NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading

Asking a blessing?

Napie's picture

So Obama selected Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.  I understand that has some on the left a bit wound up.  Thoughts?

kathymcmo's picture

(post #51543, reply #1 of 43)

I'm on the left but it doesn't bother me, I don't much care who gives the blessing (I figured Rev Wright was not on his list).


Am much more excited that he's got Aretha singing for him!

TracyK's picture

(post #51543, reply #14 of 43)

I'm on the left and it bothers me a great deal. A great deal. I think it's a weak, pandering, candyass move, and it makes me wonder whether he's really committed to providing gay people with the same civil rights afforded to all other Americans.


"The reason I don't worry about society is, nineteen people knocked down two buildings and killed thousands. Hundreds of people ran into those buildings to save them. I'll take those odds every day."
                                                        --Jon Stewart

ashleyd's picture

(post #51543, reply #18 of 43)

There really is no winning with some people is there? If he doesn't engage with people of different opinion he is being elitist and isolated, if he does engage he's pandering. Obama is showing tolerance, an example to follow methinks, especially in something with as little real value as this.


Age is unimportant unless you’re a cheese.

Age is unimportant unless you’re a cheese.

Barbara48's picture

(post #51543, reply #19 of 43)

Obama belonged to a church that was very evangelical. He has always maintained that he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman.I am certainly not a Rick Warren fan but Obama has always believed this.

TracyK's picture

(post #51543, reply #22 of 43)

Can't win? What the hell are you on about? I'm an Obama supporter, Ashley. I walked a mile and a half in the cold drizzle to stand around for three hours to hear him speak. I voted for him. But if you think I'm not going to criticize him when I think he's stepped in it you might as well just put me on ignore now.


You must not know much about Rick Warren. With this ill-advised move Obama is elevating a pompous, divisive, anti-gay jacka$$ to a position of symbolic importance.


It's a slap in the face to the GLBT community, who worked VERY hard to get him elected, and it's unnecessary, as there are many many MANY other religious leaders he could have chosen , even in more conservative communities, who do not espouse such extreme hatred towards gay people.



"The reason I don't worry about society is, nineteen people knocked down two buildings and killed thousands. Hundreds of people ran into those buildings to save them. I'll take those odds every day."
                                                        --Jon Stewart

ashleyd's picture

(post #51543, reply #28 of 43)

I don't disagree much with your comments about Warren, and your comment about more "suitable" conservatives being available is also true. But Obama is (I hope) his own man and he is obviously taking note of the old saying, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". Or to put it rather more coarsely he (Warren) is the kind of guy you'd rather have in the tent p***ing out than outside p***ing in.


Age is unimportant unless you’re a cheese.

Age is unimportant unless you’re a cheese.

SquarePeg's picture

(post #51543, reply #38 of 43)

Maskes sense. Moshe Dayan said "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. "

Canuck's picture

(post #51543, reply #20 of 43)

I remember Obama saying in a debate that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. I wonder exactly how he's going to provide equality without that. Perhaps sharing of pensions and benefits?


Oops, sorry, just saw the post above.


Edited 12/19/2008 8:50 am ET by Canuck

thecooktoo's picture

(post #51543, reply #35 of 43)

You certainly are on the left, and we can tell it certainly bothers  you a great deal.  What I don't understand is why does it bother you.  You know that he has ot move toward the center in order to govern...you yourself said that before the election.  Now he's doing it.  Now it's pandering, candyass...before it was going to be necessary.


You certainly are hard to please.


What civil rights do gays not have.  They have civil unions, just not recognized marriages in most states.

TracyK's picture

(post #51543, reply #36 of 43)

You know that he has ot move toward the center in order to govern...you yourself said that before the election.  Now he's doing it.  Now it's pandering, candyass...before it was going to be necessary.


I have always lamented Obama's weak position (I believe I called it "namby-pamby") on civil rights for gay folks and have stated it here many times. 


This isn't new for me, so please don't act like I'm contradicting myself. You'll find I am very consistent. And I'm not actually at all difficult to please -- I don't care if churches never allow gays to marry, but so long as marriage licenses are issued by the state they should be available to all people, just like driver's licenses.


And please don't pretend to be stupid -- gays are denied "civil unions" in more states than they are granted such, and "civil unions" do not include the same rights guaranteed by civil marriage.


 



"The reason I don't worry about society is, nineteen people knocked down two buildings and killed thousands. Hundreds of people ran into those buildings to save them. I'll take those odds every day."
                                                        --Jon Stewart

AnnL's picture

(post #51543, reply #39 of 43)

They don't have the legal rights that a marriage provides.  Even if a gay couple has a valid Will that designates their "civil partner" as beneficiary, a relative can legally dispute that will.  And, quite likely win in many states.  If a gay person is ill, their relatives can exclude their "civil partner" from all medical decisions, even from visiting their partner.  Insurance companies often don't recognize civil unions for health benefits.  It goes on and on.


Ann
"The elders were wise.  They knew that man's heart, away from nature, becomes hard; they knew that lack of respect for growing, living things, soon led to lack of respect for humans, too."  Chief Luther Standing Bear, Lakota Sioux

Ann
"The elders were wise.  They knew that man's heart, away from nature, becomes hard; they knew that lack of respect for growing, living things, soon led to lack of respect for humans, too."  Chief Luther Standing Bear, Lakota Sioux

SquarePeg's picture

(post #51543, reply #42 of 43)

All true.


Plus, they don't get social security rights, pension rights and such. They are not protected by the spousal clause for testifying in court. Often, they are denied entry into the room or ICU and denied medical decision-making power when their loved one is sick. That's all without a family member fighting anything.


Health benefits. Trips with company (fringe benefits).


The list goes on and on, as you say.


No alimony if they split up - no splitting of assets - a non-working partner or child-rearing partner is really vulnerable.

MadMom's picture

(post #51543, reply #41 of 43)

Jim, there are approximately 1000 Federal laws which specifically include the word marriage, rather than civil union.  As an example, one's partner in a civil union does not have the right to collect on the partner's social security.  They do not have a legal right to benefits upon death; what you conservatives love to call the "death tax" has benefits for a spouse, not a partner.  And, as someone has pointed out, even the idea of a civil union is denied in many states.  I can understand a person who believes it is a sin to be a homosexual based on their Biblical teachings, but I cannot understand why those people want to force their beliefs on others.  If you believe that marriage is a sacred thing, as I do, then perhaps the focus should be on eliminating divorce, rather than forbidding gays the right to be married. 



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

Carole4's picture

(post #51543, reply #2 of 43)

Pandering comes to mind first. It's only 5 minutes, so I guess when there are so many other things come to mind, such as balancing the budget, the war in Iraq, Healthcare, foreclosures, unemployment, etc., I guess Warren's blessing will have little consequence.

The only bad thing is the gay community supported Obama and they are piffed. Rightly so.

MEANCHEF's picture

(post #51543, reply #3 of 43)

Having an invocation has some a bit wound up.  Not to worry.  It is just the tossing of a bone.

Adele's picture

(post #51543, reply #4 of 43)

My delete. No worries.


Why is there a need for this in the first place?  


But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

Napie's picture

(post #51543, reply #5 of 43)

Why not?  Are subjects like this taboo here?  Aren’t discussions of a political nature allowed anymore?  Since this has some controversy associated with it why not talk about it?

Heather's picture

(post #51543, reply #6 of 43)

I think she is asking if there is a reason for having the invocation. You're very touchy today. ;-)

Adele's picture

(post #51543, reply #21 of 43)

What Heather said. :)


 Right wing, left wing, how about no wing?  LOL


But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

MadMom's picture

(post #51543, reply #7 of 43)

His explanation was that although he disagreed with the Rev. Warren on the issues of gays and lesbians, he respected some of his other work.  He claims that he is picking people not just because they agree with him, but because they have experience and are not afraid to disagree with him.  Quite a difference from someone else (we both know who) who seems to value loyalty much more than experience.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

Gretchen's picture

(post #51543, reply #8 of 43)

On Jim Lehrer tonight it was pretty much what MadMom said. And his work in Africa is excellent.  I wish he hadn't done it. But as the other guy on Lehrer said, "it isn't a cabinet appointment".

Gretchen

Gretchen
Napie's picture

(post #51543, reply #9 of 43)

Can I ask why you wish he had not done it?  I’m not being snarky here; I really want to know why you feel that way given all the praise Obama has received for being a uniting force.


I really have to say I’m being slowly won over by the guy.  This level of pragmatism and respect for opposing points of view is beyond refreshing. It is a very small gesture but it is far more than I ever expected.

Heather's picture

(post #51543, reply #10 of 43)

Well I don't think they should have prayers at political functions at all, but I'm sure I'm in the minority here.

Napie's picture

(post #51543, reply #11 of 43)

You right, I don’t agree with it, but that is a very good reason.

nexus's picture

(post #51543, reply #12 of 43)

Maybe its about pulling everyone towards the middle so they can actually start to work together.


Cheryl

Heather's picture

(post #51543, reply #13 of 43)

Rick Warren? Middle?

nexus's picture

(post #51543, reply #29 of 43)

One gets to the middle most effectively by getting the cooperation of those at the ends. By including them you get them more willing to cooperate because they feel heard.


Cheryl

Heather's picture

(post #51543, reply #30 of 43)

I totally understand that, I have no problem with Obama trying to work with everyone. But the invocation given at the start of a Presidency is highly symbolic. I'm going to stop there.

TracyK's picture

(post #51543, reply #31 of 43)

Participating in the inauguration ceremonies is a HUGE symbol. Yes, it is largely symbolic. Yes, it likely has little to no impact on policy.


But for a man who has been so inspirational -- literally and symbolically -- to so many people to embrace and celebrate such a hateful, divisive figure? Is a gross misstep, IMO.


Dozens of other religious leaders could have fufilled the same political message without also being quite so hateful.



"The reason I don't worry about society is, nineteen people knocked down two buildings and killed thousands. Hundreds of people ran into those buildings to save them. I'll take those odds every day."
                                                        --Jon Stewart

nexus's picture

(post #51543, reply #43 of 43)

And I personally believe that if you include any one religion (or lack thereof) you should include them all. I also know this is not going to happen.


You're not going to get much more than a "so what, we'll see what he's really about soon enough" from me.


Cheryl