It's an open and shut case, Rick Warren is an open bigot.

As a heterosexual it is blatantly obvious to me that Rick Warren believes not all Americans should have the right to marry the person they wish to marry.

If you oppose equal rights for all based on the innate characteristics of the people involved then you are a bigot, QED.

doesn't get any simpler than that.

Sid

There is powerful symbolism going on here and I want to understand just what message is being sent.

*sigh*

It seems like he is pandering to the right wing and I hate it. "I respect your bigoted opinions too." There are some opinions we shouldn't be willing to unite with.

Obama must have his reasons, but I still think it's a huge mistake.

Sid

And there's no excuse for bringing him on board.

He has NO value that I can discern.

That said - I'm assuming the Obama team made a calculated move choosing him. He is the 'pastor figurehead' to many of those who voted AGAINST Obama.

Obama is trying to pull in as many Americans as possible - he knows how bad things are going to get over the next few years.

This country is in a divided, polarized, propaganda (religious included)induced state of cognitive dissonance.



I'm assuming this is a very well calculated move..... Honestly, WHY would he pick this parasite if not out of NEED.



The next few years (+/-) are gonna REALLY SUCK. He needs to have as many of us as he can pulling TOGETHER.

It's not gonna be pretty.



(I posted this in another thread as well)

Given some of his picks so far, it's becoming a possibility that it's going to be the DFHs and the gays at least.

He is looking at a country in peril, falling apart at the seams - he is looking to try to get 1/3-1/2 if Warrens 'followers' to LISTEN.

We need all hands on deck.


I would lay odds he gagged on the choice.

Not all evangelicals are open bigots.

Rick Warren is not getting all hands on deck, it's a not particularly subtle fuck you to those who Warren would deny rights.

He now KNOWS how bad it will get.


I will not fault him for looking for allies in closets or propaganda driven churches.

Perhaps some will watch because of Warren and be converted to REALITY by Obama a few minutes later.

I can only hope.

Would Obama bring in David Duke to speak so the racists would get on board with his program?

I see this man as no better than David Duke.

that is NOT homophobic.

It is WHAT they are - and they voted for McCain. They might watch Warren and actually LISTEN to Obama afterwards.


These ppl are in a propagandized zealot world (my mom is one of them). Choosing Warren is a VERY calculated decision - in my opinion.

And the calculation I see makes me profoundly unhappy.

Obama being who he is I was hoping for better judgment.

Gays are quite possibly the single strongest liberal group in America today and they are being thrown to the right wing wolves.

...But in all honesty GLBT issues are going to HAVE to take a backseat to the FACT that our Economy is in tatters.


Our Country is bleeding from all orifices.


I DO NOT believe Obama is a homophobe..... I don't think you do either.

I don't trust pragmatists, they will do anything to accomplish their ends and I don't think the ends justify the means.

I do not see him as such.


I believe he is a brilliant man w/ a vision that is difficult for most to see.

I don't see it, but I see many logical steps.

It's a chess game.

As it is in chess, so is it in politics, the opening moves can determine the entire thrust of the game.

Hasn't the bigotry card been played enough?

Just 1 who has published best selling books and has a huge following and is not a homophobe.

I believe this is a chess game.

churches - they think they are about to be beamed up any minute.......

The Left is not being called on deck, we are being tossed overboard or keel-hauled.

Now, if I may, I would like to unapologetically speak as a left wing person. Can that be heard? Need I apologize for that here, or endure insults?

From a left wing point of view, the most important hands to have on deck during a crisis such as this are the left wing hands. Why is that? Because being on the left is not a matter of wanting something personally, not a matter of being a special interest group, being on the left means to support what is best for all of the people, and to see that government for the wealthy and powerful few will never be good for the majority of the people. The right, and the sort of the right, and the leaning right, and the reaching-out-to-the-right and the center and whatever other new incarnations will arise, supports rule by the wealthy and powerful few. The evidence supporting that is massive and persuasive, if and when it is given a fair hearing.

How some may not agree with us, and not think that what is best for all of the people is to help the people directly, to build from the bottom up, to give labor the higher consideration than capital, to care for the least among us, rather than trickle down on people. That is their prerogative. But to portray the left as though it were some narrow special interest group, out of the mainstream, is a lie.

The general public has finally rejected Reaganomics. Why are so many Democrats working so hard to revive that failed and dangerous set of ideas? Why should a Democratic win mean that the left has less voice, less influence, less power?

One would think that it had been the homophobic bigots who are the persecuted minority, abused and excluded from power, and so now finally being welcomed in.

One would think that it was the imperialists and war mongers who have been wandering in the wilderness and need to be given a seat at the table.

One would think that it was the NCLB model that had not gotten a fair trial.

One would think that it was the War on Drugs that had been rejected, never implemented and that now deserved a try.

One would think that it was poor Monsanto that had been ignored and given no voice in government.

One would think that the Wall Street sharks were innocent victims of the working people.

All hands on deck? This is the same hands that have been on deck all along. This is the same hands that caused all of the problems.

The left is not being invited on deck. As a leftist, I say that means that 70% of the people - their needs and aspirations - are being ignored. If I didn't believe that, I would not be a leftist and I would be honest with people and call myself a Republican.

The public has moved to the left. There is no need to pander to any right wing. This is moving the country back to the right. Why would any Democrat want to do that?

After Bush won were any of us welcomed in? He had less of a mandate. His popularity was based on lies and deception and fear-mongering. He felt no need to "reach out" to anyone on the left. Why are we supposed to believe that we are so fragile and weak that we must pander to the right wing extremists?

I do not understand the need to soil one of our greatest civic events with the presence of an unapologetic bigot.

from people like you, in as polite a language as you can type why you are offended at this man's participation in the inauguration. If they felt the need to respond because of push-back, it seems pretty obvious they need more 'push-back'
to email the members of the Congressional Inauguration Committee
Go here:
http://inaugural.senate.gov/cmte/

To post a message at change.gov
Go here:

http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory

I just don't think it was the right thing to do.

I think this was a choking choice. It's gonna get real bad real soon.

If you cannot change what's going to happen you can at least get as many ppl as possible to listen to your 'cure'.

who supported McPOW, it's going to fail.

When will Obama and the rest of the Democrats understand that they cannot do anything - EVER - to win over those fools? Those people want to put people like us out of business. They don't like us, they don't want to be part of anything we're espousing, and they would do whatever it took to make sure we were disenfranchised, if they could.

It's a poke in the eye to those of us who supported him, and a slap in the face to gays.

I am so disappointed. I hope this is just an aberration, and that my dreams for Obama really will come true.

How much more treachery in the name of political expediency are we supposed to absorb?

I believe it is an attempt to bring another 8-20 million into the 'fold'. Warrens followers are sheep... they NEED a STRONG LEADER. Perhaps after watching warrens pathetic ramblings they will be re-invigorated with a NEW Leader.... A man who speaks to their woes (housing, retirement, jobs...)


A TRUE Leader.


I'm just guessing, but I feel pretty confident.:patriot:

If Obama doesn't feed the monster it will either leave or eat him.

If you think fundagelicals are all of a sudden going to start loving gays, I want some of that moonshine you've been gulping.

I live down here in fundietopia and they are bigots to the bone on this issue.

Even she has been wavering. Their 'STRONG LEADERS' have been wrong over and over again.


It causes cognitive dissonance.


It can be USED.

Look around, those who were right all along can't even get on the media, nobody serious listens to us.

ppl are looking for ANSWERS and SOLUTIONS.


Only the most 'far gone' are immune from LOGIC.

The logic for ending the drug war is inexorable and has been ever since it began yet most people are adamantly resistant to it.

....but the issue is whether Obama is taking a calculated risk in bringing in a extremely wildly popular fundie RW whacko in order to 'preach to his (warrens) flock'.


I believe he is doing so on a chessboard.

An example of how logic simply doesn't work in American politics.

Where did you get the idea that I thought anything "... was designed to 'poke (me) in the eye'"?

Your reading of what I wrote is part of the problem. Your inability to conceptualize the error I see in this selection - I may be right, I may be wrong, but it's only my opinion - is symptomatic of the kind of blind following and trust that's gotten us into the place where we are today - and it is not a very good place.

Sure. People are going to change completely their closely-held beliefs because of an invocation delivered by the man they admire.

I can just imagine it: "Say, if Obama chose Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, that must mean that he's really One Of Us and so we'll just put aside all our opposition to him and embrace him and love him and support him and he must be the greatest guy in the world."

That's how you think it's going to work.

Snap out of it. This is nothing but craven pandering to a group that loathes Obama, people like you and me, and everything we all stand for and believe. No matter how symbolic the gesture Obama's team might make towards mollifying these people, it will fail. At best, it will be seen as some kind of hollow victory - "At least he's seeing things OUR way now" might be a characterization - but, in truth, it's a sad and sorry act of weakness that, to my eternal regret, will put Rick Warren, a man worthy only of scorn, into the history books forever.

I regret that. I regret this choice, and I'm glad you're feeling confident, but I do hope you can expand your thinking to comprehend how others, who may or may not share your confidence in whatever you're celebrating, might be feeling right now.

Imagine if Warren were as rabid about being anti-Jewish as he is about being anti-gay. Can you imagine the outcry that would have accompanied the announcement of his selection?

It's wrong. I am not given to absolute pronouncements, but this is morally wrong, politically opportunistic, and an unfortunate episode in a time that I still find wondrous. I will not let Rick Warren take away my relief at having those neocon monsters out of power. But, in truth, in the causes he espouses, Warren is no different from them. He is a hater.

so we can work "together".

right.

It's gonna get ugly real fast.


Read my other replies.

Yep, and nothing so unites people as a scapegoat.

Honestly.... do you?

How scapegoats unite the folly of men.

Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTW19g-uUTw

Honestly.

the majority of people in our Country don't support gay marriage - based on the votes in various States against gay marriage.

I voted against the ban in Ohio in '04. I was pissed that Blackwell even got it on the ballot. Pandering, promoting homophobia, divisive.. etc. It fucking sucked.

But, the fact is that we have not won a majority to our side.

We cannot do that by telling them all to fuck off.

We have to talk to them, include them and make them understand. Obviously not all of them will, we just have to win enough to get a majority.

We need a strategy to win the right of gays to marry - one that will take time and one that is a massive PR initiative to the public. We can't just demand it and throw out those that don't agree with us.

We also need a President that will appoint liberal judges. I hope Obama does.

We also cannot tell them to fuck off if the do agree with us on other things and can help save the lives of children in Darfur or the DR Congo or NYC.

for their bigoted organizations is one hell of an odd way to start that PR initiative.

I just see it as including people into a conversation.

We may not change Rick Warren, but we don't want to just write off people that don't agree with us - it is an issue that we need to work at to make change happen. Perhaps including people such as Warren who have a lot of followers can make the followers see that they are included in the conversation and maybe open some minds?

I do see your point very clearly tho - I'm not sold on the Warren thing - just trying to understand it. I do support inclusiveness - I felt kind of like an abused spouse under Bush/Cheney and hope that things can be different - we cannot exclude conservatives or Republicans right now - our Country has a lot of work to do and we can't just be fighting each other.

Look at which way the power and the urge to suppress flows.. The evangelicals have the power and the urge to suppress, the gays not so much.

I see this man as no better than David Duke, would you think him inappropriate speaking on stage at the inauguration?

The thing is that a true pragmatist will do *anything* to accomplish his means.

I don't believe the end justifies the means.

If Rick Warren was the only evangelical preacher around you would have a decent point.

Why not get someone to bless Obama's inauguration who is *inclusive* rather than *exclusive*?

There is strong juju in symbolism and there is something going on here I don't fully understand but what I do understand I don't like.

He is simply reaching out to the more liberal church going Americans and telling more liberal evangelicals that they don't have much to worry about from him. Obama may also figures that throwing Warren a couple of shiny beads and some free publicity will help him in the long run. Warren may support some Obama policies from the pulpit (in so far as he can without loosing tax exempt status). Hard to know. I don't like Warren's views and would have hoped that Obama would have found someone a little less divisive.

that to get the right wing bigots to support the rights of gays to marry, we should invite anti gay marriage people to lead the invocation at the inaugural
thats like saying to get the neonazis to support the rights of black people we should invite David Duke to lead the invocation at the inaugural
its the same thing

I was replying to the OP about people that don't support the rights of gays to marry - unfortunately it IS a majority of Americans and we need to change that. We won't change the minds of some that are very right-winged and hold onto their bigotry - but we can change enough minds in time.

I don't think it is the same thing about neonazis - most of them are absorbed in their hatred and we may never change them. The rights of black people in our country has been a very long struggle. It seems to me that we (progressives and liberals) have won rights for blacks, women, homosexuals, labor, all minorities throughout the years/decates/centuries... at times we have slipped backward.. but we continue the struggle forward. At a point in history - it was okay with enough people that women didn't vote and that black people were slaves. We win, we make progress and we continue. but, all along, we have to reach out to those that don't agree with us to make change happen.

and we are giving him a voice. It is the same thing as asking David Duke to attend the inauguration to shore up the neonazi vote for Obama to ask Rick Warren to attend to shore up the evangelicals.
in the meantime, Obama will lose significant votes from people like me.
Warren hates gays as much as neonazis hate blacks. same thing.

I did and it made me feel better, let em know, it helps

http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory

My guess is they're just looking for feedback to most thoroughly dis the left.

And I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not, you decide how to take it.

But thanks for the link anyway, I'm not going off on you personally.

Sid

like civil rights. But he didn't invite the Klan on stage with him.

Oh and let's not mention that he put out a personal letter to his congregation urging them to vote yes on prop 8. What a dipshit.

I don't read stuff that's just going to raise my blood pressure, I already have to take meds for that. :)

That will lower your blood pressure.

Apparently he thinks that everyone should be like him - a fat ass, ignorant, gay-hating douchebag.