Should a publicly exclusional and discriminatory record like Warren's

[saltpoint]

Poll question: Should a publicly exclusional and discriminatory record like Warren's

be disqualifying for inclusion in the 2008 presidential Inaugural?

I can't use all eras of our history, as laws have changed to reflect broader liberties and historical changes for Afro-Americans generally, slavery particularly, women's rights, and so forth. My question tends to skew toward the era of 24-7 global cable access news.

Yes, I'm singling out Warren. He said what he said on a variety of issues, and yes, I'm singling him out. He's a big boy. He can handle it. I'm not arguing that he is the only person with a publicly exclusional record, but at present, his name is the one in the news.

No, I'm not offering any specific legal objection to Obama's choice of reverends. I'm leaning more to the idea of "disqualifying" elements in the big landscape: Is it politically sound? Is it unnecessarily alienating? Are there unforeseen benefits I have overlooked down the road? Can one be Obama yes and Warren no?

Etc.

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Bigotry, Discrimination, And Racism Should Not Be Tolerated By Anyone Ever

eom

[Muttocracy]

2. he also promotes assassinating leaders of other nations

I heard that little bit of his charm on the Rachel Maddow show tonight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-silverstein/rick-warren-to-address-ma_b_150968.html

Hannity: Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons...I think we need to take him out.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe...

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers...

[saltpoint]

3. Hi, Joe -- yes -- I heard this clip recently on Ron Reagan's

radio program on Air America.

We were out driving so I couldn't risk an accident, but it was shocking to hear just the same.

[Muttocracy]

6. I wonder what he says when the film isn't rolling. nt

[saltpoint]

11. Bingo. That is THE transcript I'd like to get my hands on.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Well, you don't give any examples or background as to why you think Warren is the things you say.

I'm generally aware he favored Prop 8 and that he believes homosexuality is a sin. Is that what you mean?

[saltpoint]

5. I give no background, that is correct, because Warren's record is a

public record.

Google him on stem cell research, on reproductive freedoms, and right on down the list.

It is his public record that prompts my post, in fact.

[Honeycombe8]

8. Almost all religious leaders are pro-life and against stem cell research. So....????

I don't see the big deal on that. I mean...I see the big deal about the issues. But it's a given that most religious leaders are on the opposite side of those issues.

[saltpoint]

10. Many in the United States are, but not all by any means, and quite a few

more hold progressive views in Europe and other cultures.

Unitarians in huge percentages would find Warren's public exclusional comments appalling.

So would Episcopal minister Matthew Fox.

Several notable U.S. clergy are servants of their flock and not media stars for their megachurch's floodlights.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I've never heard of the Unitarian Church; must not be a biggie. You name ONE Episcopal

minister?

So you think Obama should go out of his way to pick a minister who is pro-gay, pro-choice, even though he's not a distinguished minister, generally? I don't know.

Warren is a bad choice, for sure. But if it wouldn't have been him, it would've been another well known Protestant minister, who more than likely would hold the same views.

And don't forget that Obama is a more traditional Protestant. He didn't belong to a specifically pro-gay, pro-choice church, that I'm aware of.

Like most people, he went to church and listened to sermons, and just accepted the traditional "sinful" talk of ministers, while choosing to follow his own belief system.

As a woman, I can tell you that almost all religious leaders believe that women are secondary to men and wives should be submissive to their husbands, and the husband is the head of the house. They believe that because the Bible, they say, says so. Sigh. That's just what religious leaders believe and spout. You have to take the bad with teh good sometimes. As long as the minister doesn't give a sermon at the invocation about those things, it doesn't matter. They're mainly alike in that regard.

[saltpoint]

13. You missed the focus of the question in the poll.

If you don't like Christianity, I suggest you not join up.

I'm not Christian myself. And I recommend the life.

Warren, however, is a fundamentalist Baptist Christian with a massive wallet an an ego to match.

You better goddam believe I'm singling him out.

For more background, this thread offers many DUers' remarks on Warren. Your google key words list should be well bolstered very soon.

[Honeycombe8]

14. I'm not Christian, either. Or particularly religious. Obama belonged to a STRONG church...

not the normal sit in the pew and listen to a friendly sermon kinda church. I think it's an African American thing, to some extent the kind of church he belonged to). I wouldn't think he would ask a regular pastor to do the invocation.

Billy Graham was also evangelical, and was the unofficial official pastor to the Presidents.

My problem with the Warren choice is that Obama elevates Warren to that status. But anyone Obama would've chosen would've had similar views. It's just not a big deal. That's how churchy ministers are.

[saltpoint]

19. Agree with you totally on Rev. Billy Graham and appreciate your

description of him as "the unofficial pastor of the presidents."

Some many moons ago I lost a friend to Billy Graham. His heart was won for Jesus at one of the Billy Graham Crusade events in Dallas/Ft. Worth.

After JFK in Dealey Plaza and the swiping of my friend's soul, I was let us say disinclined to speak favorably of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. To this day I still root against the Cowboys, no matter what.

With Billy in rapidly failing health, it does appear that his son Franklin will be attempting to take over the "national religious celebrity" role.

Warren of course is stiff competition.

Ideally, a lot of these fundamentalist celebs will start elbowing each other under the basket under they're all bruised beyond recognition. The GOP let these sqauwking fools inside the castle walls and now they've come to see it's damned tough to get rid of them.

I would deeply have hoped Obama had made another selection than the one he did.

[Orsino]

18. It's probably possible to craft positions on those issues...

...that aren't full of hate-speech. Warren's a bigot, and the worst kind of bigot--one who won't admit that he's spreading lies, hate and FUD.

Many other Evangelicals could be tapped for this job, if it's gotta be done at all.

[Muttocracy]

9. he says homosexual relationships are like pedophilia and incest. nt

[Starry Messenger]

7. I feel his views are far out of the mainstream.

Supporting an amendment to a State Constitution to strip people of rights granted in the State courts is a big deal. I think it sends a strange message out on a day that should be celebrating freedom, to say the least.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. Anyone who advocates the removal of existing civil rights from ANY American citizens

Has absolutely no fucking business being part of a Presidential inauguration ceremony. Case fucking closed.

[AlCzervik]

16. He's a stealth bomber imo, he's not any different than Radical Cleric Robertson or Falwell

he just looks like Thomas Kincade and he doesn't beat his chest but he is unequivocally imo just as bad maybe even worse because people don't it coming.

He's like Mike Huckabee "Oh he seems like such a nice guy"

Survey says----X

[mmonk]

17. It should. But inclusion of liberal sentiments is not regarded as necessary

nor particular positive by the political establishment. At least not as necessary as including sentiments of the right.