BS: WTF was he thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 05:17 PM

and don't hesitate to do so LH   :)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM

You just wait till he engages in some more aggressive "War on Terror" foreign policy decisions, and you will find out how quickly I dare question what he does.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 02:49 PM

those are good words from Melissa Ethbridge, but they do not sway me from my opinions.

"Brad Luna, the director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, told me Thursday. "Rick Warren is somebody who has opposed our equality, who has equated our relationships to marriage between a brother and a sister, who has equated our lives and sexuality with pedophilia." In picking Warren, Luna told me, Obama has made a "very cynical" choice.

Yeah, I know the gay population percentage wise does not mean much compared to the rest of the nation ... but for them to be accepted by society, in allowing them to live together as a married couple would mean another great milestone ... a much needed 'change'. Obama should not have chose Warren and in doing so has set back a lot of hope, for a lot of people who worked hard to get him elected.

I think in some ways people will not dare question Obama's decision on whatever he does ... this can be quite concerning in itself.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 12:34 PM

Genie, thanks for the link! I have always had a great deal of respect and affection for Melissa Etheridge; her words carry much weight for me. I will be watching the inauguration with a more open mind than when I started this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 11:32 AM

Good words from Melissa Etheridge. There are a great many people who can think only in terms of conflict and hated stereotypes of those they deem their "enemies". For those people it will always be a question of hunting out "the bad guys", defeating them, and maintaining the existing divisions. They seek not the resolution of thorny issues, but a total victory over their "enemies". They want vengeance and retribution upon those "enemies". They see no shades of grey. They look for nothing good in any opposing side. They inherit what they have sewn, which is a war that never ends. I'm pleased to see that Melissa Etheridge is wise enough not to let herself become such a person.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Genie
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 11:13 AM

Here's Melissa Etheridge's blog (Huffington Post) on Rick Warren"

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Cllr
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 06:21 AM

Amos, thanks for that post, -from rachel zoll- seems to me Obama is showing a lot of clever thinking looks like not everything is black or white.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:40 AM

"His social consciousness is somewhat left of center, but his theological, ethical stance is right of center,"

What sort of nonesense is that?   How can an ethical stance be left, right, or centre?

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 11:36 PM

... I should add to my posting up above ...

That's what that guy's religion is all about ... obviously.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 11:29 PM

I heard him on the news today ... he said he loved Republicans and Democrats ... he also loves gays and straits.

"doesn't he have a whole lot of folks paying attention to him? Isn't that what religion is all about?"

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 11:24 PM

"doesn't he have a whole lot of folks paying attention to him? Isn't that what religion is all about?"

For a few it is, yes. But not for most. You keep blithely throwing all the babies out with the bathwater, Rig. Most of the ordinary "religious" people out there in the world are not anything like the steretypical bad guys that inhabit the world of your imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 10:05 PM

Hell, I was just forwarding some thoughts from some writer feller, Akie. No call fer all that sarcasm.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 09:49 PM

"Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war."


                I doubt that. I think he's right where he wants to be. After all, doesn't he have a whole lot of folks paying attention to him? Isn't that what religion is all about?

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 03:46 PM

Let's wriggle again like we did last summer,
Wrigglin' time is here.....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 03:19 PM

Rick Warren's biggest critics: other evangelicals
By RACHEL ZOLL – 1 hour ago

Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

The pastor chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to give the inaugural invocation backed Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in his home state of California. But he did so belatedly, with none of the enthusiasm he brings to fighting AIDS and illiteracy.

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

For gay rights advocates, that strategy was nothing more than an attempt to mask Warren's prejudice. They were outraged that Obama decided last week to give a place of honor to a pastor they consider a general for the Christian right.

Lost in the uproar was the irony of Warren's plight. Ever since he began his climb to prominence in the 1980s, he has battled complaints from fellow evangelicals that he isn't nearly conservative enough.

"The comments from many of the evangelicals further to the right of him are often critical for his lax stance on their passionate issues," said Scott Thumma, a professor at Connecticut's Hartford Seminary who researches megachurches and writes about the challenges for gay and lesbian Christians.

On paper, Warren might look like any other religious traditionalist. He is the son of a Southern Baptist pastor, graduate of a Southern Baptist seminary, and his megachurch in Orange County is part of the conservative denomination.

But Warren holds a different worldview than his roots suggest.

He has spoken out against the use of torture to combat terrorism. He has joined the fight against global warming and, encouraged by his wife, has put his prestige and money behind helping people with AIDS. The Warrens have done so at a time when a notable number of conservative Christians still consider the virus a punishment from God.

"If you want to save a life, I don't care what your background is and I don't care what your political party is," Warren said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "I think some of these humanitarian issues transcend politics, or ethnic or religious beliefs."

While many religious conservatives openly condemn Islam as inherently evil, Warren reaches out to the American Muslim community. This past Saturday, he gave the keynote address at the convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, based in Los Angeles.

"His social consciousness is somewhat left of center, but his theological, ethical stance is right of center," said the Rev. William Leonard, a critic of the Southern Baptist Convention and dean of Wake Forest Divinity School in North Carolina. "That's the thing that makes him potentially a bridge person."

...(AP)

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 03:03 PM

That's pretty much how I see it too, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 01:22 PM

Please remember that Obama's mantra throughout the campaign was change, change, change. But without, at that point, a lot of specificity as to what was to be changed, in what manner. And I think it would have been counterproductive for the campaign to be too specific.

But ONE of the things that was referred to was the patent necessity to tone down the endemic polarization of our national life and political thought and action.

It is clear to me that he's emphatically engaged in that activity. His choices for the cabinet plainly have that in mind, finding an effective and appropriate individual for each office, but with an eye toward displaying that important decisions are to be made on merit, on what (and who) works, rather than combative parochial ideological bases.

The choice of Warren for this function seems to be a part of that picture. The religious far right aren't likely to provide very many effectives for his policy purposes, but where it is possible to extend an olive branch he does so, and no one is harmed thereby. And I say Hooray!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 12:30 PM

Sometimes you have to let go of traditions to move forward .... I think the stink of him of having made the decision in having the invocation being delivered by a non religious person would not be an issue at all and would make a refreshing (change) precedent for future inaugurations.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM

I guess you're right, LH. It would probably cause more disruption for Obama not to do it at this point, though I don't think it's good for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 12:00 PM

My argument is, Michael, that when ANY people act in a largely unconscious manner in service of any form of arbitrary myth or idea that they take for granted, they are probably experiencing and taking part in some form of collective delusion. ;-) Their delusion might be a bad thing...it might be a good thing...in terms of what results it brings about, positive or negative.

This is just as true of political and cultural fanatics as it is of religious fanatics, therefore I get a little tired of people posing loudly and righteously as if they had all the moral high ground and saw everything clearly just because they happen NOT to belong to some organized religion.

They rail on about someone else's chosen delusions while remaining blithely unaware, apparently, of their own.

Of course...that's been the history of collective humanity since Day 1, hasn't it?

I am saying: "Physician, heal thyself!"

As for Obama's inauguration, these inaugurations ALWAYS appear to have had an invocation and a benediction (both forms of public prayer) as part of the ceremonials. That's the tradition. For Obama NOT to do it now would be the remarkable thing, because he would be openly breaking with tradition, and in so doing he would have to be deliberatey raising an issue about it and opposing that tradition. He is not raising an issue about it and not taking sides. He's simply carrying on with what has been done in the past at presidential inaugurations. That's normal. That's nothing that anyone needs to lose any sleep over or waste time bitching about.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 22 Dec 08 - 04:30 AM

Little Hawk -

As I understand it, your argument boils down to this: when religious people do bad things, it's the fault of religion; when atheists do bad things, it's also the fault of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 10:12 PM

Very well LH ... sure ... have a swearing in ritual to appease the crowds, like any other country would do, but let's face it you don't have to be an atheistic regime to bypass a rather controversial religious pastor delivering an invocation.

as the title of the thread says "WTF was he thinking?"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 10:02 PM

It's possible to separate churches from government, but it's impossible to separate religion from government, because governments and national identities themselves are based on a large number of concepts that are deeply religious in nature. Nationalism, for instance, is a religion, whether or not it is associated with either a "god" or a church. So is culturalism.

This was abundantly evident in the case of various officially atheistic regimes in recent history such as, for instance, Mao's China or Stalin's Russian or Pol Pot's Cambodia. While they railed against organized religion, they were themselves deeply committed to a political religion of their own invention. It is also abundantly evident in all other nationalistic regimes...and that means ALL regimes. They are all deeply religious, because they deal in popular myths of their exclusivity, their sacred symbols (like the flag, the American eagle, etc), their assumed superiority over outsiders, their rituals, their traditional forms, and their rigid power hierarchies.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 09:51 PM

Sorry, biLL, I should done my homework. And I agree with you all the way down the line, speaking for myself, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 09:48 PM

BTW Rig .... my statement was mean to be sarcastic ... if you read my posts up above I stated "He should tone down his invocation (I'd prefer it he didn't have one to begin with)." ... meaning religion should be separated from government. Religion just causes too many problems.

But ... yes, I'm speaking for myself here.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:58 PM

I am rig.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:38 PM

Speak for yourself, #6.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM

It's tradition. Period. Traditions change slowly. For instance....why do we still celebrate "Christmas" (grafted onto Christianity from old Pagan rituals which derive from much more ancient times)?

I'll tell you why: Primarily because the economy is driven by Christmas-related spending, that's why. And because it's a tradition. For those 2 reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:58 PM

yin ... or .... yang

I guess it's all in "God we Trust"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 07:01 PM

As far as I understand from Thom Hartmann's talk, American presidential inaugurations normally include 2 religious ceremonials...an "invocation" in the early part...a "benediction" later on. Obama has picked a notable evangelical associated with the Right for the invocation, and a notable progressive religious leader associated with the Left for the benediction.

This gives both the Right and the Left something to either complain bitterly about...or be quite happy about. If you hate ALL forms of religion, then you can bitch about EVERY presidential inauguration, past and future, on that basis. Take your pick of which type of emotion you would rather dwell on, I guess...the positive or the negative.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 04:02 PM

He better watch out for the progressives then!

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 03:25 PM

BEar in mind that Obama has constantly vvoiced the refrain of union between partisan camps. By having a noted righty speak at his inauguration he makes it clear he is inclusive, that he is big enough to rise above petty divisions, and more important he places the right wing (including Roberts, who will swear him in) in the position of having participated in his elevation to office, and thus less likely to undermine.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 03:17 PM

I think Kat's in her first post in this thread pretty well sums everything concerning 'WTF was he thinking'.

He's an elected represented who was elected by the people of his country on a platform he stood for and they wanted ... in some ways He should tone down his invocation (I'd prefer it he didn't have one to begin with).

Off topic, and some thread drift here ... but I find this 'inauguration' to be a bit too grand in $expense$ (again, out of the tax payer's pockets).... especially when the country (if it continues in the path it's going) will most certainly find it's self to be on the precipice of total bankruptacy in Obama's term in office. Is this extravagance and grandstanding really needed in a democratic country?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:09 PM

Warren recently spoke in Long Beach, California to a group of Muslims, and Melissa Etheridge sang and played a song on guitar. He's not your average evangelical, obviously, but try telling that to some of the folks on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:48 PM

I just listened to Thom Hartmann's talk on that link you gave, and he makes a great deal of sense.

I suggest that others listen to it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:36 PM

I presume that there is such an invocation at every inauguration? What has been done by other president-elects prior to Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Genie
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 11:10 AM

If you couldn't find Thom Hartmann's comments re Obama's choice of Rick Warren in the link I gave above, it's because it was the wrong link.

Hartmann 12-18-08, Hour 1 - on Obama's inviting Warren to give Inaugural invocation cf. Greg Mortenson:

It's at the beginning of the broadcast, and Hartmann connects Obama's strategy to that of author Greg Mortenson:Three Cups Of Tea"

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 08:25 AM

People engaged in these activities basically don't think, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 05:17 AM

Boiled or fried Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Cllr
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 03:56 AM

amazing thread, just a thought from a uk observer,

Does this mean the republicans were very very wrong about him trying to seek a way forward by working on a partly consensual basis, wow they are going to be upset, and it looks like the democrats are going to be upset for exactly the same reason!!
Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Genie
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:31 AM

The invocation is also not a "speech" really. At least it's not supposed to be. And I really don't expect Warren to bite the hand that invited him by turning it into any sort of partisan or sectarian diatribe.

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:36 AM

yeah ... the invocation is like a blessing upon the the new regime or government. That makes it even more like.. WTF is he thinking.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 01:22 AM

The invocatin is not the swearing in.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:57 PM

I didn't know the KKK endorsed Obama. I agree with #6--WTF is going on?

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:47 PM

... well that was the sick joke going on back in thoise days ... but, what the hell ... I guess Obama can pick who he chooses to swear him in ... it could be worse.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: number 6
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 10:44 PM

well ... the KKK did indorsed Obama for president back in the election campaign ... as Imperial Wizard, Ronald Edwards stated that, "anything is better than Hillary Clinton."

jeeeezuz .... WTF is going on???


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:18 PM

Well, if Obama can reach out to a homophobic fundalmentalist Christain Right preacher than the KKK can't be far behind...

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 09:08 PM

Wow, Falwell country, that must be pretty challenging. But what does all of this have to do with the KKK?

Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 07:39 PM

Sorry, I was late to open this thread but...

...Hey, I understand that Obama wants to be inclusive but I don't see him reaching out to the KKK...

I could appreciate if Obama were to meet privately with Warren but, geeze, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this homophopic fundamentalist being involved in the inaguration...

Really bugs me but then again I live in Falwell country...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Are You Nuts, Barack???
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 07:27 PM

That we all fall short of the Glory of God?

Maybe he just liked his book -