To all the people who are upset about Obama talking to Rick Warren last night

1) Obama is a Christian. He isn't a secret atheist as some who are atheist have convinced himself. He's been going to a church longer than he's been involved in politics. He was married in a church and he had his children baptized. If he shared your world view he wouldn't have done that.

2) As far as Fundie Pastors go, Rick Warren is the bland tasteless flavor of Buffalo Wings not the scorching hot flavor that Haggee or Falwell are. Rick Warren only offends your stomache if you are against eating chicken i.e. against religion or Christianity. Rick Warren called Obama his friend and I believe he meant it.

3) Some of the people who applaud Obama for wanting to open more diplomacy and talks with Iran, N. Korea, Russia, Cuba, China, Syria etc seem to be very concerned that Obama would have a conversation with people he disagrees with in the United States of America. If Obama can't talk to the fundamentalist and try to find some common ground with them how the hell do you expect him to talk to the governments in countries that are hostile to the United States and find common ground.

4) Obama did not flip flop. He did not waver. He did not pander to the crowd. He spoke what he personally believed. They might disagree with him but the crowd there was respectful and listened. McCain got cheers on standard fundie talking points but Obama showed courage in going to a forum where people disagree with him on certain issues and explaining what he believes and why. That's leadership

5) This wasn't Obama's first time at Saddleback church or his first time talking about God. From the 2004 convention speech we all love "The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States." He's been talking about this since those of us outside Illinois met him on our TVs.

6) You need to chill out. Last night was a historic night in sports and a big USA USA USA night in the Olympics. If you've lived in this country for more than 6 months you know what Americans are talking about today.



I swear some people either expected Obama to convert the fundies with his charisma and logic or are aghast that the democratic Presidential nominee had the indecency to appear in all places at a church. Get over it and get ready to bitch about the VP nominee this week.

That is hilarious!

is priceless....and so totally DU. I'm sure after the VP announcement...
it will be prime popcorn time indeed.

The gnashing of teeth will be overwhelming no matter who he picks.

However, I wouldn't miss it...
it will undoubtedly be very entertaining.

expect him to convert the fundies....for some twisted reason I expected the media would have a fair review after the show.

I thought the forum went well and he may have actually made a few fundies feel comfortable enough to vote for him. I thought McCain was jumpy, nervous and gave his stump speech. I was shocked when I the media came out of the gate after the show and just praised McCain up and down.

It was just like after the Bush debates...the media would claim he won no matter how bad he was.

also, I posted elsewhere on this forum that I believe at least one person in that audience or watching it will be awakened by the dramatic difference in what Obama actually said versus what was reported. These kinds of awakenings are very powerful. I also felt that Obama came across as a true Christian and anyone who cares about Christ's teachings would have seen that. He wasn't spouting rhetoric, but he was HONEST, thoughtful and self-examining. He was accountable and transparent.

McCain never even brought up his infidelity or the keating 5 scandal as contenders for his moral failings. Either he didn't think they were moral failings or he has done something much worse and they pale in comparison. Either way, he looked like someone lying.

Obama did a good job. The old tired issues still make me sick to my stomach.

but I think he knows Obama personally and he knows if you let Obama talk and go into every nuance of an issue. He will. I think part of the reason he did it was to get as many questions as possible in.

McCain had less nuanced and reasoned answers it was all red meat talking points.

None of the freak'n questions had anything to do with anything relevant to today's mess. Warren's questions were a waste of time so why bother to ask more of them! :rofl:

he interrupted him before he even got a WORD out of his mouth, and then warned him not to to off on a STUMP speech?

and how bout that bizarro-trimmed goatee, with the area above the stache trimmed away so there's a little space under his nose? that's VERY Creepy

is he a former Backstreet Boy, or what?

is his hair dyed, btw?

looked awfully flaming red to me

these are very important questions, BTW

and that is kind of sad in so many ways.

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
The Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

"Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin." (Lev. 18:22 TLB)

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV)

While all sin is destructive, Romans 6 warns us of the great dangers in sexual sin when it says, "Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body." (1 Cor 6:18 NLT) This includes not only homosexuality, but all sexual immorality: adultery, sex without marriage, pornography. We must not act as if homosexuality is the only serious sexual sin, and we must not act as if homosexuality is not a serious sexual sin.

I've heard it asked, "Isn't being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?" First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that's obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle.

Finally, a word about being judgmental. It's not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that's just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that's being judgmental.

Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

end of quote

I will allow the words to speak for themselves.

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_49

I'm sorry but people have a right to their religion. I'm sure they have all kinds of other rules for membership like the not living together before marriage that many on this board would fall under. They probably also make you give 10% of your income to the church as well to be a member in good standing.

There is no demonizing of the individual in their statements and I don't think this church is part of the group of churches that organize against gay people going to other churches.

lets be blunt the person saying that would be completely off limits to any candidate.

Being gay involves a behavior. I'm one who personally believes that people are born gay however I can't tell your gay unless you tell me. There is debate over whether being gay is a genetic or a choice. It doesn't matter to me because I think that everyone has the right to be who they are regardless however, a church has the right to discriminate against things they feel are against their teachings.

When Gay marriage becomes legal I'm against forcing religions to recognize and perform cermonies that are against their teachings.

Hold hands with your girlfriend? Mention going to the movies with a date? Answer the question are you straight, with a yes? Any of those would tell me you are straight. I don't know how to convince you that being gay isn't a choice except to tell you to ask gay people in their 40's or so what their childhoods were like.

not choice vs. behavior. Believe me I'm on your side on this issue as far as choice goes.

A church has a right in this country to preach what they want and to admit who they want as members. Blacks and Whites weren't married in churches 30-40 years ago but that changed due to societal pressure over many years not due to any government intervention other than making those marriages legal and equal civilly.

You can't force a church to recognize a marriage and if the church believe sex out of marriage is a sin your stuck in a wierd catch 22. Soceital pressures when Gay marriage becomes common in this country will force most mainline churches to confirm with society. I'm sorry it isn't going to happen overnight but that is the reality.

As far as mainline churches go...Saddleback is mild compared to others in their stance on homosexuality. Sorry thats the reality in the Christian community right now.

that we shouldn't validate those beliefs by calling them moderate or mild, or having our candidate show up at their forum.

It is your basic Southern Baptist church with some showmanship. It it is most assuredly not mainline, no matter how Warren is trying to rebrand himself as a thoughtful moderate.

How many people attend that type of church, a catholic church, or a missouri synod Lutheran church vs. the churches you are talking about because all share the view on this topic. I don't agree with that view but it be blind to think that most Christian churches don't have a teaching against homosexuality.

It's a term with a specific meaning. The Southern Baptists have never been considered mainline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_church

However, most Americans attend a church with some teaching similar to Warrens. I don't agree with it but that is the reality we live in.

churches are "fooled" about the members of the church that are not openly gay.

I am Christian and I believe that we are " ALL God's children" and that the Gay Issue for churches is more political than a strong belief.

Every church that I have ever attended had gay members that were an integral and important part of the religious experience.

My favorite uncle was gay and a devoted church goer. He knew the Bible better than anyone. He could talk about the Biblical names and places as if he once lived among them.

He was a true Christian.

I saw a play many years ago called " Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." The message of the play is that for every ten people that you know, at least 1 is Gay.

Don't flame me, that is what the plays message said. It was 25 years ago and I have no idea what the statistics are --

All I know is that I learned from that play that I need to accept all people and I better shut my mouth and not make assumptions and or put downs about anyone.

Just my view :shrug:

Doesn't work that way. Why would someone CHOOSE to live in a matter that would subject themselves to discrimination, persecution, rejection, violence, etc?

but up to 30-35 years ago it was considered a recognized psychological disorder in the DSM. People act like we woke up and its 2008 all of a sudden. In alot of ways churches are always the last in society to change.

u might be suprised. The new age mega church (as opposed to southern baptist or pentacostal, etc) is a different bread of the born agains...and what they preach is very close to Obamas connection to not only to christ, but to the action to back up christs words. Obama's spiritual connection, as he expressed it, is really more in line with the basic beliefs of especially the younger members of these churches. We all may be very suprised by the outcome of this forum.

I am well aware there are churches that are far more accepting. Once I move to the larger city I intend to start attending one.

While Saddleback may not be as vocal in their hatred of homosexuality as say, Phelps and his Westboro church, it's still there. If the Westboro members didn't go around protesting at funerals, and if they didn't run the "godhates" website, then they'd be just like any other fundie church.

It's this message that homosexuality is an abomination that makes people think that it's okay to discriminate against gays, or to commit acts of violence against them.

Nothing. Those lines are from the old testament, if I can take a wild guess. And that is just some guy's writing. It was the truth at the time. But not what Jesus said. There would have been homo-hunts for Jesus if that were the case. And he just plain didn't do that.

These asshats stole the bible, and now they're stealing the Constitution.

I hate them. And so does Jesus, if I may be so bold as to speak for him. Hey, he took up arms to chase the money changers out of the temple. I would put money on him doing the same for idiots like these phoney pastors. Anyone can get up in a big building and flap his lips.

Thanks for posting that. I'm disappointed in Obama. Yeah, yeah, it's all about being diplomatic. Balone.

http://nyblade.com/2005/11-18/news/religious/RIBS-Warren,-Rick.jpg

:shrug:

The talking heads were talking morality this morning. 'Value's and religious b.s. and whatnot. They have played his response on abortion several times and gay marriage.

This election cannot be forced into a values election. Don't get me wrong - Obama's are quite similiar to mine.

However - we can win it if we focus on issues that matter.
Economy
Health Care
Education
Infrastructure
Illegal Occupation In Iraq
Energy
A new approach to diplomacy and foreign policy.


Any hint of God, Guns and Abortion and those right wing wingnute Jesus freaks will get a freaking say. If they are EVEN 25% of the country (being generous) then that means they are still the minority.

The other 75% of us? We don't want Jesus talks.

We want one ones about the issues listed above. Stuff that counts.

I.E. the weekend before the probable VP announcement during the olympics.

Remember today the talking heads are being drowned out by USA! USA! USA! which is just a good bloody coincidence.

The issue was going to come up. Obama dealt with it in August and can reference it and put video clips on his website to diffuse.

And it's an excellent point. Perhaps timing IS everything. ;-)

I'm feeling a bit beat up this morning. At another site (non-political) some Jesus Freak came onto a political private thread and dropped a bomb. . . That email that's been floating around with 'actual quotes' from Obama.

I guaraneffintee that woman watched it last night. She didn't even frame it up as an email she received. Posted it as her 'own' words.

So then spent about an hour researching, digging up and stopping the disinformation. I'm telling you - him participating probably had no effect on those people because they turned right around and amped up their misinformation campaign, xenophobism, racism . . .

Eh? At least he threw them a bone early on - prior to the Convention. Now - would they just go away? David Kuo has already called out his 'own' for turning their backs on the Religious Right. Anyone in that audience last night as a member of the Religious Right as far as I'm concerned? They've showed poor judgment. Regardless of how Barack tried to 'school them' - their judgment says to them as long as someone wants to go kill muslims we'll vote for them. End of times, and crusades and whatnot.

but the moderate Christians. Warren was used as a forum because he has a best selling book alot of the moderates have read. It actually gives us something to point to when the moderates bring up the Muslim rumour.

And I've read the book. And I'm not a Christian. I'm a Unitarian Universalist.

When Marianne Williamson does something like this - I'll feel it was important. I began A Course in Miracles, and was reading her books at the same time as The Purpose Driven Life. Purpose Driven Life in my opinion is just a lifting from the Work section of A Return To Love (Williamson's' retrospective on what she learned in the Course). Much as Joel Osteen's first book is a lifting of her ideas/thought process. As is Ilyana Vanzant's works.

The Muslim rumor is cleared up immediatly by the Wright brouhaha. How does a Muslim attend a 'Christian' church for 20 some odd years? Doesn't make sense.

I still don't think it's a good idea to explain himself to this people. I've tried when questioned on my religion. People who won't admit that Jesus was Jewish and a human being - or - even entertain that concept frustrate the hell out of me. They are 'blinded by the light' but can't see truth. So regardless of the honesty, open hearted responses Obama shared last night (he really is a 'good' person if you KWIM) -

They are still going to walk away from it thinking he's the Anti-Christ. Giving them one minute of attention lends the credibility and relevance. They've lead us into the murder of a lot of Iraqis, and the death of about 4K Americans in retaliation for something that never happened (WMD).

The Truth? They can't handle the truth! :-)

DUers leading up to the event.



That's it, exactly. I couldn't believe how people were freaking about this, it was ridiculous.

Thanks again,
sw

McCain did much better than I ever imagined, and they were very very enthusiastic. My fear is that McCain passed a fundie test with those who may have not voted for him before.

W or his handlers were smart in that he through the red meat to the fundies during the primaries so they got off his back in the General Election in 2000. McCain has to play to the fundies now to build trust and it turns off moderates and independents.

Looking over at freeperville, I think that you're right and that he passed a test for a lot of them.

That so-called church was freeperville.

Who don't wish to have our lives be beholden to charlatans....

WAKE UP. Not everyone shares beliefs. There is no place for this sort of faith based circus in US politics. Stop downplaying the joke that is having our politicians fawning over folks who hide behind scripture and create the moral highground for themselves.




Why do they have to kowtow to them? Why must they lick the boots of
these folks who have grown obscenely wealthy off of the faith of others?

None of the reasons given address that to any satisfaction.

And as for the blandness.... one can be as "little a snake oil charmer/charlatan" just like one can be "a little bit pregnant."

On what faiths voted for which candidates . . . http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103

Considering we had our asses handed to us in 2000 and 2004 because the national discourse went to 'morality and religion' - my gut instinct still remains - it has no place in election debate.

I'm not voting for a minister/pastor/preacher.

I'm voting for policy. When candidates are allowed to go off target and get onto these issues -

It means they aren't kow towing to me.

I want a meat and bones policy discussion. And policy only.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

and have addressed those in my responses.

The old "turn it off" ruse doesn't apply to what I've said.

So sorry. Better luck next time.

BTW-- who's doing the censoring when you have a situation whereby a refusal to attend is tantamount to political suicide? Who's got the politicians by the short and curlies then?

Censor?? Bah. That victimization ruse doesn't work. When they bring back the lions, then folks will have something to whine about.

Sorry, this has been part of our country for the past 100 years. The last two winning democrats talked about their faith openly and met with pastors. I'm not a fan of it either but its the way America works in 2008.

People would be much more educated voters if the candidates were forced to talk about themselves and what they stand for, rather than a competition of who can make the other guy look worse.

the immediate congregation in attendance was clearly more disposed to McCain - and he actively played to that audience with sound bites, stump-speech lines, fast( and fairly simplistic) responses to what were sometimes complex issues, - Obama, I think, was addressing himself to a much wider audience watching at home. Those People will think about Obama's responses. I also think that quite a number of people in attendance will be thinking about Obama today.

I was originally concerned. Now, though, I am very glad that he went. There is a very progressive Evangelical ( as opposed to fundie) community out there with whom Obama's authenticity, his message, and his honest grappling with important issues will resonate. That is a good part of the audience to whom he spoke. BTW, I am an agnostic ( although I have a solid grounding in theology and one my son goes to a Quaker school). I wonder how McCain would have fared if Jim Wallis of Sojourners was moderating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6648221&mesg_id=6648221

She's a Born Again Christian and gives a perspective that should spark further discussion.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

or whatever you want to call it was moderated by a minister and took place in a mega church. Even my 11-year-old inquired as to the current status of church and state in this country.

government, as I did when my 11 yo son asked about much the same.

Good for you!

It was a private event set up and hosted by the pastor, Rick Warren, in his own church and the candidates were free to decline to participate.

This was NOT an official presidential debate, it was simply a joint appearance before a particular constituency -- like when candidates are invited to speak at a meeting of the NAACP and it's televised.

and the small minded "faith-based" out there.

It was an offer that could not be refused. And that is what is shameful and anti-religious in my book.

It is faith-based bullying.

Had Obama said no - it would have been a huge huge story - played in the news cycle for at least a week.
Then he would have spent a week defending the separation of church and state instead of letting folks know his take on the issues and what policy he would like to see put in place.

currently stuck with. So what's a candidate for president to do? Deal with the reality and do what you can to make the best of it? Or ignore the reality, cede the religious vote to the Repugs and lose the election?

Of course it sucks, but at least Obama had the guts and the skill to walk into the lions den and hold his own with dignity and class.

sw

This absolutely would not have happened even fifteen years ago. My parents were relatively conservative but they would have been mortified by a televised religious forum in their day.

was a candidate for the Presidency I don't believe Obama was bullied into this forum.

because of it.

Ignoring the reality only allows it fester and do more damage to the country.

With all the hypocrisy, scandals, and abuse of power among these self-styled "moral values" types, I would think any rational person would avoid them.

Alas, folks have been tempted by their allure and have fallen off of the path.

and other societal ills. We overcame them through rational compassionate thought and a whole hell of lot of struggle. People fought back and did not accept what "has always been."

To accept abuses of the political system and faults within it is not going to help society in the long run.

When candidates talk to congregations. Did you see a seperation and church issue when Bill Clinton met with pastors all through out his Presidency?

Disgusting.