I'm sick of hearing "It's only a two minute prayer"

First of all, this is precicesly what the Mcclurkin defenders said. "It's only a song! He'll be off the stage in two minutes!" We know how that turned out. Besides, seriously consider if James Dobson or Pat Robertson had been pegged to do this "two minute prayer." Would it still be no big deal?

On a list of the most important things going on right now in the world, Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration is not in the top 100.


Of course... I find *ALL* religious figures to be offensive, regardless of their opinions on any particular issues.... so NO religious invocation by anybody would be ok with me.

try to get their buy-in. It's a politically expedient move, that doesn't mean anything substantive regarding policy.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The American story of the last 8 years is BushCo running roughshod over our constitution and our future, and the Democrats enabling them every step of the way in the name of political expediency. The change I was hoping for from Obama was an end to that bullshit.

Is there any line the Dems are not willing to cross?

for direction?

The gap between the insignificance of Warren's appearance and the overheated response here and elsewhere is quite striking. Some people on both sides appear to delight in wallowing in outrage.

Could we have a separate DU Outrage Forum so that these comments would all be in one place?

for those who just want to talk about puppies and wardrobes?

But comparing it to the "birth certificate" issue is an insult.

The "birth certificate" issue does not personally impact the lives of any of the individuals carrying that torch. They are trying to find a way to prevent Obama from becoming president - not struggling with the myriad of very personal consequences of not having their families legally recognized, not worrying about whether their employer will exercise his legal right to fire them merely because he decides one day he doesn't want any gay employees, and not fearing to walk down the street because of the physical danger we each face every day we choose not to "pass;" challenges we face in part because of the activities of Warren and individuals like him.

Many of the GLBT members of this forum have had their families directly attacked by Warren's actions regarding Proposition 8 in California; for others the attack is less direct, but no less painful. Personally, I have a daughter who will never be legally related to her second parent because of the activism of people like Rev. Warren. That relationship was expressly denied by the courts because her parents' lawful marriage is not legally recognized in Ohio. Our family struggles to maintain health insurance for my spouse, who has an expensive chronic illnesses, because her coverage, currently, is solely at the whim of my employer and the insurance companies. Even though we are legally married, when our prior insurance carrier went out of business, my employer had to beg the insurance carriers to provide "domestic partner" coverage - and were only able to find one carrier in the entire state which was willing to provide it, because they don't have to even if the employer is willing to pay for it if the workplace has fewer than 50 employees.

Granting Warren, who has actively worked to create these challenges for my family, a general honor by inviting him to give the inaugural invocation is like inviting a prominent member or supporter of the Nazi party to give the invocation at a group which includes Jews, gays, people with disabilities, and others imprisoned or killed by the Nazis. The fact that the spotlight would only be for a couple of minutes does not make it any less offensive or painful.

I don't have a problem with dialog. I don't have a problem with Obama speaking at Warren's church. I don't have a problem with Obama inviting him to work as part of a team on issues where the two share a common goal. I don't have a problem even if that puts him in the national spotlight in connection with those issues.

On second thought, I'm not really all that sorry that our pain is too visible for you. Perhaps it will help you understand a bit more what our lives are like, and why this is not an insignificant gesture.

I do have a problem with Obama putting him in the generic national spotlight (i.e. in a role unrelated to the issues with which Obama agrees with him) as a bone to evangelicals. There are far better bones available who are, at least, silent on the issue of GLBT rights - or who actively support us.

and that they're good friends. Well, if he found out that Warren was really a racist, would he have him give his very big deal Inaugural Invocation (I guess some people don't realize, this is a big deal to those of faith)? I don't think he would, in fact, I don't think he'd invite him if he was as BRASHLY anti-black as he is clearly anti-Gay, anti-power for women in the church, and seems like he'd be better off in the 1800's.

If he's really GOOD friends with Warren, I have a feeling I wouldn't really like being good friends with Obama then... My gayness isn't worthy of marriage to him already, what's the big deal if I get pissed off that he goes and puts an anti-Gay minister in to do his Invocation...

Maybe we could organize people to drown out his invocation with a group prayer to God doing the Lord's prayer!? I think that would be awesome, and it's still praying to God, and it's not coming from a homophobe...

That there shouldn't be religious bullshit happening AT ALL during ANYONE'S inauguration.

I'm not an athiest, but I don't believe in ramming one religion down an entire nation's throat during something like an inauguration ceremony.

IMHO, I don't like how ANY of the Dem candidates blathered on about "faith" during the primary season. It's all petty, futile pandering to religious types who HATE DEMOCRATS, ANYWAY.

But what's the alternative? John McBush? More Republican rule?

SARAH PALIN A HEARTBEAT AWAY FROM THE PRESIDENCY??

CHECK!

:eyes:

primary and sour grapes.

ROGER.

and believe it is a complete croc o' shit.

"It's all petty, futile pandering to religious types who HATE DEMOCRATS, ANYWAY."

Yes there are religious thugs, but the vast, VAST majority of Dems are people of faith. Don't like it? Tough shit, it doesn't make the fact that the vast, VAST majority of people who voted for Obama do identify with some religious belief any less true. In fact, Obama's own religious faith must have some importance to him in light of the bleating we all grew so tired of during the campaign, regarding Wright. The proclamations of some here that religious faith of any color = fundamentalist Pug is simply, as I said before a steaming croc o' shit.

--for everybody, no exceptions.

my post is not a commentary on the OP or on the selection of Warren. It is a observation on the seemingly prevailing sentiment (which I believe isn't prevailing at all), regarding the political status of people of religious faith in general.

Obama was elected last month. He made the decision to invite Warren. He made the decision to have prayer. Bush, Palin and Republicans have nothing to do with this.

Did you forget that Obama was already elected?

How odd of you, it's like you're stuck somewhere in October.

So yeah, I'm disapppointed. It pisses me off enough that yeah, I'll vote for him in four years but I won't dig into my pockets to give him cash I can't afford to give away and I won't make a single phone call for him.

It's certainly a vast improvement over threads about fucking dogs.

Of course, we were all too stupid to understand the dog fucking thread.

his "thoughts."

I see more positive than negative.

and people at DU would complain if Billy Graham did.

and to refer to his prayer as "two minutes hate."

Nor is believing in Science.

It's odd you do.

Because Bill Clinton worked HARD to get rid of abortion after having anti-abortion Graham do the same thing.

You are overreacting. Period.

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

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Damn, how could Hillary have lost the nomination with so many PUMAs running around?

:rofl:

if you run around constantly bashing obama with a hillary avatar, you tend to get that reputation.

:rofl: indeed

It's pretty obvious who the PUMAS are. They never really got over the primaries and never will.

They never have a nice thing to say about Obama.

They just can't wait to post on GD: P and excoriate Obama for the decisions he makes.

Action number five of an Obama apologist, invoke Hillary Clinton and insinuate on-going bitterness as the true reason for any criticism against His Majesty.

CHECK!

I will always support Hillary, as I've done for years, no matter whether she runs for office ever again or not.

:7

Hence, what you said somehow turned into demanding that people change their Hillary avatars.

:eyes:

How are you?

:rofl:

That's their favorite tactic - to pretend like we're all sockpuppets and not real people. :rofl:

They have their own political battles over there.

Warren is too far right for us, but he's pulling some of them leftward.

Who will win the "Battle for Rick Warren"... stay tuned for more thrilling episodes...

and shocked that this post is not getting recd.

I get all wrapped up in threads sometimes and totally forget. x(

K-R

:kick:

why don't we all shut the fuck up. There is no reason as to why ANY of us should be a thorn in the side or a burden to those whom we have CHOSEN to represent us. Opps, almost forgot :sarcasm: