My one and only OP on Warren. Why I'm not outraged....

[MercutioATC]

I'm atheist, so I think it's all a nice fairy tale...but I support a group of people's right to form a little club and set their own rules (as long as they don't receive government money).

If a church wants to blatantly discriminate against gays...or blacks...or people of Italian descent...or women........or people born in March...that should be their right.

Having somebody read the invocation at an inauguration is nothing more than letting some person "cast a spell". It has nothing to do with decision-making or policy or, really, anything else. Warren is going to stand behind a lectern and cast a spell.

Who cares?

The potential upside is this:

1) No President can bring about change by leading half a nation. Regardless of differences, we need to find some common ground and all work together.

2) Including people like Warren in the process...not in policy-making, just the process...gives credence to Obama's stated desire to avail himself of bipartisan input.

3) There will always be those who refuse to change their minds, but many will view gestures like this as evidence that Obama isn't another cookie-cutter Dem.

And, most importantly...

4) The dog and pony show aside, if Obama wants to be an effective President, he needs to connect with a majority of the population. Not just Democrats, but Republicans and Independents and people with absolutely no political affiliation...and he needs that connection to be real.

For decades, it's been "us against them". Republicans hold power and advance their agenda...until something goes wrong and public sentiment changes. Democrats do the same thing. Both parties view America as a battlefield...more concerned with gaining some slim advantage than ending the war.

Obama has the opportunity to do things differently. His Warren pick follows that goal of inclusion. That may be distressing to some because of their personal agendas, but I believe it's a good thing. We need to move beyond "us vs. them" and find the things we have in common even as we realize the things that separate us. That's the only way any of us is going to see a meaningful positive change.


We are one people. We are one nation." What did you think that meant?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Warren wasn't chosen "at random." Obama chose to have this hate monger represent us to the world.nt

[MercutioATC]

3. OP edited to remove the word "random".

I stand by the central argument, though.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Thank you.

Have a good holiday!

[MercutioATC]

6. You too!

We might not agree on this issue, but we still have a lot more in common than we have differences.

Peace :)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

33. Too bad Obama didn't pick a less hateful preacher

Warren is really stuffing his own big feet in his very fat mouth lately.

I was willing to live and let live, but Obama could have picked a better choice.

There are pastors out there who don't preach this hate stuff or equate themselves with Christ,
yet would be acceptable to the "Christians".

[RandomThoughts]

35. From the view of his constituency

Some of them at least, he is going to lead the prayer for that 'other side' Don't you see, from their perspective, he is showing love to what the 'religious right' say he should call his enemies.

Then on FOX, he talks about death threats he got, showing he is the persecuted one, showing to his people, and their perspective, that he is again in the right.

If you can show him love, and make the comment you disagree, then a comment makes sense. But if you get angry, then which side are you on? Which side are you on from their perspective, and from your perspective? And if you do not care about there perspective, what are you trying to accomplish?

Your perspective and theirs is different, that is the whole issue. Regardless of right and wrong, it is what people think right and wrong that makes perspective, that is what the discussion is about.

Is it your perspective you are worried about? Or is it letting others examine their own perspectives? And trying to get others to look at both perspectives based on how people conduct themselves from within their own groups view.

Their actions to you seem like hate because they hurt, but to them they think they are love, because they see your 'being' differently.

This is complicated, but if you believe you have equal rights, and equal value, do not get mad at them, look on them as children needing love and support to get over their ways. They do not realize it is hurtful, they do not believe it is hateful. So calling them hating, even if it is clear in your perspective, only reinforces their point of view of persecution and lets them think they are correct.

yes it feels hateful to you, but they do not think they are hating, they think they are loving. If nothing else, understand that.

March, talk, love, sing, do anything that can not be seen as mean spirited.

but don't hate on individuals or even show contempt or outrage. From their perspective, that justifies their actions.

It is that complicated, and why it takes decades, if ever, for public opinion to change. If it is meant to be, it takes time, but it also takes more sacrifice and self control from those trying to change things, then it does from those accepting a change.

Civil rights did not occur, because bigots changed their minds. It happened because they died off over time, and were replaced by a new generation. All you can do is show love to those you consider bigoted, so they have no way of hanging a bad label on you.

Thats what I think.

[IsItJustMe]

44. You got it. MLK and Gandhi got it also, and they were able to change the world because they got it.

[NJmaverick]

2. All I have to say is:

:applause:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

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

[DesertFlower]

4. i'm also an atheist

and i agree with you.

[dkf]

7. Athiests/Agnostics are used to indulging religious people on any wacky thing they may want to do/say

Seriously, are we supposed to boycott weddings, funerals, graduation ceremonies, inaugurations, etc because we don't agree with the preacher/minister/priest?

I don't like religious people telling me I must hate gays and I don't like supporters of GLBTs telling me I must hate Rick Warren. Both sides offend me because of their insistence that we must shun the other.

I will accept you whether you are gay, straight, trans, male, female, white, black, hispanic, asian, whatever. But please don't tell me how to think and don't tell me who I have to like or not like and how I should judge others.

[roody]

8. I have a secret wish that Obama is lulling

the right wing into complacency, so that we can get some progressive legislation passed. Nevertheless, protest begins anew on January 20.

[MercutioATC]

9. My wish is that he's living up to his campaign rhetoric...

...and he intends to be the President of the United States, not the President of the Democrats.

[ColbertWatcher]

13. He can be President of all U.S. citizens without ...

... throwing the majority of us under the proverbial bus.

The choice of Warren to speak at his inaugural was the first outright disrespectful thing I've seen Obama do.

[MercutioATC]

15. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see it as throwing anybody under the bus.

Has it upset a segment of the GLBT community (and the progressive community in general)? Sure.

It also sends a message. I believe it's an important message.

We are ONE people and we are ONE nation and we ALL have to have a seat at the table. The things we have in common outweigh our differences and we ALL need to listen to each other respectfully, even (especially) when we disagree.


This is NOT politics as usual, this is real change...on a very large scale.

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Sorry, this is politics as usual.

This is not an Emancipation Proclamation, Executive Order 9981, or 19th Amendment, as Swamp Rat said below (in post #22, this is a "three-fifths compromise."

[MercutioATC]

19. Perspective, my dear ColbertWatcher...

This is bigger than any GLBT or religious or political affiliation issues.

This IS an Emancipation Proclamation...and one more difficult than Lincoln made. It's creating change from within rather than imposing it on the opposition.

Will it work? I have no idea...but I view it as a very good first step.

[ColbertWatcher]

21. I'm sorry, but again, you're mistaken.

The rich and powerful do not need emancipation; they already own and control everything.

I'm sure if Bernie Madoff frequented DU, he might even get to see this thread, since he's at home.

[MercutioATC]

47. I didn't mean it to be literal...

...but I think (if this is actually what Obama is doing) that changing the way the President leads is of equal, if not greater, import.

[ColbertWatcher]

62. "Changing the way the President leads"

Why not do what got him to the presidency? Through respect.

[MercutioATC]

90. I think this IS what got him to the Presidency.

To win the Presidency, he had to appeal to people outside his base. He did that by advocating communication and inclusion...an end to the divisiveness.

I think this is one small example of how he plans to do that. I don't see it as inconsistent at all.

[roody]

16. I'm not a Democrat; I'm a Green.

I'd rather he represent me than the military-industrial complex.

[Creideiki]

38. You know, we really should change that title:

President of the Straight United States.

He's clearly not intending to be President to the minority that are in the LGBT community. He's said that he doesn't agree that we deserve full rights. He's backed away on eliminating DADT, because, I guess, allowing gay people to serve might alleviate some of the need to allow felons into the military, but it would also mean that gay people would be able to serve openly with honor and integrity--can't have that.

He's "for" a full repeal of the DOMA, but then wants to come up with some "basic set of rights" for same-sex couples that won't be all the rights that straight married couples get. Again, not really looking to be my President--seems more like he wants to be President of the Heterosexist United States. It's kind of funny, because I've seen same-sex monogamous couples take flack in the gay community for being "hetero-normative".

What I really want to know is if I get 50% of the rights of the straight people, does that mean I get a 50% discount on my taxes?

[RetiredTrotskyite]

73. THANK YOU, Dinkeldog....

because you've hit the nail on the head! Yeah, Obama is President. He's just not my presidedent or that of any LGBT person who thinks. He can have his nice little Xtian bigot casting his spell...whatever. I have better things to do than to watch us being stabbed in the back for all to see. Change, my ass! Change only if you are straight--for gays it's different day, same shit!

[Hokie]

11. Proud to be the 5th recommendation on this one

I think many people are having trouble coming to grips with the fact that Obama is a very different kind of politician than the ones we have seen in the last 20 - 40 years. He ACTUALLY means what he says about inclusion and the end of some of the ridiculous partisan bickering for bickering's sake. It is not just rhetoric. This doesn't mean he is unprincipled. This just means he will listen to anyone and respect everyone's opinion. Big change in this country is effected generally in two ways. One way is through huge events like 9/11. That worked to Bush's favor without him having to be smart or do much of anything. The people were scared to death and willingly lined up to grant Bush extraordinary powers. The other way is through cajoling, repetition, and juxtaposition of views. This way is much harder, takes more skill and requires that people be engaged enough to listen. This is the Obama way.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Sweet words.

1) No President can bring about change by leading half a nation. Regardless of differences, we need to find some common ground and all work together.

While I agree with your sentiment that a President cannot lead half a nation, by selecting Warren, are you implying that "our common ground" is that we all hate gays?

BTW, Lincoln lead half a nation. And so did Clinton. Hell, I'd even say Nixon did, but then he had the good graces to resign when it became clear that he didn't have one quarter of the nation behind him.

2) Including people like Warren in the process...not in policy-making, just the process...gives credence to Obama's stated desire to avail himself of bipartisan input.

Policy-making is reflected in the process. Take Cheney's energy meeting at the beginning of his term as President. Secrecy is not a good policy and neither is discrimination and encouraging a theocracy.

3) There will always be those who refuse to change their minds, but many will view gestures like this as evidence that Obama isn't another cookie-cutter Dem.

True, some people will never open their minds, but I disagree with how many there will be. I fear it will be closer to "a few" not "many," and that they may view this not as a new librul, but as a validation of their hatred toward women, gays, science, and the process by which America makes laws. In other words, there will be far too many who view it as a confirmation of the bias they already have about anyone who is not already in their club.

4) The dog and pony show aside, if Obama wants to be an effective President, he needs to connect with a majority of the population. Not just Democrats, but Republicans and Independents and people with absolutely no political affiliation...and he needs that connection to be real.

If Obama wants to be an effective President, he needs to be calm and steady, which he has been all throughout the primary and the general election. But, he also needs to be respectful, which--up until the Warren pick--he has been without question. If Warren is allowed to say a prayer at a state function however, the world will see that some people (women, gays, scientists, people who don't want America to become a theocracy) are less deserving of respect than others (people who hate women, gays, scientists, ant want America to become a theocracy).

Speaking of processes, a real connection can be made through hours of volunteering to get Obama elected (like many women, gays, scientists and people who don't want to turn this country into a theocracy did) and not the symbolism of using women, gays, scientists and people who want America to stay a secular nation as sacrificial political lambs just to make political points with bigots.

For decades, it's been "us against them".

Yes it has and it's high time we stop extending our hands to them, just to get it chopped off.

I thought this country had enough of bigots holding us hostage to their narrow world-view. They're welcome to join us in the 21st century--we won't make them feel bad about evolving past the hatred they cling to to make themselves feel better that they don't have jobs. Or maybe they won't have to hate anyone else if they could keep their house or be optimistic about what tomorrow could bring.

In fact, as libruls I'll bet we'd be more than willing to help them stop being so damned hateful.

Come to think of it, most of us can sing a way to help them,

We the People,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4703565&mesg_id=4703607">DUer sarge43 suggested it in another thread and I think it would be a more appropriate thing to hear and should be the new tradition to replace the unconstitutional prayer at the inaugurals.

And, sorry, but, that includes Lowery's turn at the end, too.

[Swamp Rat]

14. Why I am outraged...

Imagine you had a large group of friends who just had their marriages annulled by another even larger group of ignorant, mean people...

And some of their friends, from whom they expected unqualified support, sold them a "three-fifths compromise" instead...





How can we be unified as a nation as long as some do not share all our unalienable rights?




:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

18. I agree 100% with you regarding equal rights.

...and, as offensive as some of his statements are to me, I think that Warren is OK with them too.

He's just hung up on the "marriage" nomenclature (as are many "religious" people). I think he cares less about gays having equal legal rights than he does about sullying the word "marriage". Call it something different, give it the same legal status as today's marriage, and I really don't think Warren would fight it.

That's why I'm constantly advocating changing the system to draw a clear line between legal unions and religious unions. Don't call the legal procedure "marriage" (for anybody, gay or straight) but give it the same legal rights and responsibilities as today's "marriage". Give the word "marriage" to the churches and let them "marry" people (which would have no legal standing).

Warren isn't a monster. He's consistent and while his views may be offensive to many of us, he's consistent and he seems to care less about the legal issues than the spiritual issues. He's entitled to do that.

Warren is not the enemy. He's representative of a segment of society that we need on board. If you listen to him, he's really not an opponent of legal equality, he's just rabidly defending what he sees as a moral issue.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. "segment of society that we need on board." Sorry, you're wrong on this.

That segment of society needs to be on board with us and our desire to make a more perfect union.

And not the segregated one they advocate.

If you listen to him, he's really not an opponent of legal equality, he's just rabidly defending what he sees as a moral issue.

He is an opponent of legal equality; he's couching it in the protective sanctuary of his commercialism so-called faith. You know, that mystical thing that keeps evolving and morphing to justify whatever hateful thing that comes out of his mouth.

[MercutioATC]

24. I disagree. I think we have a chance at a new paradigm.

We have a shot at approaching differences from a standpoint of looking for consensus, not "winning".

If the precursors of this change manifest as things like letting Warren read a 3-minute invocation, I think that's ok.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Yes! A new paradigm! (Step 1: stop using the old cliche "paradigm!")

Actually, what would be interesting would be to step away from the old "compromise" and show real leadership by doing what's right, without regard to whichever constituency is LOUDEST and most reliant on framing everything in terms of winning, losing or compromising.

If it's right, it's right, regardless of political considerations. Hell, Lincoln did it with the Emancipation Proclamation, Truman did it with E.O. 9981 and we did it with the 19th Amendment.

Now, that would be a refreshing approach: leadership.

Obama showed it all throughout the primary and general election, but, now that he won the Presidency, he's more concerned with Heaven falling than with whether justice is done.

[MercutioATC]

28. Nice thought, but "right" is a relative term.

Different people have different views of what is "right".

Instead, I think we need to look for ways to build on the things we share rather than fight about the things we don't.


Look, we've done the fighting thing for decades. Can't we just try another way for four years and see if it works?

[ColbertWatcher]

31. Opps, My bad, maybe I should have said "legal" instead? n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

34. I agree, Americans have been fighting for decades, it's high time the right wing stop dividing us.

Did you really think the fighting just suddenly appeared?

Every liberal I know wants to move this country forward and stop fighting old battles from the past. The idea here is not to pacify everyone into thinking "fighting" is bad, but fighting for fighting's sake is bad.

Have you ever wondered why it is we're still fighting to regain rights for every American, which we thought were inalienable and covered by the Constitution?

What powerful force is keeping everyone divided? Preventing every American from having those rights? Benefiting from their exploitation of the so-called "least" among us?

Now, what could that powerful force be?

[The Doctor.]

27. While I very much agree with your sentiments, I think you may be giving this guy a

little too much credit.

Warren, as I have been learning lately, is a true hater and menace disguised as a 'love thy neighbor' kind of guy.

http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm

[MercutioATC]

48. I'm excited about the possibility of major change.

Whether it actually happens or not remains to be seen, but I believe the Warren pick is indicative of that change and is a good small step.

[ColbertWatcher]

61. I kinda answered your OP in post #12 above. n/t

[yardwork]

43. And if it doesn't work, and gay folks are still denied rights a few years from now,

will you agree that it has failed, or will you ask us to keep waiting? I'm not being snarky.

[MercutioATC]

49. I know what I'd like to see happen, and it's a "compromise" between the two stances.

Not a compromise of rights, just one of nomenclature.

"Marriage" should be given to religion. Let them do what they want with it. A church would be free to "marry" whomever they wished...gay or straight...but it would have absolutely NO legal status (like what would happen if one tried to get married without a marriage license today).

To grant legal rights and responsibilities, we'd have "Unions", or whatever you'd like to call them (except marriage). This would be the only route for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their union...and the rights conveyed would be equal for both.

The "law of god" would remain intact and the "law of man" would provide equal rights to all couples.

[yardwork]

50. Good luck with that. I'm not planning to wait around for that to happen, though.

Meanwhile, I noticed that you didn't answer my question.

[MercutioATC]

51. I think that "gay marriage" will continue to be a hard sell.

...and I don't support it because I believe there are easier ways to get the same thing accomplished.

I want equal rights for all people. I don't think it has to be called "marriage"...in fact, I don't think ANY legal union between ANY two people should be called "marriage".

[Toasterlad]

55. Given That Marriage Is a Civil Term In This Country...

...please provide a non-religious reason that it should be changed to accomodate Warren and his ilk?

[MercutioATC]

86. Who cares what it's called? If it helps get it enacted, why does it matter?

I really don't have any sympathy for those who are just hung up on semantics.

[Toasterlad]

100. Answer My Question and I'll Answer Yours.

I really don't have any sympathy for people who don't think gays deserve to be married.

[Ms. Toad]

109. It is not just semantics.

It is a complex web of statutes, regulations, and common law (case law) that is state, federal, and international in nature. The relationship between these laws took decades to create. To create that web for some other status (i.e. civil unions) would similarly take decades to develop because each state and country would have to create its own statutes, regulations, and case law, then the relationship between the states and the federal government would need to be worked out, then the relationship between the countries would need to be worked out. You can't just substitute a word (semantics) because under the law, a change is presumed to be a deliberate change - and is intended to denote a real legal difference.

By the time the countries (and the courts) are ready to enact (or decide) the literally tens of thousands of statutes, regulations, and case law decisions that would be required to create civil unions and to make them truly equal to the existing marriages, we will be well beyond ready for the 4 (maximum) court cases it will take to create marriage equality (one to overturn a single state DOMA law or constitutional amendment, one to compel recognition of another state's marriage (Loving v. Virginia type case), one to overturn the federal DOMA, and one to compel recognition of another country's marriage (Loving v. Virginia type case on the international level)).

Please, do a little legal research about marriage laws so that you really understand that it is not just semantics.

[bluedawg12]

63. He might just be a monster.

I know you saw this, but since you polished up the fundy others might have missed this.

It is about winning rights. That requires winning.

Warren-Endorsed Nigerian Archbishop Backed Anti-Gay Laws Worse Than Pre-WWII Third Reich's

Bruce Wilson
December 24, 2008

Many sharp journalists, such as Michelle Goldberg, Sarah Posner and Max Blumenthal, are cranking their talents into exposing the angry underbelly beneath Rick Warren's carefully airbrushed and polished public persona. And, a number of political bloggers (1, 2, 3) have noted Rick Warren's support for the virulently anti-gay Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, but the story has lacked some needed historical context; In 2006, Warren publicly lionized (literally) Akinola three months after the Archbishop had endorsed legislation more draconian than comparable anti-gay statutes passed prior to World War Two under the Third Reich.

As I described in a December 18, 2006 Talk To Action story, a schismatic faction of Virginia Episcopalian churches had just voted to align themselves with the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, who earlier that year had thrown his substantial political weight and religious authority behind draconian Nigerian anti-gay legislation to, among other strictures, "make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant."

Although I missed it at the time, the proposed legislation was apparently denounced, according to the current Wikipedia writeup on Akinola, by the US State Department: "The proposed legislation was formally challenged by the United States State Department as a breach of Nigeria's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

It was one of those rare examples from the last eight years, it would seem, in which United States foreign policy clearly aligned in support of basic human rights. Rick Warren, however, appeared to be on the other side of the issue.

In my post, I went on to chart, in very specific detail, the ugly reality that the Akinola-supported legislation was actually harsher than similar anti-gay legislation, 1935 revisions to Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, applying to homosexuality, voted into law during the early years of Hitler's Third Reich.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/warren-endor...

[RetiredTrotskyite]

75. I Agree...

No matter WHAT we call it, Warren will not support it. People like him don't want us to be able to be married. If we were equal, people might find out that he and his ilk have been lying...that we are not the sex-crazed, promiscuous sorts that they've been saying we are. Maybe if people found out the truth, they would not fear us and would not contribute millions to his con game, er, religion.

[yardwork]

60. Dream on.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. " I think that Warren is OK with them too."

Uh - you think that because you are like reading between the lines of his outspoken opposition to equality? You have 'looked into his eyes' perhaps, and determined that while he says to his flock one thing, he really means the opposite?

Please, it is not this complicated. Warren is against same sex marriage and consequently against the full application of the 14th amendment as described in Loving v Virginia. Warren is not OK with equal rights, and his offensive statements have made that clear.

Warren is the current de facto leader of the Dominionist movement in the US. His aims are clear. You have befuddled yourself attempting to find the good in this. He and the movement he leads are the enemy of progressive secular americans. As usual, they know they are fighting a war, they know we are their enemy, and we are a bunch of naive clueless empathetic idiots unwilling to even understand or perhaps unwilling to accept that this is a war, that the stakes are real, and that we are losing.

[MercutioATC]

87. I don't agree. His argument against it is a religious one.

Remove "marriage" and it allows the religious zealots an out.

MUCH easier than trying to sell them on "gay marriage", IMO.

[Marrah_G]

78. I could not disagre with you more

[tbyg52]

22. Yep.

There must be a non-bigoted, fairly well-known evangelical *somewhere"..... (One would think, but I could be wrong on that.)

[QC]

25. Exactly! n/t

[jobycom]

36. If rights can be denied ANYONE, they are not rights, they are privileges which

can be revoked. And the people who can revoke them are our masters, even if they don't revoke them. Only when all of us hold all rights inalienable by the government are any of us free.

And for a government leader to embrace someone who wants to limit those rights should scare the heck out of everyone, even if it for some reason the violation of the victims doesn't outrage everyone.

[noamnety]

39. No, no.

Human rights are a matter of "personal agendas."

:eyes:

[ColbertWatcher]

41. Thank you for your thoughtful post. n/t

[RetiredTrotskyite]

74. Good Point...

Bush kissed up to the religious right. Now Obama is doing the same by inviting Rick Warren to do the invocation. That's not some "reaching across the aisle" or whatever. What it is is pandering to the Religious Wrong.

[Toasterlad]

54. Thank You, Swampy. I Love to Hear From Straight Folks Who GET IT.

I believe that you are one of many straight DUers who hear and share our outrage. Sadly, there's a vocal minority who not only DON'T get it, but are for some godforsaken reason COMPELLED to COMPLAIN about our outrage.

If they are fine with Warren speaking, bless their small cold hearts. But why the posts chastising gays for "overreacting"? Either they're just simple-minded attention whores, or they share the Warren view that gay issues are not worthy of consideration.

[HamdenRice]

23. Thank you for your grown up, strategic perspective. It's rare these days! krnt!

[Deja Q]

29. Ditto.

(not much else to say; I'd already started and aborted 3 times a response as cut and dry as his... )

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

77. Your racist epithet is noted. Now you may move on. nt

[ThomCat]

58. We get it already

You think that gay people should sit down and shut up, and wait for straight people to take charge and decide "strategically" when and how much rights to grant us. You've made that abundantly clear.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

91. I bet he wouldn't allow white people to take charge of the Civil Rights movement.

Thom. :hi:

[shadowknows69]

30. I'm a spiritual if not religious person

And despite your factual assessment that he is indeed just up there to "cast a spell", although the Christians like to call them prayers, I understand the anger at the percieved rewarding of his views. In my opinion there shouldn't be any "spellcasting" going on at Government functions, if for no other reason than what if there really is a God and we picked the wrong religion to bless our Pres with.

[yowzayowzayowza]

32. Concur. K&R

Happy Holidaze.

[Creideiki]

37. And here I was

figuring you weren't outraged because it doesn't affect you.

You know, it only affects the 5% (roughly) of the country that is gay, and that's not you. Why should you care?

So I just guessed that you were in the substantial majority of the United States that has an Empathy Deficiency.

[ColbertWatcher]

42. Actually the GLBT community make up closer to 10% of the population.

The 2-5% figure is a lie created by the Washington Times.

[Creideiki]

45. Hey, stay small! That lets our sleeper agents infiltrate better!

:patriot:

[Truth Teller]

40. The next time someone claims no DUers support the Warren choice, I can show them your post

Thanks.

[MercutioATC]

46. Actually, I'm ambivalent about it.

I don't think it's really a big deal.

That said, I also believe there's an upside to it.

[Truth Teller]

81. When cornered, you claim to be ambivalent

But most of your OP was arguing for it.

Maybe you should examine why you can't bring yourself to say it's a good idea when you make all kinds of arguements supporting it.

[MercutioATC]

89. I'm atheist. I don't care one whit who does the opening mumbo-jumbo.

From a practical standpoint, though, I think it'll help open a real dialog between us and those who disagree with us.

There are other ways that dialog could have been opened, but this is how things are. I don't think it's the terrible thing that some seem to, and I think it may very well do some good.

[bettyellen]

59. hey now- these threads don't even exist- so i must be dreaming this thread right now...

[Truth Teller]

82. Hey, it's okay! The people arguing for it really just don't care!

You'll never get one to come out and say it's a good idea, even when they lay out points in favor of it.

[bettyellen]

102. they are just looking for a reason to be outraged- and no one has cut them off in traffic, so Warren

will have to do. Duers who do not wholeheartly support civil rights will more than do,

[deaniac21]

52. I will note that the knee pads are dusted off!

[flvegan]

53. Agreed, which is why I'd have rathered he chose Fred Phelps

so he could really *prove* that he could reach out the lowest common douchebag denominator. He's liberal, but he's reaching out to the Army of God faction of America.

:eyes:

And :sarcasm: because SOMEONE will need it.

[dysfunctional press]

57. my feelings pretty much exactly. this country has REAL things to get outraged about.

nt

[bluedawg12]

64. Real is subjective. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

67. so we have subjective things to get outraged about?

:shrug:

[bluedawg12]

83. All politics are local.

[dysfunctional press]

95. got anymore meaningless cliches to add?

:shrug:

[hunter]

65. Denying ordinary civil rights to certain couples for strictly religious reasons isn't REAL enough?

Oh fuck it all. Let's rescind the marriages of Papists and Mormons and Atheists and Miscegenationists too. (Oh dear Obama....)

If you ever have sex for fun and not for procreation your marriage should be rescinded.

Marriage exists only for procreation, between a man and a woman. If a man's wife isn't a fertile field for his seed, he must divorce her and move on.

[dysfunctional press]

66. who has rick warren denied? will he be setting policy in the obama administration?

get a grip- there's other people in the boat besides you.

personally- i'm an athiest, and i'm not losing any sleep over the fact that there will be multiple ministers speaking at the ceremony. :shrug:

[Oak2004]

69. Right: only government officials have ever had any impact on society.

That's why everyone in the field of history giggles when someone tries to do so-called history involving people who do not set policy. Unless you set policy in government, we all know you have absolutely no influence on your world.

:sarcasm:

While we're on the topic of whether gays have rights, I am old enough to remember how wonderful it was when elected officials and official policymakers decided to end the raids on gay bars.

Oh wait. They ended when the resistance of unelected gay and lesbian activists made it no longer tenable to raid bars. Official policymakers didn't actually "make" that policy, they conceded to it.

And think how awful it is when government officials order gaybashing.

Oh wait. They don't. But populations have been stirred up to engage in gaybashing by unelected citizens like Rev. Warren. In fact there's circumstantial evidence that his hate for Prop 8 has led to attacks on lesbians and gays.

The bigger the podium the haters have, the more violence they spread, whether or not they "set policy"

[dysfunctional press]

79. "The bigger the podium the haters have, the more violence they spread"

and there sure have been a LOT of haters starting rick warren threads on this board.

[hunter]

70. I just don't like Rick Warren.

He preaches to an ugly crowd. The following is unverified (sorry, I know, you could easily cull stuff like this from DU too...) but it smells similar to previous encounters I've had with this bunch. Republican San Diego and Orange Counties are scary and corrupt places. There's an entire industry down there that converts government funding directly into Republican campaign contributions.

RACISM AND LAMPOONING THE VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA ON PASTORS.COM
.: posted Thursday, September 08, 2005 ::: by .:webmaster:. ::: EmailThis! »

Forgive me for the loooong letter but it is important. Would someone from your group PLEASE post something about this. My editing is terrible and you probably need to look at the site for yourself but something needs to be said on your site about the horrible things the religious right is saying about victims of Katrina.

I think America needs to know that on Rick Warren's pastors.com website that there are pastors there making JOKES about the New Orleans victims and some of the worst jokes are coming from the website moderators!

Rick Warren is the Right Wing Minister that has the best seller "The Purpose Driven Life" and is appearing all over the place and was just on tv.

The website is a forum to introduce pastors to HIS products and get them to buy them. He has a huge forum that has many pastors on there and the forum is run by his own people. The jokes are demeaning to blacks and the poor and I even contacted Josh Warren (Rick Warren's son?) and was given the cold shoulder. The coarse jokes against blacks, gays, liberals and other minorities continues to go on every day and the WARRENS KNOW IT.

The forum was open to the public for years but recently went to being one that you need to sign up for. All you need is a user ID and you are in. The WORST posts are in the CURRENT EVENTS section.

In the topic: What Would You Do With New Orleans?

A question about what you would do with New Orleans now,
THE MODERATOR of the site posted,

"Fishing should be good there with all the submerged structures."

He was making fun of the houses that had been destroyed!

One Pastor quickly responded,

"And all the sewage and toxic chemicals. The fish might grow bigger."

Other pastors poked fun as well.

One said, Give it back to the French.

One said, use it as a paintball park!

Another Pastor said to, Burn it all, and then said it was his yankee talk coming out!

Still another Pastor responded,

"Evacuate it, leave it as is for the looters to stay wallowing in their mud; they seem to be having fun.
Build elsewhere for the decent folks and don't waste more tax $ on "land Titanic 2".


3) They are DEFENDING the use of the word REFUGEE to describe victims of the hurricane on the forum:

In the topic:

"Use of Word 'Refugee' Stirs Race Debate in hurricane aftermath"

2)In the forum topic: NEW ORLEANS FLASHBACK: OFFICALS WARNED RESIDENTS 'YOU'LL BE ON YOUR OWN'

One Pastor wrote in response about posting warnings:

"You know, they should have printed this at the bottom of one of those go cups you get at the bars on Bourbon Street. Then someone might have read it."


3) In the topic: "Sean Penn at it again. How Stupid can one man be":

They all lampooned Sean Penn and one of the regulars refered to him as a "freak."

4) In the topic: New Orleans City Council President: "Maybe God's Going To Cleanse Us"


One regular posted:

"They want God now, but haven't wanted Him (at least in the true biblical sense) for many, many decades"

5)WORST OF ALL: Blatant racism and class defamation going on in this one by THE website moderator.

In the topic he started:

TOPIC: "These are my kind of men in New Orleans"

He gloats over those who are in their houses and plan to shoot people and responds:

"I wonder how we can ship those guys some more gas and ammo?" This is THE HEAD MODERATOR SAYING THIS!

And when someone comments about his statement he replies:

"I thought about the women and children thing, too. From the description in the article, it seems to be a nicer neighborhood, so they probably had enough sense to get their families out."

And then he later adds:

" No, that's just a fact. There wasn't anyone wearing polo shirts looting and raping."

When I tried to counter his shocking and unbelievable comment the MODERATOR replied

"It's not classism. It's not being mean, either. It's a reality. Politically incorrect, yet a reality. What do you reckon the percentages were "polo shirt" owning looters vs. non? If you don't admit the problem, you're not gonna be very helpful in fixing it."

You can find the above comments in the topic:

Let the Chastening begin.


In the topic:

Martial Law Declared in New Orleans

THE MODERATOR posted

"They should declare Martial Law at least once a year anyhow - usually in the lead up to Easter Sunday."


Rick Warren has taken the Limelight as usual and has been on Larry King and Fox recently talking about the hurricane. The truth needs to get out what HIS OWN WEBSITE is saying!! He has moderators who have been warned about this before who simply ban those who disagree with them. Rick Warren's own family oversees the forum.

I want you to get the word out about this. There are people there who are dying slowly and there are right wing Pastors and leaders in Rick Warrens Purpose Driven Life organization who see it as an opportunity to rake in money, steal the limelight and make racist and class related jokes about those suffering. If we are going to rebuke Mrs. Bush over ONE saying, then Rick Warren needs to be rebuked for what are YEARS worth of crude and racist comments on HIS site.

Sorry for the long email.


Sincerely,
JM

http://exchristian.net/letters/2005/09/racism-and-lampooning-victims-of.php

[dysfunctional press]

80. but there are A LOT of people who do- and it's their country too.

why don't all the people barking about intolerance stop practicing it themselves...?

hypocrisy is an ugly thing, no matter WHO is doing it.

[hunter]

85. It's not intolerance to be intolerant of intolerance.

I don't have to be accepting of those who would inflict by force of law their own shallow religious beliefs upon others.

The personal problem I have with the mega-churches is that they allow their members to be comfortable in their own bigotry. They do not address the central challenges of Christ's teaching, or even venture forth into the realm of ordinary secular ethics.

Jesus is like Santa Claus, he loves you as you are, you deserve the gifts you receive, and he unconditionally forgives the violence you do to others.

The heart of these churches is corrupt. You put your money in the collection basket, and in return you get to feel good about yourself.

Check this out:

http://legacy.pastors.com/rwmt/mtarchive.asp

Do you see anything there about the people our society throws under the wheels of the bus? Gay people, people in Iraq, people who can't get medical insurance, homeless people, mentally ill people, undocumented workers, the death penalty.

Is there ANY issue of substance here? Nope, that might make the affluent majority who support this church uncomfortable, and they might not come back to church on Sunday. Let's have a big old party and celebrate Christ's Birthday! Jesus loves you!

Oh yeah, they also help sick and hungry people even if they are brown or gay. But come on now, who wouldn't?

One reason they can feel good about their religion is that their base line is so low. They are coming from a place of entitlement where it's okay to violate the human rights of others, okay to make racist jokes, okay to be ignorant about science, other cultures, the history of their own religion and their own nation. If they are not actively lynching a brown person, or beating up a gay person, or molesting children, then they must be good people...

Bah.

[dysfunctional press]

93. you have your beliefs and opinions- they have theirs- and you are just as intolerant.

and NO better than they.

[hunter]

99. I'm not seeking to violate their civil rights by force of law.

They want to deny science? Fine, but not in my schools.

They want to deny same sex couples the civil right of marriage in their own church? Fine, but not in my state, not in my nation, not on my planet.

I AM better than them, maybe not in the eyes of God as an individual (I got some rot on my own soul, that's for sure) but most certainly in terms of any sort of religious or secular ethics.

There is a truth to science that they deny, and it is wrong to teach archaic religious beliefs as science. Evolution is the reality of our biology.

It's truth that some people are homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or don't identify with their own external sexual attributes, just as it is true that some people are left handed. It is wrong to deny these people ordinary civil rights such as marriage.

I don't have to put up with the putrid insincere religious beliefs of the entitled classes any more than I have to put up with racism or sexism or fascism. It's my duty as an ethical human being to call them on their crap. It's my duty as an ethical human being to defend the civil rights of the minority against the bigotry, ignorance, and yes, intolerance of the majority.

Don't be an ass, QuestionAll. Some things are just wrong. Rick Warren should drop this, he is not entitled to this media face time, he's just another money-grubbing, celebrity-seeking, ass-kissing Bible salesman, and no more or less a man of Christ than I am. I'd sooner give Angelina Jolie a holy book, call her a woman of Spirit, and have her do the invocation rather than that babbling gasbag of stinking hypocrisy Rick Warren.

It's not my own hypocrisy to speak my beliefs clearly. I'm not hiding behind any wall of propriety, I don't have to measure my words to avoid offending those who need to have a righteous fire lit beneath their ethically challenged butts.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

92. He was one of Prop 8's biggest supporters and encouraged his flock to vote for it.

personally- i'm an athiest, and i'm not losing any sleep over the fact that there will be multiple ministers speaking at the ceremony.

Ooh, you're so oppressed.

[dysfunctional press]

94. and yet- he himself only has one vote at the ballot box.

and every member of his 'flock' has free will to vote how they see fit.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

96. His flock is brainwashed and does whatever he tells them to do.

[dysfunctional press]

97. actually, no- they're not.

you might want to do a little research into what "brainwashing" really entails.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

98. Would "sheep" satisfy you?

:eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

103. well...they did a pretty good job of it during those summers on my uncle's farm...

[kevinbgoode]

106. It amazes me. These people crow about "inclusion" so much

to explain how it's important for Obama to be the leader of those who actively campaign to DENY my goddamn constitutional rights, but they don't say one word about how a President with a policy of marriage segregation, can promote "one nation, one people" while campaigning for "separate but equal" status for one group of American citizens. How, exactly, does Obama promote INCLUSION when his own damned campaign agenda promoted a SEPARATE policy involving the gay community?

This ain't rocket science, folks. And the people here who try desperately to explain how important "inclusion" is to heterosupremacists - while explaining how the gay community needs to be content with any little improvement in their second-class citizenship, can go to hell. We aren't house faggots to entertain and serve dinner to the very people who publicly campaign to remove our rights.

[leftofthedial]

68. so you think nothing anyone does matters

and you think everything anyone does matters?

Dude! WTF? :shrug:

I mean, seriesly!1!1!1!1

[AntiFascist]

71. You don't seem to realize....

Obama and Warren have already found common ground, and that is what is driving many of us up the wall. Obama announced during the debate at Saddleback that he believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman. What does this mean for those of us who have gotten married in California and now fear that people like Kenneth Starr might be able to take it away? Sure, there are probably more important things to focus on in running the nation and bringing the nation together, but that doesn't mean some of us have to lie down and take it while the Obama bus rolls right on over.

On edit: Warren is bad mojo, and the Christian Right is responsible for much of the evil we are suffering under from the Bush Administration. Warren wants us look within to find solutions to the current economic disaster, not to question authority or examine all the corruption in the government and Wall Street that got us here.

[lamp_shade]

72. Thank you... and Amen !! n/t

[bluedawg12]

84. "We are one nation." What did you think that meant?" -mATC

It means we are all entitled to the same legal rights.

[MercutioATC]

88. It also means that we are ALL in this together.

Our common needs and goals eclipse our differences...or they should.

If we keep making it about "us against them", then we are NOT one nation. We need consensus...and we're only going to do that by opening a REAL dialog with our traditional adversaries.

[kevinbgoode]

107. And our "common goals" apparently don't include adherence

to the goddamn Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, does it? Or that nowhere does that document say that rights are for heterosupremacists only, does it? Yet it somehow ISN'T our COMMON GOAL to ensure the security of those rights for ALL Americans. Instead, the gays will be told to work toward the "common goals" set down by heterosupremacists and shut up about their own civil rights being ignored - AGAIN.

Sorry - it ain't happenin' this time.

[Odin2005]

101. This atheist agrees with you.

I could care less who gives the invocation. It's just a too minute prayer to an imaginary guy in the sky. Boo-fucking-Hoo. I care about getting things done, not moaning and groaning over a bit of symbolism that will no way affect Obama's progressive agenda.

I'm an Atheist and I am a high functioning autistic. I am used to being treated like crap by people who do not understand either thing, but that doesn't mean I think those people are evil and should be shunned. A lot of people, including a lot of people on this site, think I am "poisoned" and need to be "cured" because of me being an autistic person. That doesn't make me think those people are monsters.

[AtomicKitten]

104. I'm an agnostic and I agree. I'll judge him on his policies & refrain from preemptive snark.

[kevinbgoode]

105. "We are one people. We are one nation." What did you think that meant?"

It obviously meant that President-Elect Barack "Separate but Equal" Obama deliberately disconnected the gay community from that nation.

Funny how no one seems concerned that most of the gay community no longer feels "included" in this Administration - despite Obama's attempts to frame the presence of a marching band as "representative" of our community's "place" as a minstrel entertainment show for heterosupremacists.

[Leftest]

108. What next? Hire Ann Coulter for press secretary?

There's no excuse for giving recognition to someone who refuses to recognize the civil and human rights of millions of citizens.

n/t