So why did Obama get this anti-gay bigot...

B_Hung Jon

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
4,124
Media
0
Likes
615
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I just watched Obama give a press conference this morning.

He said that he has always been a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian rights and will continue to do so.

He also said that although he and Rick Warren disagree on many issues regarding gay and lesbian rights, that they can disagree without being disagreeable. That a major point of his presidency is "opening up the dialogue".

This whole "flap" over an "anti-gay bigot" speaking at the inauguration is a tempest in a teapot. Rick Warren is a moderate christian who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. He is also a very tolerant guy. I trust Obama. He's the first american president who comfortably talks about gay issues.

TRUST OBAMA, people. He's given you no reason not to.


I personally think that all evangelicals are basically conservative in every way. There's no such thing as a "moderate" evangelical. It's their way or hell. No compromise.

Obama is a politician. He's trying to get future evangelical votes in 2010 and 2012.

The real issue to me is how to stop the influence of all evangelicals in the political process other than religious wars. I see them, the Taliban catholics and the mormons as the biggest threats to progressive ideals, democracy and personal freedom.
 

fizzyjizz

Loved Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Posts
482
Media
19
Likes
502
Points
423
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Why should there be a theologian, of any denomination, at the inauguration of the president of the USA? Its so depressing to see how far America has shifted from the secular principles it was founded on, and Obama is just a continuation of that trend. I was so disappointed when, in his first speech after being elected, he ended it with 'God bless Ameica'. Change? What change?
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,780
Points
643
Gender
Male
Why should there be a theologian, of any denomination, at the inauguration of the president of the USA? Its so depressing

The Head of the Anglican Church addresses your Parliament and your countrymen, doesn't she? I do hope that you get some medication to help you cure your depression and hypocrisy.

Queen Elizabeth Opens Parliament 2007

"God Save Our Queen"::28:

YouTube - The Christmas Broadcast, 1957

Quote QEII:"I hope that 1958 may bring you God's blessing and all the things you long for..."
 
Last edited:

B_starinvestor

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
4,383
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

fizzyjizz

Loved Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Posts
482
Media
19
Likes
502
Points
423
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Head of the Anglican Church addresses your Parliament and your countrymen, doesn't she? I do hope that you get some medication to help you cure your depression and hypocrisy.

Queen Elizabeth Opens Parliament 2007

"God Save Our Queen"::28:

YouTube - The Christmas Broadcast, 1957

Quote QEII:"I hope that 1958 may bring you God's blessing and all the things you long for..."

I didn't claim that the Uk was any better that the US. It is appalling that the UK has a monarchy that is the head of the C of E. What i find depressing is that America was meant to be an alternative to that, a fresh start for civilization - but instead its actually becoming less secular than the UK.
 

FuzzyKen

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
193
Gender
Male
I am of course disappointed in this choice at the festivities to come.

I am also somewhat skeptical as to who or whom actually made that choice.

To me the "casting" of Heir Warren in this role is simply tossing some crumbs to an enemy and to maybe "use" him in the future to open channels of communication.

It does not matter who or whom it was that we voted for. Later this month Barak Obama will be sworn in and take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Obama will inherit the largest mess in political history and it would be a contest to figure out if he or Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a bigger disaster.

We can all easily sit back and criticize right now. My opinion on Obama will remain neutral until he has had enough time to do something. If he tries to solve problems he becomes a positive influence on the state of the Nation. If he manages to practice "politics as usual" he will be a detriment to an already completely broken and unresponsive system.

Two things sank the Presidential campaign of Obama's opponent. He was completely trashed by his party's decision to go with Ms. Palin as his VP Candidate and he was badly hurt by his own age. There was way too much contrast. Where Obama came off as "young energetic and vital" (which he probably isn't) McCain came off as a doddering elderly and very old man (which he may be in chronological years, but not in intelligence or spirit)

Who would the McCain Campaign have chosen to perform the same task as Heir Warren? Would that choice have been more consiliatory toward both sides? Common sense dictates that the Republican Party would have chosen a far more outspoken and venomous individual simply to show off their power and victory.

If Ms. Palin had "inherited" the Presidency, what power would the religious right have "inherited" because her Pastor "advised" her on religious issues.

I prefer to sit back and judge on actual performance rather than to make advance judgments based on incomplete information, pre-judgement of motives without fact to substantiate them.

As a man who is personally insulted by this choice, I still feel that I must place the welfare of my Country above my own personal feelings on this issue. What matters is that in the end the Presidency finds and actually reads the United States Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights. What concerns me is that we have a chance at good jobs and that we can see the beginning of economic recovery. I am far more concerned about my Country and it's welfare than I am about a ruling that will in the end most probably be overturned by the highest courts in the eventual end.

The invitation to Pastor Rick Warren is but a drop in the bucket with it's level of importance to this Country as a whole. Four years from now the question most often asked will not be anything regarding Rick Warren and that we can guarantee. Let's look towards the important issues and place this idiotic and offensive choice where it belongs and that is at the bottom of the list............
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And I'm sure, if Obama would have hired a gay friendly or even a homosexual pastor to do the prayer, his opponents would be thinking he's too radical and/or mocking traditional family & religious values. This is a no-win situation for anyone on the two extremes of this issue, and I wish they would just shut up about it.

It's just a prayer. Nothing more and nothing less. He's not on the cabinet, nor is he being appointed to a political chair or the Supreme Court. This is all unnecessary drama.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I didn't feel like reading through this entire thread, but hasn't Billy Graham done the last few Presidential Invocations? I'm not a religious zealot so I may be wrong on this but last I checked Billy Graham was not for gay rights or gay marriage. Why was there no major public outcry then?