Comments on: Obama Picks Warren, Angers Gays

By: caj

caj — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:42:41 +0000

How can people who supposedly voted or liked Obama now feel he has let them down.....just because he has asked Rev Warren to do the invocation!!!!
Has Obama started World War or something.....come on now, I've never heard of such nonsense, Rev Warren is just going to give a prayer for God's sake not wipe the Gay Community from the face of the earth.
What a load of hot air coming from all quarters about something so trivial.....get a grip people please!!!!!

By: just me

just me — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:11:55 +0000

This is an easy way to give a nod to the evangelicals without actually doing anything major with policy.

It is a prayer.

It isn't an appointment to a cabinet or even a staff position.

By: ap

ap — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:53:18 +0000

stop the presses! politician chooses to pander to a community that is many times larger than another community.

can not wait to see the befuddlement in the eyes of the lefties who lost their senses during the election when we start seeing these types of lines in the media during the coming year...

European leaders are angry with the Obama administration's stance on *fill-in foreign policy issue here*. Anti-American sentiment in Europe and Middle East rises. It seems like ages ago when Obama's election seemed to bring the world back to America...blah blah blah

By: Triumph

Triumph — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:49:17 +0000

This is funny since Hussein told the Chicago Tribune last week that he receives "regular prayer calls" from Warren. My main problem isn't who is giving the invocation, but the fact that Hussein is giving the platform to any cleric. The revelations in the Tribune interview are far more troubling--why in the hell is Hussein wasting his time "praying" when he should be concentrating on the transition. We already had 8 years with a Jesus-freak president who claims to hear voices from God--it's pretty pathetic that good ol' Hussein is going to carry on that gesture towards irrational superstition.

By: Floyd

Floyd — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:27:32 +0000

As with any political movement, there are always those involved who are loud mouthed pigheaded intolerant extremists. The gay community would be better served by not allowing these bigots to be spokespersons for their cause.
Those who insist on martyring themselves by dying on every molehill, hurt the cause that they claim to support.
The grotesque over-reaction to the choice of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation colors gays as vitriolic, even dangerous bigots, who would deny others the right to even a well considered opinion that is not in lock step with their own.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:27:38 +0000

I can understand the abortion stance easily (although I'm a moderate on the issue if there can be such a thing). Gay marriage (or at the very least equal "civil union" rights) is inevitable, so I try not to worry too much about what people think about that right now. All I can say is, anybody who thinks being gay is a choice doesn't actually know any out-of-the-closet homosexuals. Warren's other recent action, going on Hannity and backing the assassination of the Iranian president with twisted Biblical passages, is at the very least highly controversial. Besides being the stupidest thing that the United States could do right now, I'm actually kind of offended that he backed it up in the context of that other "religion of peace," Christianity. How can we complain about people who kill in the name of religion if *we* kill in the name of religion? All that being said, he's not much more controversial than any other prominent evangelical, and *somebody* has to do the invocation. Even the liberal evangelicals are controversial in their own way.

By: Dantheman

Dantheman — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:50:37 +0000

Anderson,

Agreed. Moreover, this is the kind of theatrical acceptance of opposing POV's, where they get to make themselves heard, but not agreed to, which Obama has frequently done throughout the campaign. It's as if he somewhere in the past interacted with communities of diverse members, and learned how to keep everyone on board. Where on earth would he get such experience?

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:20:58 +0000

Anderson, I think you got it about right.

It happens about once a year, eh?

By: rodney dill

rodney dill — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:09:42 +0000

Anderson, I think you got it about right.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:00:26 +0000

Obama, though, may well cut bait on Warren if he can’t fix this quickly.

That is ABSOLUTELY mistaken. The damage Obama would do to himself would be immense. That would become THE story of the inauguration -- Obama kowtows to Teh Left, spits on Teh Right.

Gay-rights folks are in the same boat as fundamentalists: they're going to leave their party and join ... whom?

Allow me to quote myself from another blog thread:

Let’s see: Obama expressly campaigned as someone who would try to bridge partisan differences and reach out to the other side of the aisle.

Now he’s doing that, and it turns out that those other people — the one’s on the other side — have DIFFERENT BELIEFS than we do!

And despite that, Obama is putting them in charge of major policy decisions, like what invocation to give at the inaugural!

Wake me when the horror stops.

By: caj

caj — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:12:26 +0000

You know it wouldn't have mattered who PE Obama chose to give the invocation it would not please somebody somewhere!!!!
Would folks have preffered he choose Rev Wright, that would have given them something to complain about?????????

By: rodney dill

rodney dill — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:10:36 +0000

... maybe he's just celebrating Day without a Gay in his own way. ... I'm just sayin'

By: jeffq73 (Jeff Quinton)

jeffq73 (Jeff Quinton) — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 04:59:59 +0000

Obama Picks Warren, Angers Gays http://tinyurl.com/3shsor