Just so I'm clear, when was the person giving the Inaugural Invocation granted....

[Joe the Revelator]

...legislative power? Unless that's changed, I don't see the issue, other then the fact that it throws evangelicals a bone.

[Seen the light]

1. You don't see the issue? Here's a good link with some discussion on the matter

http://www.democraticunderground.com

[Joe the Revelator]

3. So when was Rick Warren given power of policy?

???

[OwnedByFerrets]

2. IF you dont see the issue, you are blind. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

4. So Rick Warren WAS given power to set laws?

Wow, link?

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. I throws shit in the face of millions of progressives. Yes, its an issue.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. And I think this is a gross overreaction. If Warren got a cabinet appointment you'd have a point

He didn't, so you really don't.

[EFerrari]

22. Wrong. Anyone put purposefully on a national stage during one of our most

important national ceremonies is important.

Minimize it all you like, but there it is.

[Karenina]

44. Warren's pigshit should not be "legitimized" this way...

but it's a done deal. Forensics of how he was chosen could be interesting. The Leo Strauss contingent needs to replace Falwell. Too many of their "top producers" have been compromised lately, ;-)

[SidDithers]

5. It's obvious from your replies so far that you don't see the issue..nt

Sid

[Joe the Revelator]

8. You're right, I don't

99.9% of American Preachers do not support Gay Marriage. Obama has never supported Gay Marriage. He never promised to support Gay Marriage. Even if he had a change of heart, picking Rick Warren does not help or hurt the issue of Gay Marriage because Rick Warren has no legislative power. The only thing that it does is speak to one of Obama's ACTUAL promises which was to reach out to everyone not just democrats or progressives by allowing an Evangelical to give the religious invocation. If Warren had been appointed to the cabinet, then we could talk.

[yardwork]

19. Got a link for that figure on American Preachers? Because I think you're wrong.

Are you familiar with Rick Warren's views? Do you know that he actively campaigned for Proposition 8, which Obama opposed? Do you know Warren's views on abortion - not even the life of the mother?

This is a serious mistake on Obama's part. We're talking about politics, and Obama just pissed off a sizeable chunk of his base.

[Joe the Revelator]

24. Do you have a link the your last statement?

I mean, as long as we're going to "show" on blanket statements.


Also, can you link one mainstream Evangelical who is in favor of Gay Marriage?

I probably thing Warren is as despicable as you do, I just understand why Obama picked him.

[yardwork]

27. I didn't quote an exact figure, as you did. The burden is on you to prove it.

A "sizeable chunk" of DUers are pissed off at Obama tonight, so I think that proves my point.

Obama doesn't need to choose a "mainstream Evangelical who is in favor of Gay Marriage (why the bizarre caps, by the way - is it so strange a concept that you have to give it a proper name?). All he has to do is choose one who has not made a career out of being really outrageously homophobic, anti-woman, anti-science, and generally extremely right-wing.

[JuniperLea]

6. We need to get religion out of our government...

Every last prayer. It should never have been allowed.

[Maru Kitteh]

10. With all due respect, he kind of ran as a holy roller.

And that's what we elected. I never really did love this particular side of the man, but he's who we elected.

This shouldn't be any big surprise.

[JuniperLea]

15. Holy roller? Really? I didn't see any of that...

We knew he had Christian beliefs, but he clearly ran as someone who held civil rights and Constitutional rights above personal beliefs. That is why he made it clear that he personally didn't believe in abortion, but he felt the right to choose shouldn't be taken away.

It's not that hard to be a holy roller and not let it spill over into your job. You can be a good person and do good things without waxing religious.

[Lex]

7. "Legislative power" isn't the point. Every person he chooses sends a message.

What that message is happens to be a strong indication of what his priorities are.

[Joe the Revelator]

11. I disagree

To paraphrase another reply of mine:

Rick Warren has no legislative power which means he doesn't have any control if Obama decides to have a change of heart concerning Gay Marriage. The only thing that it does is speak to one of Obama's ACTUAL promises which was to reach out to everyone not just democrats or progressives by allowing an Evangelical to give the religious invocation. If Warren had been appointed to the cabinet, then we could talk.

[Lex]

17. So if he had a Nazi Skinhead to speak at the Inauguration

you know, to be inclusive of white supremacists, then that'd be okay too, since the skinhead wouldn't have any "legislative power."

[Joe the Revelator]

21. Sure, Clinton did

Billy Graham was a huge anti-Semite.

[Lex]

23. At least you understand.

nt

[cali]

9. It sends a lousy message.

It lends a tacit approval to Warren's hateful mesage.

[Joe the Revelator]

13. Disagree

Thats the same flawed logic that the right used concerning Rev. Wright.

[cali]

20. I'm sorry, but giving Warren that platform lends legitimacy to his views.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. And sitting down with our "enemies" and talking is a reward?

[EFerrari]

18. If it means nothing, why are they doing it?

And why are hateful bigots being thrown anything?

Good grief.

[Joe the Revelator]

25. He does it to take some of the bite off the evangelicals

He knows he's going to have the majority in the house/senate to pretty much do what he wants. Why no keep them quiet for as long as possible?

[EFerrari]

28. Because it's wrong. That's why.

There's a concept: It's wrong to promote bigotry.

[Joe the Revelator]

29. Do you honestly think that Warren is going to get up and blast gays during the invocation?

Really?

[boppers]

31. Yes, simply by being there.

It doesn't even have to be anything said by him.

[Joe the Revelator]

32. Unless he proposes laws, or uses this as a bully pulpet

I don't get the OVERDONE outrage. To be clear I understand not agreeing with the choice, but to have the entire board all twitterpated? Come on.

[boppers]

43. Perhaps you don't have a stake? Or know what's at stake?

At least one poster had their opinion completely changed once they started looking into his background, his positions, and the things he's used a pulpit to say in the past.

[EFerrari]

34. Do you honestly not know the man is already representing?

Really?

[Hanse]

26. It sends a lousy message.

When Obama personally invited Shakira to sing at his inauguration, it sends a message of approval to her horrible, horrible fans.

Wait... this isn't about Shakira?

[Neshanic]

30. Cleanup on aisle 9. Jar of obvious busted all over floor. Need mop.

You need the new improved "It's just plain wrong" Jumbo size.

[last_texas_dem]

33. Yeah, because symbolism has no power in American politics.

[Joe the Revelator]

36. And the symbolism buys him capital with the evangelicals...and nothing more.

Focus on the forest.

[quaker bill]

35. Barack ran as a Christian

Barack is reportedly a Christian. He has reportedly attended Christian worship services. McCain was apparently prepared to make an issue of Barack's faith.

Pastor Warren is not all that big a deal on the evangelical front.

Invocations are normal for this ceremony and have been for a very long time. While Bishop Spong would be a more interesting choice, Warren will do the job just fine. Making an issue of this is simply ignorant and counterproductive.

Having a tepid invocation delivered by a moderate evangelical is making something that should not be an issue, not an issue. Deleting the invocation from the ceremony would make an issue over a matter that approximates nothing. If we are going to have a fight over something, let's do it over something that matters, like delivering healthcare to the poor.

[EFerrari]

37. There is nothing Christian about hatred or discrimination.

Obama was unable to find one good Christian? I find that impossible to believe.

And I find your dismissiveness of the rights of others ignorant and uncharitable.

[quaker bill]

46. I do not dismiss the rights of anyone.

Whether you find me ignorant or not is of little concern, I have sufficient accomplishments to feel entirely self assured. The Quaker Meeting I clerk marries same gender couples on the exact same basis it marries mixed gender couples, with no distinction as to process or result. We don't do separate but more or less equal, we do equal in every way, we do so in spite of the fact that it is not legal here. I had a substantive role in making this the case for not only my Meeting but those affiliated with us in the southeast.

Barack spoke often about being inclusive from the beginning of the campaign right on through to the finish line. It is reasonably accurate to state that many people who agree with Pastor Warren on a great many things were a part of the coalition that won this election. I don't need all 69 million people who voted for Barack to agree with me, and I do not object to their having some voice and participation in the inauguration.

Likewise, I have no doubt that you and I would not agree on all things, but I suspect we agreed on the candidate we supported, even if for different reasons.

[QC]

38. Warren is no moderate.

He has successfully marketed himself as one--thanks in so small part of help from politicians like Obama--but he is far from moderate.

Warren is nothing more than Jerry Falwell in a tacky Hawaiian shirt.

If Obama wanted a moderate evangelical, he could have called Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis. Instead he chose a man who has said of himself that his only difference with James Dobson is over style, not belief.

[quaker bill]

47. Wallis and Campolo

are not moderates within the evangelical spectrum. Quakers can and do get along with them. This puts them on solidly on the left end of the evangelical spectrum.

Barack chose Joel Hunter to speak at the convention. Hunter was mainline evangelical enough to be selected to lead the Christian Coalition, but when they would not add environmental and poverty concerns to their list of issues (gays and abortion) he declined the position. Hunter had no problems with the abortion and gay planks, he just wanted to add to it. He spoke on the last evening of the convention around Barack's acceptance speech.

Pastor Warren is very little different than Joel Hunter, both run mega-churches, and both have added a concern for poverty and environmental stewardship to the standard evangelical palate. Both are controversial and widely viewed as apostates from the evangelical core. Wallis and Campolo, both of whom I find more agreeable are well outside the evangelical mainstream. If you are going to go that far, why not Bishop Shelby Spong? (Anti-war Quakers like me prefer him even more).

[ruggerson]

39. I'm not surprised you don't see it Wolsh

[Joe the Revelator]

41. Yes because I'm ever so dumb

[Swede Atlanta]

40. This is VERY IMPORTANT

If O has named Rick Warren, a phony Christian pseudo-psychological neandrathol to conduct the swearing in...I'm OUT. I am out completely. I thought Barack had made smart choices to this point but his "bone" to the bigoted RW with this selection means I'm now in the opposition to him. I will fight him along the way. No honeymoon for this moron.

[Joe the Revelator]

42. The only moron is you my friend..the SCCJ is bound by law or tradition to do the swearing in

[stray cat]

45. Economy, health care, Workers wages and rights, International policy, ongoing wars

A mainstream pastor saying a prayer at a meeting - not so much

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. He'll be the guy speaking to God...

It's all very important.

:crazy: