond to his question, yourself?
December 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pmI think you mean “Fred”, bitty-brain. And on the rare occasions I respond to bitty-brain’s posts it’s always with the utmost contempt.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pmpete Says:
I think you mean “Fred”, bitty-brain. And on the rare occasions I respond to bitty-brain’s posts it’s always with the utmost contempt.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Thanks for the correction.
Suppose everyone likes to do what they do best:
always with the utmost contempt.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm“Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction – his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in.”
Bit you like to play the game of semantics – some of the founders were deeply religious but with great wisdom emphasized this nation was not to be a religious nation. “…legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
December 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pmi want me money back
December 18th, 2008 at 4:30 pmkuvasz, you’re jokin right
December 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pmBit you are a bigoted moron and you DONT speak for Christians you ONLY speak for yourself and you do that poorly. You are an embarassment to me as a Christian as an American and as a human being.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pmEugeneDebs:
Bit is an embarrassment to me as a human. I would be delighted to kick (bleep)s like bit out of the species.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pmPres-elect Obama also defended Rev Wright (his ’spirtual mentor’ of 20+ years ) until it became too controversial.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:36 pmDefinitions:
Hate speech – anything liberals, leftists and progressives disagree with and don’t want to hear.
Bigot – anyone who disagrees with a liberal, particularly those who have moral convictions.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:49 pmI’ve said it a thousand times and I’ll say it again – there is no “civil right” when it comes to marriage, period.
Marriage is a social institution that is inseparable from the dominant culture of a nation or of a people.
By definition, there can be no such thing as “gay” marriage.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:53 pmrhf,
you might want to reconsider the tone and language in your posts.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:00 pmRick Warren and Rev. Joseph Lowery?
woooooooot!
Between then and Obama this event is going to be AWSOME!
December 19th, 2008 at 1:31 amMaybe Obamania didn’t come to a screeching halt, but going from “change we can believe in” “at least he’s better than Bush” sounds like it slowed down in a hell of a hurry.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:35 amI didn’t notice any members of the KKK giving speeches.
So it’s OK for people with a deep hatred of gays to be part of the event, but not people with a deep hatred of blacks?
Change, my ass.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pmwe can probably survive this.cet Obama holds his views with confidence, and isn’t likely to change them.sohbetI’ve said it a thousand times and I’ll say it again – there is no “civil right” when Bedava mp3 indirit comes to marriage, period.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:41 am