David Corn

DC,

Barack has spoken to the idea that we all will never agree.

How's about the follow up - after Warren speaks (I doubt his homophobia will be in the words) - Obama opens the military to gays? No more "don't ask" BS.

Maybe the message will seem more balanced?

I have always expected Barack to do some things and say some things with which I do not agree.

He was never an anti-war candidate, he has always been vocal about his faith and belief.

I think Warren is a poor choice but that is just my opinion.

I am more concerned with Obama keeping his promises - out of Iraq, energy independence, economy, etc.

I have to just put up with the rest.

Thanks!

One thing that seems to be missed:

It is not just LGBT advocates that have a problem putting a homophobic anti-choice religious pastor on the national stage.

A whole bunch of regular faolks are very tired of hate in general and gay hate specifically.

My sister works for Warren and she is tired of hearing the often repeated catch phrase of Warren's: "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" and his insistence that life begins at conception. Such positions are religious not scientific, faith based not factual.

When will Barack reach out to the racists and agree to disagree with them?

Maybe it is just the gays, the people who could benefit from stem cell research and women who want a choice?

I think the move is intended to shrink the expected crowds.

Don’t forget that very few people are actually in the middle ground with respect to those thorny issues like gay marriage and abortion. If we want Barack Obama to govern from the center so that we can make progress on a wide range of issues, we need to let him involve people from the fringes . . . both fringes. While I don't agree with the way Rick Warren interprets the Christian stories, I do agree that Christianity can help people in their efforts to structure their lives . . . just as I believe Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other world religions play a valid role in guiding and influencing the lives and actions of the individuals in those socio-cultural groups. Surely Barack knows the importance of setting limits for the amount of fringe content that can be brought into that center discussion.

"Religion, of course, does make some men better, and perhaps even many men. There can be no doubt of it. But making them better by filling their poor heads with grotesque nonsense is an irrational and wasteful process, and the harm it does greatly outweighs the good. If men could be made better—or even only happier—by teaching them that two and two make five there would be plenty of fools to advocate that method, but it would remain anti-social none the less. If the theologians could only agree on their doctrines their unanimity might have some evidential value, just as the agreement of all politicians that the first duty of the citizen is to obey them and admire them has some evidential value. It may not be true, but it is at least undisputed by all save a small fraction of heretics, which is certainly something. Fortunately for common sense, the theologians are never able to agree. Even within the sects, and under the more rigid discipline, there is constant wrangling, as, for example, between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. Thus the cocksureness of one outfit is cancelled out by the ribald denial of all the rest, and rational men are able to consign the whole gang to statistics and the Devil."

H L Mencken

Did he go too far? It's simple -- yes. Why do we even need a prayer at the swearing in? As for Obama's comments about trying to include all points of view -- I don't know why he wants to have a conversation about with those who support Warren other than he knows he has to start courting Warren's people now for 2012.

http://punditmom1.blogspot.com

"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. The theologians, taking one with another, are adept logicians, but every now and then they have to resort to sophistries so obvious that their whole case takes on an air of the ridiculous. Even the most logical religion starts out with patently false assumptions. It is often argued in support of this or that one that men are so devoted to it that they are willing to die for it. That, of course, is as silly as the Santa Claus proof. Other men are just as devoted to manifestly false religions, and just as willing to die for them. Every theologian spends a large part of his time and energy trying to prove that religions for which multitudes of honest men have fought and died are false, wicked, and against God."

H L Mencken

I agree with all that's been said so far. I hope that Obama means to do good things as president, but I won't be watching his inauguration. Give me someone like H. L. Mencken any day of the week over a narrow-minded religionists and raving bigot.

Why all the surprise? Obama has been to the right of Hillary Clinton ever scince winning the election. I think progressive people who supported him had on blinders to the biggest red flag ever waved during a campaign. That would be the fact that he was the corporate medias candidate from day 1. I would go so far as to say he was the corporate medias creation.Think about it. It was the media who hyped him after the 04 convention speech as "the rising star" of the democratic party. Any time the media promotes anything, it should be rejected out of hand. Barack is proving to be the status quo, wich will be disaster for our country. No one will be held accountable for the heinous crimes of the past 8 years, and the worst policies will be prolonged. The ONLY candidate who called for accountability was the only true progressive in the race. Dennis Kucinich. In the background I hear Karl Rove laughing.

Inviting Rick Warren isn't about inclusion, it's about exclusion. It's time we stopped coddling bigots as Christians. What Warren teaches is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus. What's next? Racists and murderers. Scratch the murderers--it looks like Bush will be there.

First, what a lot of people are missing is that this is a constitutional issue, not a "special interest" one. This is about equality of persons, human rights, civil rights, and equal opportunity to pursue happiness. I am surprised that constitutional law professor Obama doesn't seem to understand this obvious fact.

Secondly, Rick Warren is not only an opponent of equal rights. His theological position is eliminationist. At the risk of violating Godwin's law, this is proto-Nazi thinking. "It can't happen here." Oh, yeah?

Thirdly, this is not occurring in isolation. The Bush years were a sad record of constitutional trespass if not actually trashing the founding documents, along with committing horrible war crimes, including torture. The signals that the Obama team is sending that these crimes will not be prosecuted is a bad omen. Taken together with the featuring of an infamous hate-monger at the inauguration just adds fuel to the fire and does not bode well for the nation.

In short, this is unacceptable. Obama is on track to become a one-term president.

Absolutely Obama should not have allowed Warren to speak at his inauguration because of his opposition to gay rights. Just like Warren should not have allowed Obama to speak at his church because of his views on abortion. Keep focused on single issues, disdain the right of others to disagree, say your issue is more of a moral one than the issues of those who disagree with you.

Keep on fightin in a burning house.

The religious right are not victims: the people whose rights are under assault across this country are the continuing, and the intended victims of religiously-motivated bigots who would like to return gays & lesbians to the status of criminals, but, absent that, want to relegate them to second-class citizenship.

Thom is absolutely wrong on this, and so is Obama.

Brief correction: I meant to write that David Corn is right, and Thom Hartmann & Obama are wrong.

DC

As a gay man who campaigned for Obama and financially contributed to his campaign. I am very disappointed.

However, this let down is not my major concern. My major concern of him co-opting as he is has to do with the Supreme Court. Is he going to appoint a right of centrist to appease the middle or conservatives? He may be figuring that the gays and liberals have no where else to go, so he has us regardless. Instead, then he will continue to work to appease the middle and even the right.

Surpreme Court... is the justification for Warren going to be the same justification he is going to use to justify his Supreme Court pick? Must listen to all sides?

Obama is starting to look like a big let down.

Peter

Of all the potential religious leaders that could have been chosen, this is a slap in the face of anyone striving for equality and protection of our Constitutional Rights. Once again, gays and lesbians are marginalized. I trusted Obama to be inclusive and bring the country together. He asked for my support and donations during the campaign, which I gave. I opened my house to Obama volunteers during the election. After it all, I am saddened that my post-election high is over, and I now have a "wait and see" attitude on what's to follow.

The choice Obama made for his invocation is baffling. With the thousands of moderate and liberal clergy to choose from, he picked Rick Warren. I am extremely disappointed, as this minister has been given a place of great honor on a historic occassion. In the campaign, Barack said he wanted to "turn a page" in our nation's history, but elevating bigots such as Warren is not turning a page. The hope I felt on election night has been faded by this act.

What folks are forgetting is the power of grace and graciousness, qualities that Obama has quantities of. He is very aware that Rick Warren takes the stands that he does, and even more aware that Warren was co-opted by the McCain camp in the so-called Faith Forum that happened during the campaign.

Obama is demonstrating a really good case of "WWJD" in reaching out to Warren. Warren knows what he did. He knows that he intentionally blind-sided Obama. And now Obama is, with humility and charity, saying "Rick, I know what you did, but I'm still offering you this opportunity."

"If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat;
And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
For so you will heap coals of fire on his head,
And the LORD will reward you." -- Proverbs 25:21-22

My goodness . . . I am beginning to see the progressive movement as having some of the same problems that brought down the conservative movement. . . striking moral lines and vowing not to even look for negociable middle ground. That approach does not yield progress for anyone. The practices of Christianity, including the fundamentalist brands pitched by individuals like Rick Warren, are a part of our culture. A great many of the people in the nation use the ideas and language of Christianity to define their beliefs . . and that includes progressives. If we can't find common ground . . . we doom ourselves to the fate of the fundamentalist conservatives.

Why do we never learn from history? If the past 20 years has shown anything, it has shown that when you extend your hand to the right wing, you pull back a bloody stump. You cannot work with people bent on your destruction. The nation has firmly rejected these peoples ideology, and Obama seems determined to be weak from a position of strength. Enough of this centrist crap already. Look at the polls. America is a center LEFT nation. Period. The apologists are sounding like Bush supporters already. Accountability is for all in government, including Barack. He needs to be held accountable to those who believed in him and supported him.

There is nothing inherently immoral about incest between consenting adults, polygamy (which is legal and accepted in many places) or a 20 year old (an adult) marrying a 17 year old (a child).
These things violate the norm, just like gay marriage does.

In the interest of keeping this comment short, you may read the rest of it here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=97022263&blogID=458114621&Mytoken=51A765CA-6244-4F34-B092A51A41CD309F239904881
or here
http://apps.biodieselhauling.org/Blog/?e=20813&d=12/21/2008&s=Sex%20vs.%20Morality%20(Warren%20was%20right)