The Rev Rick Warren is Barack Obama's choice to do the Invocation at His Inauguration

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 19, 2008 12:37 AM GMT
    I am deeply insulted that Barack Obama has chosen this homophobe to go anywhere near the microphone on that day
    What do you guys think?

    This is the same Rick Warren who said

    "We support Proposition 8," California's constitutional gay marriage ban that was "needed," he said, because "four guys," otherwise known as the majority vote in the California Supreme Court, overturned the "will of the people" in affirming same-sex couples' right to marry in May. "And if you believe what the Bible says about marriage," he added, "you need to support Proposition 8."

    http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/obamawarren121708.html

    <object width=">
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Dec 19, 2008 1:25 PM GMT
    I agree, I think it is horrible, and those who think it is a reach across the aisle, I disagree with. As I mentioned elsewhere, had this man made made anti-black remarks, he would be no where in sight. Minorities just don't see discrimination with gay people as the same thing.

    I still think Jeremiah Wright would have been a good pick!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2008 2:04 PM GMT
    I am not insulted by his selection at all. As a matter of fact I have a great deal of respect for his decision.

    We have no idea what discussions that Obama may have had with this clergyman. President Elect-Obama may have said to him in his Invocation Sermon that he will have to include all Americans in his sermon.

    President Elect Obama is a smart man he is very careful in his decision making process. I'm sure he had a reason for making the decision that he made.

    This one decision does not un do the fact for the first tine ever that A Gay and lesbian Marching will be in attendance and also the a Lesbian holds a major position in his cabinet.

    I do not feel slighted or insulted at all. If it's one thing that my parents taught me growing up being African American and Cuban is that if you want people to be tolerant of you, have to be tolerant of them. You should welcome all people to the table even those who you know don't like you. What they do when they get to the table now that's a different story.

    There was a plethora of Clergymen that he could have chose, he just may have chose this one to educate him what better way to do that, then what he's doing.

    We are so quick to make a snap judgment, myself included but we have to take a moment at look at the big picture, because it's not just about me, or you, it's about us.

    Best way to fight bigotry is to show a person a better way. That is what I do in the mainstream and also that is how I confront bigotry within the rank and file within the Gay Community! God knows it's there still!icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2008 2:17 PM GMT
    I am split on this issue: Rick Warren being choosen to speak at Obama's inaugeration.

    On one side: We gays cry out for tolerance, diversity and understanding. Doesn't the diversity of views include those of Rick Warren? We are a decomcracy afterall. And what of this quote: "You can become so tolerant, that you become intolerant of those who are not as tolerant as you." Does the gay community really stand for tolerance and diversity? Or is being tolereant of gay people and other minorities the litmus test for being an overall tolerant person.

    On the other side: If we celebrate the diversity of everyone--to include radical right christians--do we invite Westboro Baptist Church? The KKK? Don't they have views as well which should be represented? Where does it stop?

    The fine line between bigotry and "values":

    I believe there is a fine line between bigotry/hate and values/morals. And people tend to hide behind a 2000+ year old book. But I don't think all religious folks are necessarily bigots. I believe that they truely believe what they are doing it morally "right." And when we try to explain to people our point of views, the shout out Biblical verses. Some have even been trained to believe that when someone (e.g. Me) disputes the Bible, the devil is influenceing that person (Me) to test the faith of the Christain believer. Meaning, if I challenge the beliefs of a Christian, I have been sent by the devil to test the Christian. When they resist opening their minds to other possiblities, they have concured the devil and are more greatful to God.

    How do you win with someone like that. I believe people have been brainwashed and are not truly bigots deep inside--even though they may act, speak, and vote like bigots.

    Who do we have to thank? People like Rick Warren, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and a bunch of republican politicans.

    So, I know how it feels to be descriminated againsts (well not personally, but I take a lot of things our leaders say to heart). Do we refuse people who are different from us to gather/speak at Obama's special day? If so where do the invitations end? With Rick warren? the KKK? Westboro Baptist Church? If Warren's views are "right" because the bible says so what about WBC and the KKK? Bible verses can be twisted many ways.

    I wish not to be intolerant, yet aren't there some people who just don't belong at a Presidentail Inaugreation... especially for a president who is for "Change?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2008 2:38 PM GMT
    He continues to "pick" interesting ministers to follow, "worship" with and promote.

    But sure religous beliefes and affiliation(s) have nothing to do with your personal views... icon_eek.gif

    cough, cough, bull, cough, shit
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2008 2:40 PM GMT
    For real inclusiveness, he should have picked Pastor Peter J. Peters, who's a homophobe and a racist.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 20, 2008 12:18 AM GMT
    President Elect Obama is a smart man he is very careful in his decision making process. I'm sure he had a reason for making the decision that he made.


    Oh Yeah? Don't forget This is the same guy who told Obama that John McCain was in a "Cone of Silence" before his freakin' debate at his Church

    I guess Thou Shalt not Lie doesn't work for Fat Homophobes Right?
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 12:43 AM GMT
    GQjock saidPresident Elect Obama is a smart man he is very careful in his decision making process. I'm sure he had a reason for making the decision that he made.


    Oh Yeah? Don't forget This is the same guy who told Obama that John McCain was in a "Cone of Silence" before his freakin' debate at his Church

    I guess Thou Shalt not Lie doesn't work for Fat Homophobes Right?


    A lie? An error. Warren seemed genuinely surprised to learn that McCain was in his motorcade at the time.

    We need to stop foaming at the mouth about this one. By April, no one will even remember who gave the invocation.

    The president-elect promised from the getgo to be inclusive of other points of view, and let's face facts that Warren and Obama actually share a good deal of common ground - even if they don't agree on everything. This is not a bad choice, and it shows this man's fundamental strength of character and his ability to not be divisive. After eight years of W, a president who refused to share any conversation with those who disagreed with him, we should be estatic about this.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 20, 2008 1:08 AM GMT
    genuinely surprised???

    Give me a Break

    It was HIS debate to Run at HIS Church
    That was a set up .... sanctioned from the Lord on high I guess

  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 1:23 AM GMT
    GQjock saidgenuinely surprised???

    Give me a Break

    It was HIS debate to Run at HIS Church
    That was a set up .... sanctioned from the Lord on high I guess



    McCain was running late and was in his motorcade at the time; Warren had spent the previous hour preaching to his congregation. He had naturally assumed when Obama came out to answer questions that McCain was on time and was in the church where he was supposed to be. Whether or not McCain "cheated" by listening to the forum on the radio is another story, but if this was a set up, do you really think McCain's campaign would take the initiative to admit that McCain was not in the building at the time.

    Stranger things in politics have happened than just a case of bad timing so spare us the hysterical outrage. If you insist on hyping up everything that looks bad, you'd have to assume alot of mean things about the president-elect. Try to remain fair to everyone.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 20, 2008 12:01 PM GMT
    There are no "Stranger Things" in politics

    You think Warren's people just didn't take notice when the McCain "Cone" was empty?
    You don't think that when the candidates are going to be asked the SAME questions an empty "CONE" isn't something a bit odd?

    So maybe I'm wrong, instead of him being a lying sack.... he's like Bush
    Just an Incompetent Sac
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 12:33 PM GMT
    It's unrealistic to believe that every person on the inauguration stage will be politically/morally "neutral." Better that Obama included people who don't all think the same. Our country - indeed, our gay causes - DEPEND upon all manner of people talking to each other. Same as around the world.

    Personally? I dislike Rick Warren, and so what? Some people dislike civil rights leaders Rev. Joseph Lowery or Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

    It's a party... an opportunity to make new friends.

  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 12:41 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    You think Warren's people just didn't take notice when the McCain "Cone" was empty?


    No. I think they did. That's why it was plastered all over CNN the next day. I just don't know if his minions had an opportunity to inform Warren since he was the one on stage running the show. Who wants to be interrupted during a speech live before thousands of people (and trasmitting on radio and tv to potentially millions of families) with inconvenient details?

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/17/warren-mccain-did-not-violate-cone-of-silence/[quote]

    GQjock saidThere are no "Stranger Things" in politics

    So maybe I'm wrong, instead of him being a lying sack.... he's like Bush
    Just an Incompetent Sac


    It was definitely a mistake. I don't know if it makes him incompetent. We're judging him on different standards than a president or a presidential candidate. It definitely shows bad planning and lack of foresight.

    I hope you're consistent though. You seem totally unwilling to give this man any benefit of the doubt. So I'd hope as a matter of fairness, you at least believe some of the right-wing typecasting of our president-elect.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 20, 2008 1:18 PM GMT
    unwilling to give this man any benefit of the doubt.

    Why should I?
    He's proclaimed himself to be a spiritual bigot already
    see self-described video above

    and what's this "fairness" that you keep alluding to?
    as if because I call Warren out on his lies means that Obama's a lying sac too?
    That doesn't make sense my man
    Just because Bush for example is a war criminal doesn't make someone he associates with one
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 1:53 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    He's proclaimed himself to be a spiritual bigot already


    I think you need to re-evaluate the solution to his bigotry. If you want to promote tolerance and understanding, lashing out at your opponent on the basis of conjecture is not a good place to start.

    GQjock said
    and what's this "fairness" that you keep alluding to? as if because I call Warren out on his lies means that Obama's a lying sac too?


    No. But during this campaign, we have seen Obama attacked purely on the basis of association with people like Wright, Rezko, and Ayers. Some of those attacks were outrageous, and yet some of them painted a more troubling picture of Obama.

    Regardless, you are employing the same guilt-by-association framework now that it benefits your argument, but I only can recall you vehemently defending Obama when those tactics were used against him.

    GQjock said
    Just because Bush for example is a war criminal doesn't make someone he associates with one


    Exactly why I have no problem with Warren giving the invocation. Warren is his own man, and so is Obama. The is really a small gesture on the part of Obama to evangelicals to say that, "Even though we disagree on some moral issues, we can find common areas to work together on - poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change."
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 2:14 PM GMT
    mtnbiker7 saidThis move feels like Obama saying "thank you for your help, now fuck off"


    Interesting. Maybe you haven't sorted this one out yet, but the country is in a state of ruin right now and there are more important concerns than our sensitivities. It is not all about us.

    I've already spoken to Obama's suggested approach of bipartisanship, so I won't repeat that.

    I understand the hatred everyone has of Rick Warren. It's really easy to feel that way when you're angry, when your rights have been trodden on. And sometimes when I look at a preacher like Pat Robertson, I do see a man who is inhuman.

    But that's not Rick Warren. He has taken alot of pain from the evangelical community for reaching out in the ways he has, and that is worth something to me. I see a man with prejudiced beliefs, certainly someone who is wrong about a great many things. But I do not see someone who is inhuman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 3:29 PM GMT
    I'm not insulted or slighted by Obama's pick at all. I have no problems with Christians who think that practicing homosexuality is wrong. Expecting Obama to associate only with people who believe that practicing homosexuality is morally permissible is naive and a little silly. Besides, we're talking about prayer here, not policy making.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 4:21 PM GMT
    styrgan said
    mtnbiker7 saidThis move feels like Obama saying "thank you for your help, now fuck off"


    Interesting. Maybe you haven't sorted this one out yet, but the country is in a state of ruin right now and there are more important concerns than our sensitivities. It is not all about us.



    Exactly. It's really not all about us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 4:28 PM GMT
    BlkMuscleGent said
    styrgan said
    mtnbiker7 saidThis move feels like Obama saying "thank you for your help, now fuck off"


    Interesting. Maybe you haven't sorted this one out yet, but the country is in a state of ruin right now and there are more important concerns than our sensitivities. It is not all about us.



    Exactly. It's really not all about us.


    I'd say that Warren is to Obama as Palin is to McCain.

    Not happy about it, but it's not a show stopper for me. As others have said, this does seem to connote a more tempered approach by Obama to influence social policy/change in the wake of this economic meltdown.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 4:32 PM GMT
    Perhaps I'm looking at this too simply, but...

    It's just for the inauguration, it's not an appointment to a cabinet post. It's no big deal.

    I agree with a lot of the points made by cjcscuba.

    And let's trust Obama with making intelligent decisions despite our disagreements with them. He can't please us (the gay community) all the time.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 20, 2008 4:39 PM GMT
    ruck_us saidI'd say that Warren is to Obama as Palin is to McCain.


    Can you explain what you mean by that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 4:52 PM GMT
    styrgan said
    ruck_us saidI'd say that Warren is to Obama as Palin is to McCain.


    Can you explain what you mean by that?


    The word "pandering" comes to mind, but the sentiment wasn't that strong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 5:11 PM GMT
    I don't like this warren guy, but there are plenty of people like him. No doubt, there will be plenty of people in the white house who have issues with gay people so I am taking this in stride. I don't think Obama understands how offensive this is to many gay people, but that is because he is straight.

    I have seen good arguments against Warren, and fully sympathize with the anger at the decision, but in the end the decision is not ours. Overall I have not lost faith in Obama to help gay people out. We will see how much at the end of the next 4 years. I am not counting Obama out as my gut instinct says he is a good person.
  • hartfan

    Posts: 1037

    Dec 20, 2008 6:12 PM GMT
    This is a question that has always bugged me. How do we get them to see the bigotry of their beliefs? How do we win over people's hearts and minds? When is this discrimination going to end? I have had countless sleepless nights and troubled days because of this.

    I do understand we need to bring together people of many different views and backgrounds. But how can I try to be civil and understanding when the other side constantly attempts to condescend to me and devalue my rights and worth as a person? I really want to make this work but sometimes I feel like I'm backed into a corner.

    Obama had run on a campaign of hope and change. I know there are more important things to worry about in the country right now, and I would not want him to ignore the bigger problems. However, I am finding few reasons to hope that things will improve. I refuse to be cynical and give up, because I cannot live like this. But I don't know how much I can count on Obama to change things and be my beacon of hope. Yes, his inauguration is still weeks away, and there are at least four years he can work that around. Yet why am I finding myself flailing for any signs of change? Somehow I am not very impressed with just a gay band marching on inauguration. Am I impatient and foolish for wanting more?

    Many say that the fight for gay rights is going to win out. Then I look around and I still see people losing their homes and their jobs because of their sexual orientation, and there are still no laws to protect them. Why is this still the case, 30 years after Harvey Milk? Why isn't anybody fighting against this? Why aren't we? Why haven't we succeeded?

    Where is the Harvey Milk of our generation?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2008 8:11 PM GMT
    Atlazeia said
    And let's trust Obama ...


    You poor fellow, you seem to forget that Obama is a politician.