Invocation at Obama's Inauguration by... Rick Warren? The ****?

Tsukasa Buddha

Other (please write in)
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
15,302
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageNavigator/media_2008_12_people_for_disappointed_rick_warren

It is a grave disappointment to learn that pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama.

I'll ****ing say so. Why is some head of an Evangelical megachurch who wrote the bastardized "The Purpose Driven Life" giving the invocation?

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

And he was most recently in the news for being pro-Proposition 8.

How could you make a pick that was more political?
 
All you JREF conservatives (and a few of you "moderate libs"), gather around and gloat. I'm furious over this. It's a complete betrayal of the LGBT community.

Barack is going to learn that not all of us like being :rule10slapped again and again.
 
Radical cleric calls for assissination of a foreign leader. Who? Pat Robertson? Yeah, him. But wait! Rick Warren too! Christ almighty, Obama screwed the pooch on this one. He didn't get the Christianist vote. He won't in the future. He should stop playing to their big muckety-muck shamans.
 
Radical cleric calls for assissination of a foreign leader. Who? Pat Robertson? Yeah, him. But wait! Rick Warren too! Christ almighty, Obama screwed the pooch on this one. He didn't get the Christianist vote. He won't in the future. He should stop playing to their big muckety-muck shamans.

Is anyone really surprised? Obama is decidedly not shy of religion. Anyway I think Obama will actually need to get more of the christian vote in 4 years unless he is wildly successful in everything. Think about it: This year McCain got 46% and the evangelicals hated him.
 
All you JREF conservatives (and a few of you "moderate libs"), gather around and gloat. I'm furious over this. It's a complete betrayal of the LGBT community.

Barack is going to learn that not all of us like being :rule10slapped again and again.

Well, Clinton was no better, sadly, signing DOMA into law shortly after being elected having courted the GLBT vote heavily.
 
I'll ****ing say so. Why is some head of an Evangelical megachurch who wrote the bastardized "The Purpose Driven Life" giving the invocation?

REAL REASON: probably because Obama wants to use the opportunity to show conservative and/or religious Americans he respects people they like, thus gaining popularity. In my view, it doesn't mean he agrees with him any more than the fact that he was a socialist in college means wants a communist revolution.

"BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME" REASON (Just pretend it is McCain instead of Obama): "What we have here is a further proof of the theocratic conspiracy of the neocon agenda. The choice of the extremist religious redneck Warren clearly shows that..." (etc., etc. etc.)

I must say that I am reassured by Obama's choice. No, not because I agree with it, I fully agree that Warren is a total moron. The choice itself seems to be one of the to-be-expected "beginner president blunders" all newly-elected presidents make.

But I am reassured about Obama's *intent* -- it seems Obama (just like he showed when choosing his economic crisis think-tank) does indeed intend to "completely betray" the LGBT community, the socialist community, the feminist community, and the rest of the loud special-interest groups which all but deified him, and instead reach out to Americans in general and governing from the center, instead.

It's a complete betrayal of the LGBT community. Barack is going to learn that not all of us like being slapped again and again.

That one has so many bad joke possiblities I don't know where to start...
 
Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope

I'm pretty sure you mean 120 METERS (about 140 yards), not 120 kilometers (about 75 miles)...
 
I'll go with Skeptic on this one. Warren needs to be kicked in the teeth. But Obama is being the pragmatist he's always been. I can't say I'm surprised.
 
Oh the joys of triangulation. :D

This is a symbolic genuflection to the evangelicals, but it is only symbolic. As Thomas Jefferson said, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." And there are probably evangelicals who are going to say the Rick Warren is selling them out.

The real ballgame is what does he do legislatively. I don't think Obama ever pretended to be fully on board with the LBGT agenda.
 
(Sigh) I apologize to boloboffin if he was insulted, I wasn't being serious: it's my waaaaaaaay too active cynical sense of humor, as usual, that gets me in trouble...
 
So far, when it comes to real issues -- the economic crisis -- Obama nominates out-and-out experts, caring nothing for ideology. This is what most Americans expect from a president. It's only when it comes to placating the left or the right loonies that he uses empty, symbolic gestures, such as being "for change" in his speeches, or inviting Warren. The idea seems to be to use gestures to keep those folks content, while actually running the country in an objective manner. I can't say that I disagree with this, if this is indeed what he's doing.

Still, this sort of thing can be overdone:

--"Well, Mr. President, the best economic professors say that X tax policy and Y interest rate is the best, most rational course."
--"Do it. And about education policy?"
--"It is recommended that we raise standards back gradually, increase the money going to teaches as opposed to administrators, and invest in pre-K education."
--"Really? That's more important than college education?"
--"It's a long range plan. Our studies indicate investment in early education means the student is likely to be better student throughout his life. It's pointless to improve college education when so many students aren't ready for it".
--"Okay, then. Prepare the report and give it back to me in a week, we'll do it. Now, what's my schedule for today, except for that?"
--"Well, you're giving a talk to the members of the Ku Klux Klan at 9:30 -- then at 12:30 you're meeting with Farrakhan -- then, you are giving the commencement speech in a radical feminist liberal arts college about 'the crucial impotance of raising the lesbian consciousness in college education' as being the most important single factor in the educational crisis facing America..."
--"You know something, Joe? That's the part of the job I *hate*".
 
So far, when it comes to real issues -- the economic crisis -- Obama nominates out-and-out experts, caring nothing for ideology. This is what most Americans expect from a president. It's only when it comes to placating the left or the right loonies that he uses empty, symbolic gestures, such as being "for change" in his speeches, or inviting Warren. The idea seems to be to use gestures to keep those folks content, while actually running the country in an objective manner. I can't say that I disagree with this, if this is indeed what he's doing.

Still, this sort of thing can be overdone:

--"Well, Mr. President, the best economic professors say that X tax policy and Y interest rate is the best, most rational course."
--"Do it. And about education policy?"
--"It is recommended that we raise standards back gradually, increase the money going to teaches as opposed to administrators, and invest in pre-K education."
--"Really? That's more important than college education?"
--"It's a long range plan. Our studies indicate investment in early education means the student is likely to be better student throughout his life. It's pointless to improve college education when so many students aren't ready for it".
--"Okay, then. Prepare the report and give it back to me in a week, we'll do it. Now, what's my schedule for today, except for that?"
--"Well, you're giving a talk to the members of the Ku Klux Klan at 9:30 -- then at 12:30 you're meeting with Farrakhan -- then, you are giving the commencement speech in a radical feminist liberal arts college about 'the crucial impotance of raising the lesbian consciousness in college education' as being the most important single factor in the educational crisis facing America..."
--"You know something, Joe? That's the part of the job I *hate*".

Thank you for that ignorant, hateful tripe.

Now, what specific issues are you dismissing by calling them loony left or loon right?
 

Back
Top Bottom