For those that have been attacking Obama over Rick Warren

I suggest you read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. If you don't have time to read the book, here is a good summary

http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_Audacity_of_Hope

Obama is staying true to his ideals and commitments. Here is the summary for Chapter 4, which seems to be a good one to start with


Chapter 4: Politics
In this chapter, Obama continues his discussion of the ways in which the political process itself makes it difficult for politicians to remain true to their values. He recounts his awkward early encounters with potential donors, as well as the pitfalls associated with seeking out the endorsements of special interest groups. Both of these groups often regard their support as a guarantee that the candidate will unfailingly endorse their pet issues. However, in order to increase the efficacy of the political process, Obama asserts that political candidates should not vow their loyalty to any special interest group. While he regards it as acceptable and perhaps even inevitable that some general promises of support and ideological compatibility are necessary to attain the funding and endorsement necessary to mount a successful campaign, Obama contends that politicians must instead pledge to carefully consider each issue and proposed bill as it arises, on an individual, case-by-case basis. He also exhorts his colleagues to loosen their grip on the trappings of power in order to foster the kind of dynamic, discursive government that best serves the needs of the constituency.

post a poll, and see those of us who are not happy with the choice of Warren are just a bunch uninformed, non-readers.

or keep pulling statics out of your ass.

Ignorance has been on full display the past couple of days.

are not the same as putting them on a pedestal.

That's the problem. He can confer with Warren all he wants. When he lets Warren speak for him -- and that's what this is really about - - that's when the trouble starts.

how would freepers amuze themselves? I mean they are enjoying watching the collective meltdown here.

and if you don't understand that, you're really missing the point.

The inauguration is an extravaganza of symbolism -- everything, down to the bible the candidate uses, is fraught with symbolism.

Imagine if Obama, as some wingers have suggested, took his oath with his hand on the Koran. What do you think the reaction would be? "Oh, it's just a book and he only had his hand on it for 30 seconds."

Putting Warren as the lead person to speak -- even before Obama says a word -- sets the tone. And the person who thought of that is tone deaf.

EVERYONE knows who Obama is.

Not many know who this fundy nutjob is.

But they will soon...

as if these are two equally valid policy positions. They aren't.

what Warren's words will be during his prayer. If he takes the time to rail against GLBT, then I will absolutely agree with you that the president elect needs to apologize. I doubt that will happen though. I don't think he will say anything controversial, so the "many" who are not as politically active as are we will hear nothing unusual.

I will hold my "judgment" of the PE's performance until after he begins to HAVE a performance.

It's what he represents and what he's done that are the problem.

An Obama endorsement is teh golden.

What this choice does is say "This guy is worth listening to." It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Why do you suppose that is?

It's because he "knows better" than to express views like that in a national forum.

Operant conditioning is the technique of rewarding a desired behavior until it becomes a dominant behavior.

transition team? I didn't hear you.

And the headcount is "one too many."

By the way, what does the number of his gay advisors matter? I'm a pro-gay straight man and I'm insulted by this choice. Why does that bother you so much?

Although it looks as though it's the OP who's doing that, rather than Obama. (Mis-applied excerpt.)

In any case, as I've said all along, this is the #1 issue we have to work on Obama on.

or do you favor simply speaking in ignorance?

"a gay hating homophobe" is matched by freepers that are mad at Warren for associating with "a baby killer". Looks like the freepers do not have a monopoly on intolerance and hyperbole.

didn't you get the memo?

but go ahead and keep making light of the fact that human beings have had their basic rights removed and denied.

thanks. I'll take it under consideration.

Or did I just say that knee-jerk reactions and vehement expressions of outrage over empty gestures are worthy of mockery.

The evangelicals get a prayer, not a cabinet seat. They get one guy to pray at the inaugeration, that's all. Unless you ascribe to Mr. Warren immense supernatural power, or expect him to launch an anti-gay pogrom from the steps of the Capitol, then all this is is rage against a symbolic gesture.

:eyes:

I should just STFU and get with the DU "party line"

Be outraged at the nontroversy du jour or you're a bigot, freeper and corporatist whore...

Well, you caught me, please alert so they can send me my granite badge of honor.

You poor little victim, you. I thought the Jews had it bad in the Holocaust. What you're going through is just unimaginable.

I'm not invoking the Holocaust.

Good grief, you're right I'm just not pissed enough, does this work for you?

THAT GODDAMN TURNCOAT OBAMA! HE SOLD US ALL DOWN THE RIVER AND THEN THREW US UNDER THE BUS, AND BACKED OVER US! WE ALL NEED TO MARCH ON WASHINGTON RIGHT FUCKING NOW! WE'LL IMPEACH THAT DINO BASTARD BEFORE HE HAS A CHANCE TO TAKE AWAY ANY MORE RIGHTS BY ALLOWING ANY MORE PEOPLE WE DISAGREE WITH HAVE A PODIUM FROM WHICH TO SPEW FORTH HATRED AND BIGOTRY!!!! GAAAH! I'M SO PISSED I COULD PUKE BRIMSTONE!!!!!1111!!!!!!

:puke:

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

Is that sufficiently outraged for you? May I be allowed go back to my ho hum life now, or should I denounce my parents to the nice ideological policeman on my way out.

Just add me to your ignore list, ass. Maybe if all you whiny little shits wouldn't cry and moan whenever someone criticizes something St. Fucking Obama does, you wouldn't hear it.

Go on telling the queers to shut the hell up and get over it. It's very productive of you.

As that seems difficult for you, and since you have asked me so nicely...

I will be glad to put you on Ignore.

as well as the fact that he was a pro-free-trader, etc. It always fascinates me when the outrage strikes on DU over subjects that Obama has always been very straight-forward about. He's not a far-leftist, regardless of how the media tried to portray him during the election.

My state legalized gay marriage.

Warren and his fellow

BIGOTS

got Prop 8 on the ballot.

Obama AND Biden opposed Prop 8.

Warren and his fellow

BIGOTS

got Prop 8 PASSED.

Obama gives

BIGOT

Warren a prime spot at the Inauguration.

Do you understand why we are pissed off?

What is it, the quadratic equation? Is an illustration needed, with stick figures or something?

WE must make compromises, not the bigots. Get with the program.

Nor does anything from the above quote justify putting homophobic asshat bigot warren front and center for the inauguration.

Human rights are not a pet issue and claiming that they are is a freaking insult. You are not the first to make this claim here, which is a truly sorry statement about DU.

would appear with a baby killer. You and the freepers clearly have some common ground, when it comes to intolerance and hyperbole for those that disagree with you.

We're not talking about tax policy here. :eyes:

if you are happy with people calling you a murder for supporting abortion...

It comes down to who is the bigger person willing to reach across the divide and with stand the petty and nasty partisan arrows of their own side.

right. As I said, claiming that this is a pet issue is massively insulting.

Two can play that silly game:eyes:

<<He concludes that faith could serve as a common ground for future collaboration and cooperation between the two parties, and that tolerance and respect for religious diversity is of paramount importance>>

Why not?

I am one of Obama's strongest supporters. I also believe that he should reach out to people who are conservative, including conservative Christians, including conservative Christians active in the Church.


Rick Warren does not represent that. He is working outside of the Church and IMHO is typical of the type of pastor that is destroying the fabric of the Church. He went to a Seminary that places itself outside of ecclesiastical discipline and he establishes a Church outside of denominational discipline.

If he wanted to build a bridge to conservative Evangelical Christians he could have invited someone like Rev. Richard Cizik.


Inviting Rick Warren is simply building a bridge to Rick Warren.


In addition to his anti gay bigotry he is an anti intellectual self promoter who shuns Church connections so that he can continue to stand as a single entity defining his own theological agenda without the responsibility of any heirarchy.


We don't need to build bridges to stupid.

from watching one of their own given a place of prominence at Obama's inauguration have read his book? Who cares what his book says or how he or anyone else justifies this. The president-elect of the United States has chosen an avowed bigot to preside over his inauguration. Yeah, it's one thing, and no, it doesn't mean Obama is evil. But he's wrong on this, and he needs to be told he's wrong, and a call to unity in his book is no justification for it.

I'm all for building bridges, but I'm against jumping in the river and drowning to show those on the other side that we want a bridge.

you share George Bush's view on reaching across the aisle. Basically you will welcome anyone that sees things your way, and that's it.

I'm always getting yelled at around here for being too tolerant, so don't you try that nonsense with me. This isn't reaching across the aisle, this is surrendering completely to someone with no intention of even thinking about crossing the aisle. This is telling the other side that their prejudice, their hatred, is acceptable to us. Martin Luther King built bridges, but he didn't do it by telling the southern sheriffs beating the crap out of him that they were justified in doing so.

We can do this all day.

If history has taught us anything, it's that you don't gain civil rights by asking for them, you have to fight for them. Whenever you see an injustice, you speak out against it, no matter how small. It doesn't end or stall just because your guy won the Presidency.

Obama's book could include the most tolerant, inclusive messages ever written but I don't see how that should keep anyone from voicing their opinions over the Rick Warren issue.

Or maybe they're protesting about us whining. I don't mind someone arguing with me that it's not that bad a choice--this is a discussion board after all. The ones who bother me are the ones who keep attacking any of us for even speaking our minds on the topic.

There's a difference between arguing with me and telling me to shut up and quit arguing. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I'm a radically pro-Obama Democrat; that doesn't take away my right to be royally pissed about this insult to gay community.

(on edit) I should add here that I am straight and have very few gay friends at the moment. This is really not a question of gay rights. It's a question of civil rights; it's a question of inalienable rights. I honestly have yet to hear of any one single "gay right"--with the possible exception of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence which mentions the right to pursue your gaity.

... to re-hash the same vapid arguments, pretzel-logic and double-speak that failed so miserably in your previous thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7996867

of fact, logic or reason?

"Did you really need to post another post that was totally devoid of fact, logic or reason?"

"He also exhorts his colleagues to loosen their grip on the trappings of power in order to foster the kind of dynamic, discursive government that best serves the needs of the constituency."

JMHO, but Warren's supposedly huge following and this big tent idea I keep hearing seems to equate to that "trappings of power". I fail to see how elevating a leader who is such a vocal bigot when it comes to human rights issues for GLBT can be seen as "best serves the needs of the constituency". The days of hand-holding those who still cannot see this as an equal rights issue are long past. Honoring Warren in this way seems to perpetuate the bigotry, by sweeping it under the rug while claiming to be inclusive at the expense of those being discriminated against.

The churches can continue their debates or agree to disagree on this issue until the cows come home for all I care. Our government, however, cannot continue to deny the GLBT community equal rights nor give what could be interpreted as an endorsement or legitimization of such a discriminating thought process.

Try reading more about Warren's incredibly hateful and homophobic opinions on gay people.

Those attacks are no better than the freepers attacking Warren for being willing to appear with a "baby killer". Closed minded extremism is never a good thing.

But you're right, Warren's closed-minded extremism is definitely not a good thing. It's a horrific thing. And it's definitely something that Obama should reject. But, clearly he does not.

and which is not?

I am very disturbed by this pick and what it "means" to the GLBT community.

Why pick this man who called gay members of our party who believe that their rights were invaded by saying that members of his (Warren's) church should vote for Prop 8 because he believes that gay marriage is akin to incest, child rape and polygamy!

And the right to marry is the most fundamental right of all!

The audacity of bigotry and insensitivity was to invite Rick Warren!

maybe not being married an all.