Can someone simply explain to me why Warren was chosen?

This lesbian is behind Obama, voted for Obama, donated to Obama, and yes, watched him select some asshole who supports Prop 8.

I put up with Republican family members (ok, there's only one) laughing in my face throughout Christmas dinner about it.

He said "McCain wouldn't have chosen that guy" and my response was that McCain wouldn't need to, he and Sarah Palin WERE "that guy".

But, honestly, I'm a pretty jaded person. As a lesbian I expect to be thrown under the bus, honestly. My orientation and quality of life is a political football and I get that.

I'm just looking forward to hearing the explanation as to the logic behind the selection of this fucking clown.

Thanks.

PS. Still behind Obama, not a troll, just bitter and not really ashamed of it.

as far as I know

I know he's not in favor of gay marriage

However, I wasn't aware it was a 'morality' issue

and in favor of full marriage rights for GLBT....Want to try again?

But if you expect every denomination to provide you with a church sanctioned wedding, I think what you're saying is, that in our lifetime, there will be nothing but conflict on this issue.

Personally, I would make a set of small,attainable goals. First civil unions should be approved so you all can extend health benefits to your partners and enjoy all the legal rights that you're entitled to. Second should be the support for those churches that support you. But, I don't ever see this being a 100% success. At least, not in our lifetimes.

On Edit: This response is linked to the wrong post. Sorry about that. I'm leaving it as is, however, because I can't find the original post that inspired my response.

What the heck are you saying?

but your implication does say something about your opinion of the next President of the United States.

"Religion" is as real as unicorns.

really be mocking of people of faith in EVERY single thread on this subject?

:shrug:

After that Saddleback forum business.

:shrug:

he knew the message he was sending and did it anyway.

Again... I'm still happy Obama won. The alternative was much, much worse.

Regardless, I'm still amused by the bullshit.

:puke:

Yes, Warren is in a no good ass hat and a bag of hate wrapped up in
a "feel good blanket Jesus Blanket" but can you name me the last 3
people who gave the innvocation @ the SOTU? The important speech
will be given by Obama who over the course of being President will work
for Gay Rights (aka human rights).

Look, I talked to people who were on the fence for Obama, I donated, I did my part.

I also cried my eyes out when he was elected and I still feel thrilled he's going to be our President.

Regardless, it's the same old song and fucking dance when it comes to us gays.

I knew it would be when I donated to him, I knew it would be when I voted for him.

Obama is a Rock Star.

He will be endorsing Rick Warren.

What part of this don't people get?

this is tiresome

there is no good explanation for it IMO. Warren is a fuckwad, but he isn't the only preacher in the country who is against gay marriage. People act as if gay marriage was about to become legal across the country and Warren stopped it. Any preacher that would have been chosen to read the invocation would have had the same position on gay marriage as Warren.

Are you kidding me?

Warren helped take away people's rights, what part of that do you not get?

You do realize that there are plenty of preachers who are not only not for Proposition 8 but who did not fight as hard for it as Warren did?

Sorry for the inconvenience.

"Tiresome". LOL. Jesus.

yes its tiresome...we all know its fucking indefensible but there are a hundred damn threads asking the same stupid question. Asking for a good explanation when there is none forthcoming.

We've probably been putting up with this bullshit a lot longer than you've been subjected to requests for justification for it.

And I DEMAND a good explanation. I donated my hard earned cash to Obama.

When he slaps me in the face, I expect at the very least, a fucking explanation. However PC and BS it may be.

via some other means, cos he sure ain't gonna give you an answer on this board.

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

The right to marry by gays never was recognized before. It is the weight of tradition. You're living in the times where that can change. Imagine being gay in 1880 or so.

Younger gays, and gays not yet born will have it better than you. That's human history. It's reality. We are in a period where we have to work toward it. We gain nothing by pitching a fit over this Warren invocation. Nothing, nada, zip, and we could lose ground with it.

only Obama knows why he chose Warren.
why are you asking us?

do you really expect a satisfactory answer?
or do you just want to vent?

in CA and Warren helped put a (temporary) end to it.

The anger about Warren is inextricably linked to Prop 8.

Rachel Maddow calls the choice "publicly humiliating" to gays and lesbians and she's not far off the mark.

It is a big mistake. One he shouldn't have made. We shouldn't try to diminish it. It is what it is.

I just don't see the use of asking the same question 100 times. There is no defense to asking Warren to read the invocation. I cant think of one. No one has put one forward, so why keep harping on it? Obama is not going to disinvite Warren.

Civil rights are a bigger issue than just Warren and Obama.

You don't?

Obviously you aren't as affected by Warren's support of Proposition 8 as I am, as a lesbian.

Is that a fair assumption?

Because, here's the thing...

Gays have put up with a long, long history of things happening that have had "no defense" and been told to "stop harping on it".

And civil rights INCLUDE this issue of Warren and Obama. As the start of Obama's presidency, in fact.

So, I don't see the use of complaining 100 times when we're given the same injustices 100 times.

harping on the war and bush. Sure it was wrong. But we should all just move on, right? That is what got civil rights for blacks and voting for women, right? They just stopped complaining and then, everybody did the right thing. Wasn't that how it worked?

Gay marriage? He opposes gay marriage? Are you kidding? Do you really think that's the big complaint against him or are you talking shit to make some kind of point that can't stand on its own? There does seem to be a lot of that going around - people who say they've read 27 squidzillion threads on the topic and they're so tired of it (not too tired to post on it themselves) and yet somehow still don't have a freaking clue what the problem is.

Hell, Obama opposes gay marriage and plenty of GLBT and GLBT supporters voted for him. Rick Warren goes far beyond opposing gay marriage. As a few examples:

** Rick Warren publicly equates homosexuality with pedophilia. All the same to him. When questioned is that really what he meant to say, he confirmed. With a big ol' smile on his face. Helluva guy, that Rick.

** Good ol' preacher Rick will let gays come to his church and be preached at about their sinfulness (with "love." Um, sure.) And good ol' preacher Rick will ask gays to give him muchas buckywucks to help him spread his message, should they so desire. But don't get any ideas. Don't get uppity. Ain't no gays gonna be actual members of Saddleback. No, siree. Gotta have some standards, after all.

** Shall we get into his attitude toward women? Let's not. Suffice to say submissive and pregnant work for him. Independent and making her own choices don't.

You don't know that "any preacher that would have been chosen to read the invocation would have had the same position on gay marriage as Warren." That's just bullshitting. Even if the real issue was marriage, not all of them do feel that way, so why would anyone assume that?.

it's pure politics. Obama keeps looking smarter and smarter every day and/or has the best advisors in many years of any Democrat I've seen in a long time.
Look at it this way, the majority of Americans are ignorant (meaning un-enlightened or not educated) about a great many things, including the idea of a same sex marriage, or union or whatever word works best for all concerned.
We aren't past skin color, accents, foreign foods, and religious customs, let alone condoning what many people think is a major sin, based on the Old Testament. We could have a whole other discussion on the Old and New Testament as well as look for how much time Jesus spent talking about homosexuality (I think zero time is the answer) to try and demonstrate to the far right how far off base they are. But again, not here.

I'm saying this is what the great majority of Americans think, not me! :)

So, what better way to throw a bone to the far right? Have one of theirs stand up there for 2 minutes and offer a prayer or whatever he'll do.
Once Obama is inaugurated, he is free to do whatever he wants. I'm not saying he'll try to make same sex marriage a federal law, in fact, I often wonder why government is involved at all on this issue, but I think he'll do better than the Big Dog's 'don't ask, don't tell'policy.

Think about this Illinois governor thing. I think it's obvious Obama and his team thought it out, and when the time came that they knew he was the nominee, they told Blago 'we will offer our appreciation' only, when he might have to replace Obama. If they lost the election, it wouldn't matter. If they won, they were not on the hook to him, and didn't do anything illegal.
I know this is a long answer to a short question, but again, it's strictly politics and I don't think it carries any meaning or weight, doesn't indicate a future policy of his administration or anything like that.
It's just politics............. :shrug:

But

"Look at it this way"

lost me, because I'm looking at it my way, and would love it if Obama would look at it my way, too.

I've listened to "look at it this way" instead of my way, for all 41 of my years.

I don't mean to be a smartass, I do appreciate your response, and I agree with what you said about throwing a bone to the far right.

However, I'm tired of being thrown under the bus to appease the far right.

Let me explain.

I think you have the politics EXACTLY right. It was a bone to the far right. He probably figured it was a good opportunity to be able to show how a "uniter" really operates. And who can argue about actually putting words into action? It's so rare these days. . .

However, Obama have to have assumed that it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Like all the arguments given here - "it's just a two-minute prayer," "it won't mean anything after the 20th" blah blah. And besides GLBT comprises what? 5% MAYBE of the population? So what if they get upset - they'll get over it. Right?

What he didn't realize is that the same 5% is comprised of thousands of people who - up to that point - had been hardcore Obama supporters with disposable income and good typing skills. GLBT ARE Obama's base, and you just don't treat your base this way. What was he thinking? To GLBT it felt like betrayal. It was callous.

And if it had been the first time, I think most people would have shrugged it off eventually. But this has happened TIME and TIME again! We get sucked into campaigns, we give lots of time and money. We get sweet-talked with "hope" and "change", and then after the Jello stops wiggling, everything goes back to the way it was.

And what's the most frustrating is the people who keep insisting that we just shut up and get with the program. (Not you, per se, just in general). I'm just not going to do that. Not this time. It's just TOO MUCH.

there's no explanation that anyone can provide from Obama about the choice of Warren.

That's really refreshing.

Any answer you get on this message board is likely bullshit.

In a 2005 Time Magazine article Rick Warren was touted as one of the top Evangelical leaders in the nation and he was labeled "America's People's Pastor". Even now he is being touted as the successor to Billy Graham. This could be viewed as a brilliant move because Obama is reaching out to this Evangelical leader and giving him a place of honor, at his inauguration no less, which should appeal to the masses reached by Warren, who otherwise have been told by McCain and Palin not to support Obama because he is a terrorist sympathisizer, a Marxist, a Muslim, and possibly not qualified to be president because he was born in a foreign country. It could be viewed as mostly damage control and receiving a blessing by Warren will help redeem Obama in the eyes of the religious mainstream.

Having said that, I still feel like he is throwing us under the bus and that we should definitely not remain silent about it.

Makes sense and yes I agree 100% with your last line.

:rofl:

.... this was all a ruse to make her transition into the Senate got more smoothly. :)

Worked huh?

and we're unlikely to stop supporting him regardless of what he does. He wants some of the bigots and idiots in the country on his side too.

I understand his thinking but I think it sends an awful message when he chooses someone that outspoken in his bigotry. He could have chosen another white male Christian minister and made people happy - one who was at least somewhat moderate about civil rights issues. But no, he chose someone who hates gay people, women, and Jewish people. It couldn't have been an oversight or mistake. He had to have done it on purpose to send a message. And I think it is a terrible message.

...on gay rights and ecumenism than Warren?

Nearly anyone would be to the left of him.

Wallis is to the left of half of DU.

Osteen refuses to talk about controversial issues like glbt or abortion. Campolo doesn't support marriage equality, but has never used Warren's hateful language. Any of these would've been better.

Obama picked the most popular, not the best, true. I'd also love it if as many people read Sojourners as read Purpose Driven Life

Get into that mental place for a second: imagine you think an unborn fetus is an individual human life and that abortion, as an act of ending that life, is cold-blooded medical murder. And now consider that upwards of a million abortions a year are performed in this country. You yourself (as a fairly normal, non-fire-breathing conservative) might pull back from using the word "Holocaust", but you also might have a little sympathy for those who do.

This is where Rick Warren is.

Now look at Obama's record on choice, and to be frank some of his less-than-brilliant choices of what to say about it (it's not at the top of my head but he's said some stuff that out of context makes it sound like having a child is a horrible thing).

Also imagine that in addition to "your guy" losing the Presidential election, an abortion ban in South Dakota (South Dakota, for heaven's sake!) failed pretty miserably -- this was as big a kick in the teeth to the right as Prop 8 was to the left, and it was to a side that was already down.

Rick Warren is taking a lot of heat for being willing to pray at the inauguration of a "pro-abortion" President. We oppose restrictions on a practice that he considers murder, but he's willing to come pray. Personally, I refuse to let Rick Warren be the bigger person (except in the physical sense; he wins that hands down).

what is not so easy, speaking as a male, is to understand a woman's perspective on having her privacy, her freedom of choice, and control over her body violated. I can understand this in a very abstract sense, and I can say that I fully support it, but I can't really claim that I have a visceral understanding of it without being a woman myself.

The same goes for Warren and all the bigotry and discrimination that his followers carry with them. They can claim that they "love the sinner" all they want to, but to really understand our point of view is not possible until they are at least challenged. Reaching out to him in this way, without challenging him, is giving in to his presumed superiority.

Choice is an issue that is in some ways alien to me; other than my time in the military (which I signed up for voluntarily), the government has never had shit to say about what I can do with my body (other than its insistence that I can't take certain drugs, which is onerous but not comparable, particularly given how lax enforcement is).

I am not in any way "pro-abortion"; I think it's a kind of "worst-possible-outcome" other than a woman being forced by the state to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. I'm actually of the opinion that an embryo from the moment of conception is a human life; I just don't think the state can ever require a person to accomodate another person like that at the risk of her health (I also think McCain's "Women's health is extremist code" remark was when he lost the election).

That said I have a lot more empathy for the pro-life side than a lot of DU'ers do (having grown up with the whole southern Baptist thing), and I think the big news story here is not Obama's asking an anti-gay-marriage Evangelical to speak at his invocation, but rather that an anti-abortion preacher agreed to speak at the invocation.

This is, in my opinion, huge, and it signifies that we can start to pull together some segments of society that have unfortunately separated themselves from each other. And no, it won't be fun or pretty, but nobody ever said democracy was.

Because of how the campaign shook out, a sizeable minority of religious conservatives think Obama has an onus against Christianity (which to them means by extension the USA). Seeing Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration would do a lot to defuse that for the less committed distrustful people.

You don't build bridges to people who already are where you are.

It may be as simple as that.

It's possible he meant that. I hope so.

Some Holocaust deniers were considered, but the language barrier was an impediment for them giving the invocation.

The most benign explanation is that Obama didn't have the full dossier on Rick Warren, a more sinister explanation is that Obama purposely decided to throw LGBTs under the bus for some psychological reason.

:rofl:

Whether we like or not Warren is the most prominent and influential clergyman in the country.

If Obama had wanted to, he could've chosen an unknown but devoted, honest, hardworking pastor of a small church in Kansas to do this.

many us were looking forward to a reaffirmation of the principle of separation of church and state. Putting someone like Warren in the spotlight at such an important, precedent-setting, and symbolic event such as this seems to reaffirm that America is still headed in the wrong direction on this.

It is understandable to select the most prominent and influential clergyman for this role as has been done in the past -- e.g. Billy Graham.

It will provide political cover when Obama comes out FOR gay marriage.

Despite that, some think he's now committed to putting GLBT issues on the back-burner, despite the Obama camp updating their GLBT agenda with issues they hope to address.

So that's where it's at: Due to the Warren invitation, some believe he's now going to 'throw the GLBT community under the bus', and some think we should wait until the Obama administration has the power to sign policy into law. I'm in the latter group.

I'm exhausted. I'm resting up for the party 1-20-09 followed by a nap, and then it's show time. Obama is gearing up to come out of the gates like a freight train.

...and presumably one from whom Obama will be requesting further support.

...that had the opposite effect. ?

He and his advisers seem to think this will help Obama, and they decided it was worth taking flack from his supporters. Several people on DU have provided explanations/excuses that range from silly (he didn't know Warren's views, i.e. Obama isn't nearly as smart as we thought) to the convoluted "this is 10 moves ahead in the chess game of life and only Obama is smart enough to understand!!!!!!!"

I fully expect him to behave as a politician for the next 4 years, and that we will often be outraged by his actions, just as we would be with any other politician.

Let me start by talking about my own views. I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to be consistent on during my presidency. What I've also said is that it is important for Americans to come together even though we have disagreements on certain social issues. I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited by Rick Warren's church to speak despite his wariness that I held contrary views.... that's what this campaign was about....We're not going to agree on every single issue...but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere that we can disagree and not be disagreeable....

Here is the video, with all those "..." filled in

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4675552n

verses Obama's statements, I would tend to favor Obama. While The Shadow, may have made exciting radio entertainment, it was fiction and people are not capable of peering into the hearts of their fellow man.

if dumbass DUers said it, it must be true.

Right wing fundamentalists willing to listen to someone they didn't agree with completely! Whoah!

Obama is not going to be Bush-reversed. There was never any reason to expect he'd thumb his nose at the rightists the way they have thumbed their nose at us. It didn't work for them. Why should Obama go by a proven non-working notion?

He had me fooled. But then I wasn't supposed to be vetting him. I would guess the Obama team at least looked at his website.

Therefore my post is worthless. Unless that IS why they chose him. His book was a monster of success.

Politically: After campaigning on a new kind of politics of inclusion, failing to choose a religious voice acceptable to the right would have undermined his policy before his term even began.

Morally: Including your adversaries adds moral weight to your position among those who would not have otherwise listened.

Specifically: If yer gunna have to choose one, why not get the guy your base would LOVE to get their teeth into for a coupla weeks ... that is if they can refrain from wasting their fire on Obama and making the issue about the fractious left wing rather than the intolerant right wing.

... why we keep giving him way more than the 15 seconds of fame he deserves?

Guys like him love to be in the news and/or at the center of attention...

I prefer, as in the world's second oldest joke, to be the sadist to his masochist... He says "beat on me so I can be (or stay) in the headlines."

I say, "NO".

I've purposefully not entered this discussion, mostly because I see very little actual discussion taking place, yet I want answers to this as well. So, I've been researching here and there on my own to try to get a better handle on the relationship Obama has with Warren. And they do have a relationship ...

I've seen some of this alluded to here and there, and it's certainly possible I missed a fuller accounting because I'm avoiding most of these threads. But, when I read this, I was somewhat stunned. It's today's discussion, exactly reversed.

(Sorry I can't post a link, but I'll post the citation. I got this from the Newsbank archive, a subscription service. If anyone has access and wants a direct link to the full article, just PM me.)

Note, this is not the whole article, but these passages provide an interesting summary that I think speaks directly to the current controversy:



I'll refrain from further commentary except to say that within these passages, I believe you can see a lot of what Obama is thinking.

<<"Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit -- a sacred piece of honor in evangelical traditions -- to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?" wrote radio host and blogger Kevin McCullough.>>

This was something like the 40th article I'd read on the search terms I had used at the time, and when I first opened it, that sentence seemed to jump out in a 48pt bold font.

:hi:

I can now get back to talking about important stuff in the lounge. :D

and for good reason, it was the lack of effort on behalf of the Reagan/Bush administration fueled by the homophobic hatred of the Religious Right ("AIDS is the wrath of God against gays") which basically allowed the pandemic to take place in the first place. Should we honor Warren for his efforts in fighting AIDS? I say NO, because Evangelicals still do not promote the use of condoms (the most effective way of fighting the spread) and the Religious Right is ultimately responsible for this situation in the first place. The gay men who express extreme hatred toward Warren and anyone associated with him probably have every damn right to their anger! The fact that the Religious Right is still aligned with the high-level workings of our government is an abomination, as expressed by none other than the founding fathers of our nation.

The question of this thread, however, was "why?" I have been attempting to figure out why.

Many answers have been suggested, most of them pulled out of the air, and most of those were blindly dismissive and sarcastic. I don't find that sort of thing entirely helpful.

So, since no substantive discussion of the "why" was taking place here that I saw, I set about trying to figure it out myself. I don't know that I have a firm answer at the moment, but that article certainly provided some much needed context that allows a more reasonable answer to be suggested. Like many, I was not aware of the extent of the relationship Obama had with Warren, nor did I imagine it extended farther back in time than the primary season. They already knew each other as of 2006. Obama asked Warren to critique the chapter of _The Audacity of Hope_ on faith. They had discussed many issues and had found that they disagreed on much, but, as two people belonging to groups that traditionally refused to talk to each other, they also had a few things in common. They chose to focus on those things they had in common to try to work together on those things.

That starts to answer the "why" more realistically than the broad assertions or blind defenses that have consumed this place lately.

as I posted elsewhere on this thread, honoring people like Warren might be viewed as a necessary tactic considering that the Right has been told by other respected high-level people and media that Obama is a "domestic terrorist sympathisizer", a Marxist, a Muslim, etc, etc.

been dealing with for 8 years. Its a message to that certain group of people who are convinced that Obama is the antichrist who wants to teach five year olds to use condoms. They thought they would run things. They thought that Bush was God's chosen president and that he was being directly guided by God. Bush claimed to keep a copy of Warren's A Purpose Driven Life on his bedside table.

I still don't agree with the selection. I am an atheist who was raised by an evangelical preacher and I have a big problem with fundamentalists. Still, I understand how these people work and the bizarre ways in which they fear "liberals." I hope the Warren invocation will pull a rug out from under their feet.

they could have picked someone else.

though they would have us excluded when they were in power.

And to do it by giving the guy something that really doesn't give him any power and gives him two seconds of attention at a time when people are not interested in what he's saying (it's Obama's swearing in they are watching for).

It is DU that gives Warren extra attention. Who can even name whoever gave the invocation for *, Clinton, Pappy, or Raygun? It's DU that has given this position even enough attention for it to be remembered who did it.

He said he wanted to bridge gulfs and bring about conversations between the diverse and often non-communicative groups in America. I guess some people thought that was just lip service, the same-old same-old that politicians spew out to get votes from the fence sitters and so-called independents. We all ought to be proud, if for nothing else and even if we disagree with the Warren choice, that Obama is following through on the philosophy we was elected on.

Obama reeled from the flak he took over his nutty preacher so he veered wildy to the other end and picked another nutty one

How about, ones who did not oppose Iraq? Like Hillary Clinton? Why would Obama choose her?

His HIV/AIDS programs in Africa are actually killing people. His the donations to his poverty programs go more towards promoting Warren than helping poor people. He calls women who have abortions, Nazis. He preaches that women should be subordinate to men, Jews are going to hell, and we should murder heads of states that we don't like.

The corporate media has dubbed him "America's Pastor". I'd kind of like to keep all of the above off of America's agenda.

I heard that Warren is helping Obama quit smoking.

there had to be a good reason.

sarcasm alert on.

"This guy's not the Anti-Christ or a secret Muslim." Dobson has been calling Obama a Nazi, and he's the next in the line of social acceptability.

1. Many people on the radical right think Obama is the antichrist because he is a good communicator and a democrat (naturally the antichrist will be a democrat or someone from a group the GOP dislikes). Perhaps the Warren pick was an attempt to pick a leader of the right wing's religious agenda to show that Obama is non-threatening

2. Warren shows an interest in issues like global poverty, climate change, HIV, global illiteracy, etc which are issues that younger evangelicals care about too. Perhaps Obama is trying to build a schizm between the older evangelicals (who only care about abortion & gay marriage) with the younger ones who care about those issues too, but also are concerned with global disease, global poverty, climate change, etc.

3. Perhaps this was a message to the base that Obama will not listen to us. It is callous, but I wouldn't be surprised if on some level the Obama team knew what the response would be and decided to do it anyway just to let the democratic base know that Obama didn't or wouldn't have to listen. But that is speculation.

Thats what I came up with. On another note Warren is also virulently anti-abortion but that never gets any airtime.

it was just a stupid choice, now he can't back away because it will make him look weak.

looking deeper for reasons is a fool's errand.

However, my personal theory is that his invitation to Warren was a courtesty "thank you" for him having invited him to the Saddleback Forum during the campaign (however controversial that may have been). I can't really think of any other deeper reason than that, which is why I'm neither extremely surprised nor outraged by his choice. I don't believe that Obama's choice of Warren signals some kind of antipathy towards GLBTQ rights, abortion rights, etc. nor support for some of Warren's more controversial activities and/or beliefs that all of us are (correctly) outraged by here.

A Republican can't beat Obama in 2012 without winning almost all of the Evangelicals. If Obama can win over a few of them he will have a much smoother reelection bid.

If he can corner some evangelicals it's a major win.