|
19 Dec 08 - 12:16 AM (#2519509) Subject: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: katlaughing I still support him and I do not regret voting for Obama. I really believe he is the right person to be there right now, but what the feck was he thinking when he asked Pastor Warren to give the inaugural invocation? The man has equated a woman's right to choose to the Holocaust, LBGT with pedophilia and incest, and opposes stem cell research. Many, many of Obama's supporters SUPPORT those three very important issues. I know he's not perfect and he said he'd reach across the aisle, but he has basically invited this person into our homes. Coming on the heels of Prop8, esp. this is like a slap in the face to all who support LBGT rights, nevermind women's rights and health research that could save millions of people. I suppose if he had to mis-step, this will be seen as minor, but I do not like it and am disappointed. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:27 AM (#2519512) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Goose Gander Well, he's got the left and the middle, now he wants the religious right. Surprised? He's a politician. And a smart one, too. The number one issue in the US right now is the economy, and plenty of people with right-of-center social views are open to progressive ideas regarding economics, etc. And you may want to think twice before you demonize people who don't agree with you on some very contentious issues. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:40 AM (#2519519) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity ......and nothing but a politician...you know, like a used car salesman...sorry,.. the country bought a lemon! Why does this surprise anyone???..Perhaps, 'More of the same'? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:09 AM (#2519524) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Ebbie I'm glad that I'm not the person who has to live inside you. It would be taxing, to say the least. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:45 AM (#2519532) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Genie What Obama was thinking, I believe, was exactly what he's been talking about all during his campaign: reaching beyond our political divisiveness and inviting dialogue with those with whom we have strong disagreements. Rick Warren is not the only religious leader invited to participate in the Inauguration ceremonies, and he won't be speaking on partisan political issues. He'll deliver the invocation, which will no doubt be worded in a pretty ecumenical fashion. Obama has said he welcomes support from Evangelical Christians, and quite a few of them, especially the younger ones, are far less authoritarian and more progressive (or at least moderate) politically than even Rick Warren. Obama does not want to cede the whole of "born-again" Christianity to the Right wing of the Republican Party. While he is quite reactionary on some issues, Rick Warren has diverged strikingly from other conservative Christian Republicans such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson. He gives away 90% of his income and does not preach or buy into the meme that "God wants you to be successful, so being rich is a sign of God's favor." His ministry emphasizes responsibility for helping those in need, both in our country and in other parts of the world. And he is trying to get the church to be proactive in fighting global warming. More to the point (re his being part of Obama's inauguration), Rick Warren is probably seen by most Christian conservatives as the #1 religious leader in our country. His presence at Obama's inauguration -- which, BTW, is opposed by most of the far-right Christian leaders -- probably makes conservative Christians more open to wartching the inauguration and just maybe giving Obama a chance. I'll bet a lot of them may hear Obama's inaugural address who would not have, had Obama had the invocation given by someone they perceive as "liberal." Obama will not be able to bring about much of anything in the way of progressive change if he has 30 to 40% of the country fearing or hating him and what they expect his "agenda" to be. I think the inclusion of Warren (a far better choice that that of Franklin Graham by Dubya) sends a strong message of unification. But Thom Hartmann explains this view better than I can: Thom Hartmann on Rick Warren as Obama inaugural invocation deliverer I'd been thinking pretty much along these lines, in spite of hearing mostly bashing from liberals, the GLBT community, and many Democrats. Then when I tuned in to Thom's radio show this morning, he put my perception of it into better words than I had come up with. Give a listen, then tell me if you see this choice as a "WTF!!??. Genie |
|
19 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM (#2519558) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: akenaton Mr Morris and Guest are correct, the inclusiveness of Mr Obama's administration does not run to the most important field....POLITICS! Where are the voices demanding a new way forward? Capitalism on the verge of collapse and no "left wing" or socialist input? "Government of all the talents" my arse! It's nothin' but the same old story.....Ake |
|
19 Dec 08 - 04:50 AM (#2519597) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Richard Bridge I tried listening to that and it went on and on about a lot of other stuff. I think it's very worrying - some (and I'm sceptical) reactionary alleged Christians may themselves be good people, but it seems to me that their leaders are pretty close to wholly evil. This one may be one of the less evil ones, but who sups with the devil should use a long spoon. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 05:03 AM (#2519607) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: akenaton Date: 19 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM Mr Morris and Guest are correct, the inclusiveness of Mr Obama's administration does not run to the most important field....POLITICS! Not only am I right(AGAIN), but not given to the insane O-yawn-o mania rhetoric. From: Ebbie Date: 19 Dec 08 - 01:09 AM I'm glad that I'm not the person who has to live inside you. It would be taxing, to say the least. Are you saying you're into hearing voices, of creatures in you?? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 11:39 AM (#2519883) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Amos Letting the man give a speech is entirely consistent with Obama's commitment to wide-spectrum poltiics. And let me point out thatbeing a better politican is why we hired him. You guys are projecting your own internal catastrophes on the world and not reasoning the thing out. He's not appointing Warren to something; he's merely demonstrating that, unlike Bush's discordant and half-crazed gang, he is not excluding other points of view than his own. This shows him to be a bigger person than the half-assed reaction-driven partisan crowds who are so anxious tot hrow stones that they will throw them at imaginary people. It is likely that as he breaks trail through the jungle of deceit and irresponsibility left behind in the national garden by Bush and company, he will disappoint some people some of the time. I don't see how it can be avoided. But keep some perspective, here, and I think you will find he will do as good a job as any man alive could do in the position he is in. GfS and Ake notwithstanding--neither of them have suggested any policies or programs that would make a difference, but have limited themselves to caterwauling their melancholy songs of disgruntled bad-mouthery ad nauseam, like a pair of wet and homeless alleycats in estrus in some dark trash-strewn alley of life. A |
|
19 Dec 08 - 11:44 AM (#2519892) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: pdq "If you've got a problem that's growing at a rapid rate, then you need a solution that will grow even more rapidly. For instance, HIV/AIDS is growing at an incredibly fast rate in the world. Yet thank God, the Church is outgrowing the disease,so more and more believers can help minister to those with HIV/AIDS." ~ Rick Warren Is this the "dangerous extremism" that people here are claiming this man represents? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 11:51 AM (#2519896) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Stilly River Sage For those who consider a religious component important, they may be pleased. I would prefer the religion to be excluded from the matters of state, so I won't listen to Warren. The process of making government is like that old sausage analogy--something you may not want to watch. SRS |
|
19 Dec 08 - 11:55 AM (#2519900) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: katlaughing I am not demonising anyone. Some of you may be right, I suppose. I have been pleased with the pragmatic approach Obama has taken, but this one, again, in light of the recent passage of Prop8, really doesn't go down well, at all. He can reach across the aisle, surely, without excluding a strong base of his own supporters. When someone has as much influence as Warren, it can be dangerous for those he opposes, imo. That influence is evident in this article. Genie, I tried listening to that, but mostly heard commercials and a bunch of stuff about Bush. How many minutes in is it where he talks about this? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 11:58 AM (#2519902) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Amos Warren's largest black-mark in the eyes of the left is that he was "one of the generals" in the mobilization to overturn the State of California's Constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry each other. In doing so, he pl,aced himself squarely in the anti-gay camp in the eyes of millions who interpret his position as rank discrimination and denial of core civil status. From this point of view, choosing Warren was a poltiical error. On the other hand, there are probably more right-wing churchies in the United States than there are LGBT, so perhaps it was a political tradeoff, and a bit of the old sausage-manufacturing. Giving someone space to give a speech is not an endorsement ofhis other views. A |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:03 PM (#2519907) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: akenaton Quite like a bit of "extremism" myself, but this administration is not really inclusive......It's just window dressing..Ake |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:13 PM (#2519916) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger "...but what the feck was he thinking when he asked Pastor Warren to give the inaugural invocation?" Any one of these buffoons is pretty much like the next. As long as your going to do something as stupid as stand around and stare at your shoes while somebody gives an inaugural invocation, what does it matter who gives it? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:39 PM (#2519944) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Ebbie From: Ebbie Date: 19 Dec 08 - 01:09 AM I'm glad that I'm not the person who has to live inside you. It would be taxing, to say the least. Are you saying you're into hearing voices, of creatures in you?? GtS Ah! It is as I feared: You don't listen to what you say. *g* |
|
19 Dec 08 - 12:52 PM (#2519955) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Goose Gander Genie's comments regarding Warren are accurate. Richard's dark mutterings about the 'wholly evil' nature of evangelical leadership notwithstanding, there is broad diversity of opinion among self-described evangelicals on social, political and economic issues. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM (#2519961) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Amos Rig: Just you watch, mate. Watch Obama during Warren's speech. I will bet you ten dollars he does not perform as you have described. He may glance at his shoes, but that will not characterize what he does. He will be...are you ready for this?...PAYING ATTENTION. A |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:10 PM (#2519967) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk "but have limited themselves to caterwauling their melancholy songs of disgruntled bad-mouthery ad nauseam, like a pair of wet and homeless alleycats in estrus in some dark trash-strewn alley of life." Whoaah!!! What spectacular and devastating verbiage. Even Woody Allen would be reduced to a brief stunned silence by that, followed by some sarcastic but hopelessly inadequate attempt on his part at a clever comeback. Amos, you have done it again. You really should write for the New Yorker or some such prestigious periodical. I, for one, am rather miffed that Obama has yet failed to appoint a single chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, baboon or monkey to participate in either his cabinet or his inauguration. He has shut out the primates of America (I use the expression "primate" in the colloquial sense...not the literal one...since human beings are themselves primates by literal definition...anyway, you know what I mean.) Oh sure, it would offend some people if he did that. Well, tough! You can't be president without offending someone unless you do absolutely nothing at all....and then even THAT will offend some people. The real mystery here is whether Obama can EVER manage to do anything that will make the few people here who are dead set against him happy or some of those who adore him unhappy. Either way it's highly unlikely. It would require them altering a fixed mental habit and abandoning their faith. But.....anything is possible, right? Is the world you see the real world? Or is it the world of your imagination? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:16 PM (#2519976) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk I think you have envisioned Obama's reaction to the upcoming speech by Warren correctly, Amos. I've noticed that about Obama...he does pay close attention to people when they're talking, and that's a good sign. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:35 PM (#2519996) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger "He may glance at his shoes, but that will not characterize what he does. He will be...are you ready for this?...PAYING ATTENTION." Why would anybody in his/her right mind pay attention to Rick Warren? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:39 PM (#2520001) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: wysiwyg He was thinking UNITY and (probably, "use a man's big rep to move it forward." He's gonna have to honey up to some weitd bedfellows, but he might not get slimy if he's smart about it. ~S~ |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:48 PM (#2520009) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: kendall Obama is facing the worst crisis since the great depression, and he can not afford to overlook any group that can help heal this awful load of crap that the Moron has piled on us. I'm also wondering about him, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Now, Guest for sanity, if you have some evidence to back up what you are saying, let's hear it.Otherwise, what you are spouting is nothing more than an opinion; worth no more than anyone else's . |
|
19 Dec 08 - 01:54 PM (#2520016) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk People of goodwill pay full attention to whomever they are dealing with at the time, Rig. (This is rare, however, because most people's love is extremely conditional...they reserve it only for those who meet their momentary approval or their fickle sense of need.) |
|
19 Dec 08 - 02:03 PM (#2520024) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 Whew ...... he's not even president yet and it's already starting. biLL |
|
19 Dec 08 - 02:25 PM (#2520038) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: PoppaGator I'd like to weigh in, but Genie has already said just about everything I've got. Almmost... During the months and years after Katrina, I met hundreds of incredibly selfless and highly-energized volunteers who traveled at their own expense to perform hard labor rebuilding the homes of devastated families. Almost every single such person was affiliated with some kind of church, and while a few were mainstream-Protestant or Catholic, the vast majority were more-or-less fundamentalist/evangelical types. I have a different set of ideas about a number of social-justice issues than most such folks ~ and really different ideas about warfare ~ but I recognize that they are commited to following their consciences at last as seriously as I am, whatever our differences. It should NOT be assumed that the churches of the United States will always be persuaded to make common cause with right-wing politicians promoting economic and social inequality. Such alignments can change, and in fact MUST change, and soon. For such a seismic social shift to occur, of course, will demand a virtual bombardment of psychological shock and awe. I think Obama is moving in a very interesting and potentially very positive direction. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 02:45 PM (#2520050) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger "...most people's love is extremely conditional...they reserve it only for those who meet their momentary approval or their fickle sense of need.)" When it comes to religion, it seems to me like they reserve it only for those who meet their monitary approval... |
|
19 Dec 08 - 03:10 PM (#2520057) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Don Firth "I, for one, am rather miffed that Obama has yet failed to appoint a single chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, baboon or monkey to participate in either his cabinet or his inauguration." The problem, Little Hawk, is that Bush used them all up. . . . Don Firth |
|
19 Dec 08 - 03:25 PM (#2520064) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: akenaton I have never believed that issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc, should be "political", we all have personal views on issues like these which have really nothing to do with politics. I also think that it is probably a good thing that Mr Obama has put together an administration with diverse personal views.....but... but is Bobert the only Obamaite who is concerned about the political make up of the administration? Have your brains just stopped working? This was to be a new beginning, old style politics were to be swept away....CHANGE>>>>CHANGE>>>>>CHANGE. Then where are the progressives?Kuninich,Nader and a few more that I probably have never heard of. Why are they not contributing to the agenda of change? They are the only ones who can bring it about...Ake |
|
19 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM (#2520070) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Goose Gander Poppagator, I agree with you. Akenaton - yes, the progressives are getting stiffed (so far), but I never believed Obama was any kind of far-leftist. His more specific statements have generally been more towards the center. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 04:16 PM (#2520093) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: GUEST,beardedbruce "Subject: RE: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 18 Dec 08 - 03:24 PM ANother "elevated" viewpoint on the inaugural speech shtick." |
|
19 Dec 08 - 04:25 PM (#2520097) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: GUEST,beardedbruce sorry, the clicky did not carry along... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98458935 |
|
19 Dec 08 - 05:28 PM (#2520149) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk So, Don, are you saying that 8 years of the Bush administration has given chimps a bad name? |
|
19 Dec 08 - 05:45 PM (#2520158) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Ebbie I'm afeared so, Little Hawk, They are present in any administration but in the most recent one they came out of the closet with a vengeance. I would imagine there was tremendous hooting and thumping of chests, not to allude to grooming, going on whenever a group of them were alone. We just can't take a chance again. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 05:50 PM (#2520162) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: katlaughing Poppagator, I agree with you as far things needing to change in that area and I hope you are right about it being a possibility. Thanks for your take on it. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM (#2520230) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk Oh, so, Ebbie? NOW who's flinging poop?!? I find it disconcerting and unjust that a quasi-chimp in office for 8 years should ruin things for REAL chimps to show their stuff. It's an outrage. |
|
19 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM (#2520253) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger LH - Maybe you could make a case for Bonobos. I suspect they're a little smarter than Bush, and a case could be made that it would be an up-grade to include a few of them in the cabinet. |
|
20 Dec 08 - 07:19 PM (#2520986) Subject: BS: Are You Nuts, Barack??? From: Bobert Hey, I don't undertand this one one bit... Obama has asked homophoblic fundamentalist preacher, Rick Warren, to do a prayer at the swearing in ceremonies... What the Hell is this about??? B~ Messages from duplicate thread transferred in. |
|
20 Dec 08 - 07:27 PM (#2520991) Subject: RE: BS: Are You Nuts, Barack??? From: Steve in Idaho That we all fall short of the Glory of God? Maybe he just liked his book - |
|
20 Dec 08 - 07:39 PM (#2520997) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Bobert 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~ |
|
20 Dec 08 - 09:08 PM (#2521025) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger Wow, Falwell country, that must be pretty challenging. But what does all of this have to do with the KKK? |
|
20 Dec 08 - 09:18 PM (#2521033) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Bobert Well, if Obama can reach out to a homophobic fundalmentalist Christain Right preacher than the KKK can't be far behind... |
|
20 Dec 08 - 10:44 PM (#2521062) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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 |
|
20 Dec 08 - 10:47 PM (#2521064) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 ... 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 |
|
20 Dec 08 - 10:57 PM (#2521070) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger I didn't know the KKK endorsed Obama. I agree with #6--WTF is going on? |
|
21 Dec 08 - 01:22 AM (#2521101) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Amos The invocatin is not the swearing in. A |
|
21 Dec 08 - 01:36 AM (#2521112) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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 |
|
21 Dec 08 - 02:31 AM (#2521141) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Genie 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. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 03:56 AM (#2521158) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Cllr 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 |
|
21 Dec 08 - 05:17 AM (#2521185) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: akenaton Boiled or fried Amos? |
|
21 Dec 08 - 08:25 AM (#2521281) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger People engaged in these activities basically don't think, I think. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 11:10 AM (#2521383) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Genie 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" |
|
21 Dec 08 - 01:36 PM (#2521527) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk I presume that there is such an invocation at every inauguration? What has been done by other president-elects prior to Obama? |
|
21 Dec 08 - 01:48 PM (#2521535) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 02:09 PM (#2521554) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Goose Gander 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. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 03:17 PM (#2521613) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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 |
|
21 Dec 08 - 03:25 PM (#2521618) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Amos 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 |
|
21 Dec 08 - 04:02 PM (#2521648) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: akenaton He better watch out for the progressives then! |
|
21 Dec 08 - 07:01 PM (#2521781) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 07:58 PM (#2521816) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 yin ... or .... yang I guess it's all in "God we Trust" biLL |
|
21 Dec 08 - 08:36 PM (#2521845) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 08:38 PM (#2521846) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger Speak for yourself, #6. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 08:58 PM (#2521863) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 I am rig. biLL |
|
21 Dec 08 - 09:48 PM (#2521898) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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 |
|
21 Dec 08 - 09:51 PM (#2521901) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger Sorry, biLL, I should done my homework. And I agree with you all the way down the line, speaking for myself, of course. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 10:02 PM (#2521905) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
21 Dec 08 - 10:12 PM (#2521906) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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 |
|
22 Dec 08 - 04:30 AM (#2522000) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Goose Gander 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. |
|
22 Dec 08 - 12:00 PM (#2522199) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
22 Dec 08 - 12:04 PM (#2522205) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
22 Dec 08 - 12:30 PM (#2522217) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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 |
|
22 Dec 08 - 01:22 PM (#2522266) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Uncle_DaveO 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 |
|
22 Dec 08 - 03:03 PM (#2522366) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk That's pretty much how I see it too, Dave. |
|
22 Dec 08 - 03:19 PM (#2522379) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Amos 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) |
|
22 Dec 08 - 03:46 PM (#2522400) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: akenaton Let's wriggle again like we did last summer, Wrigglin' time is here.....:0) |
|
22 Dec 08 - 09:49 PM (#2522660) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Riginslinger "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? |
|
22 Dec 08 - 10:05 PM (#2522666) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Amos Hell, I was just forwarding some thoughts from some writer feller, Akie. No call fer all that sarcasm. A |
|
22 Dec 08 - 11:24 PM (#2522689) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk "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. |
|
22 Dec 08 - 11:29 PM (#2522690) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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?" |
|
22 Dec 08 - 11:36 PM (#2522693) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 ... I should add to my posting up above ... That's what that guy's religion is all about ... obviously. biLL |
|
23 Dec 08 - 02:40 AM (#2522728) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: akenaton "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? |
|
23 Dec 08 - 06:21 AM (#2522830) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Cllr 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. |
|
24 Dec 08 - 11:13 AM (#2523879) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Genie Here's Melissa Etheridge's blog (Huffington Post) on Rick Warren" |
|
24 Dec 08 - 11:32 AM (#2523895) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
24 Dec 08 - 12:34 PM (#2523936) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: katlaughing 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. |
|
24 Dec 08 - 02:49 PM (#2524026) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 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 |
|
24 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM (#2524072) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
24 Dec 08 - 05:17 PM (#2524105) Subject: RE: BS: WTF was he thinking? From: number 6 and don't hesitate to do so LH :) biLL |