Just please explain it.

[zipplewrath]

All those defending the Warren choice. Please explain to me why he should be honored in that way, on that day? The most historic inauguration since Washington himself and THIS guy should be honored by being on the stage?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I guess most people don't really consider it that big an honor.

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

15. One of the most historic inaugurations.

And folks don't think it's an honor just to be there, much less be chosen to speak? It's an honor alright. Who here wouldn't be honored to be chosen to sit on that stage, much less speak.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. It's an invocation. A meaningless religious ceremony.

It's like throwing out the "first pitch" at a baseball game. It only means as much as what you choose to put in it.

[zipplewrath]

24. So you wouldn't have been honored.

If you had been asked to participate in some ceremonial way in this event, you would not have been honored?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Did you consider it such a big honor when Clinton had Billy Graham do it?

[zipplewrath]

30. Yes

And so did Graham

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Did you really?

Or are you just pretending?

[zipplewrath]

35. Yes

Everyone up there is honored to be there.

[AntiFascist]

53. It will mean a lot to this "Christian" nation...

and will probably help him sell a lot of his books in the process.

[WinkyDink]

65. It's not the invocation PER SE that is the point; it is the invocation for THE FIRST A-A PRESIDENT

that is the point.

Or is that what you meant by mentioning Clinton? Heh.

[polichick]

3. The 5 mill. projected crowd was too big? It's down to 2 mill. now.

[wndycty]

4. I don't agree with his decision but he was trying to be inclusive. . .

. . .folks will want to assign homophobic motivations but that is BULLSHIT. He was trying to be inclusive. It was a wrong misguided solution but his intent was to be inclusive.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Inclusive of who?

Not one gay voice up there to counter this bigot. Just saying, if inclusion is the goal, he needs to include. One can not constantly exclude the same group, include the group that bashes the excluded group and claim to do that to be inclusive. I mean you can, but not with any sincerity.

Two preachers, no rabbis, no imams, no gay people of any kind. Just saying.

And no one knows what Obama is thinking on this. No one. Even people with CAPS LOCK.

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. that is a through-the-looking-glass argument

Warren is EXclusive. Obama acknowledges Warren at the expense of many many who helped elect him, and who have been significantly oppressed by the policies of the last eight years. To include Warren is to exclude those gays and lesbians and those who believe in civil rights for all.

There are some who have ideals that should not be given high honor: Racists, anti-semitics, anti-women, those who compare gays and lesbians to dog fu**ers.

[TK421]

52. I haven't seen you around in quite a long time.....good to see you!

:hi:

[Evergreen Emerald]

61. Thanks!

I have been around...occasionally posting.

Happy Holidays!

[TK421]

62. You too

:hug:

[Skittles]

46. no it is NOT obvious

not obvious at ALL

[sniffa]

48. "assign homophobic motivations"

Yes, to Rick Warren.

I believe this is an attempt for him to expand his "base" and he's shrewd to attempt it. Heartless but shrewd.

[Rockholm]

50. and up pops wndycty on another gay thread.

[TK421]

55. If he's trying to be inclusive, he is doing a REALLY shitty job of it

[gcomeau]

5. Try here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4708518&mesg_id=4708518

It's down inside point 3, although I'd like to think the entire post would be read.

[zipplewrath]

13. I read that

I see it as taking one of the most historic inaugurations and suggesting it should be used for some short term political maneuverings. Honoring this man in this way on this day doesn't seem like an appropriate choice for such an event.

[gcomeau]

17. Nothing I posted was about the "short term".

It was about how to engineer a lasting national shift to the left in political ideology. The Warren invitation fits into that strategy perfectly, to all of our benefit. What could be more appropriate than using the inauguration as one stepping stone in setting the stage for achieving all of our long term goals in a manner that has the best chance of seeing them actually stick once enacted?

[zipplewrath]

28. Unless it is sustained

Unless it is sustained, it will have only limited effect for a limited time. So either we are going to have to constantly honor such people at all the events, and this insult to the GLBT must be continuous, or it is a short term maneuver to get some political advantage.

[gcomeau]

40. It is the "moderate" image effect that must be sustained.

Warren is only one of many ways of doing that, so no constantly reaching out specifically to people with anti-GLBT views is not a necessity for the long term viability of the strategy. You'll notice I used the Gates appointment as another example of an action that is effectively employed to further the strategy and that had nothing to do with GLBT issues did it?

And I feel compelled to repeat that this was NOT an insult to the GLBT community. WARREN HIMSELF takes a stance that insults the GLBT community, but Obama's use of him in this event doesn't even come close. You can't rationally argue that an action that involved Obama publicly stating Warren is wrong on gay rights constitutes a legitimization or validation of those same views. It just doesn't. Obama telling the entire nation that Warren is wrong is the opposite of an insult to GLBTs.

Just like the appointment of Gates was NOT a slap in the face to the people lobbying to end the Iraq occupation despite many screaming that that's what it was at the time. Using Gates to augment the appeal of an Iraq pullout to a wider cross-section of the electorate HELPS that lobby. It only would have beenan insult to that demographic if Obama had caved on policy... which he has not done.

[zipplewrath]

42. So we'll need a continuous stream of bigot

So the GLBT community should prepare itself for a continuous stream of hateful bigots at ceremonial events?

It is an insult to have this man, on this day, in this way. This man who successfully worked to ostracize them from the general community. This is the man whom is to be chosen to "bring us together"? It is his actions that should exclude him from this event.

[gcomeau]

45. Please do me the courtesy of paying attention.

I just said that no you do not have to expect any such thing for cripes sake. It was the very first sentence in my post. To ignore that and put words to the opposite effect in my mouth in reply is rather irritating.

And you also ignored my explanation for how it is very clearly NOT an insult to have this man, at this day, in this way... because the this way you are referring to involved explicit public repudiation of the stance you find offensive. If you don't want to listen to the explanations then don't solicit them.

[zipplewrath]

54. These people must be constantly approached

What you are suggesting though, despite your claims to the contrary, is that in order to present an appearance of this moderation, that these kinds of gestures must constantly be repeated. Thus, you can't suggest this will be the last gesture of this magnitude to these people.

And you can't compare a 1 minute sound bite on CNN with the permanent historical record of this man's participation. That is the fundamental question. How can we possible honor this man, on such a historic day, with such a permanently lasting gesture? He is honored, you can't get around that. All you do is suggest that there is some potential political triangulation to be accomplished.

[davidpdx]

47. I like how you frame the situation

Certainly this guy's opinion is way out there, no doubt about it. I also think they are giving him way too much credit for his beliefs and influence.

[Yukari Yakumo]

64. Obama seems to be the penultimate chessmaster

The problem is some people can't see more than one move in advance, then whine about being cheated when things don't go precisely their way.

[DrDan]

6. uh . . . . he is not being honored

he is offering a prayer.

BO has made his choices. Why would anyone need to defend it to you? It needs no defense - it is the choice of the PE. And he need not defend it.

Get over it.

[NJmaverick]

7. The problem is what you see as "honoring" the rest of us see as a noble

gesture to try and bring our nation together. Since you will not allow Obama to reach out (apparently any efforts to this end would be considered "honoring" to you) I am not sure there is a way to adequately explain this to you. Then again, I suspect this was simply a rhetorical question.

[zipplewrath]

18. No, not at all

He is not a unifying person and if the intent is to bring us together, we shouldn't be honoring a man such as this on this day, in this way. A person who actually does work for unity should have been chosen. That's how one sets examples.

[dave29]

8. Obama himself has already explained it.

n/t

[firedupdem]

9. Will any explanation stop the anger for some? I think NOT so why ask? n/t

[zipplewrath]

38. This is a discussion board

The very purpose is to have an exchange on these kinds of topics amongst roughly like minded people. We are not hearing much from the transition/inaugural team at all. Here is about the only place this is being discussed.

[TheWraith]

10. Three weeks later the only people who are going to rember he was there are his "flock"

And DUers.

As to the reason he's there, he's demonstrated an actual interest in using his pulpit to fight AIDS, poverty,

And to provide the evangelicals with a stamp of approval on Obama, showing them that being pro-choice and pro-gay doesn't make you Satan. In short, the message to the 30-percenters is "If Rick Warren approves of Obama, why don't you?"

[Critters2]

16. Bullshit. He's building on this to become "America's Pastor"

:puke:

Next, he's preaching on MLK Day at Ebenezer. Obama gave him a bully pulpit, and--by God!--he's gonna use it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. He's spoken at Harvard. And the United Nations.

He probably would have gotten the Ebenezer engagement whether or not Obama had invited him.

[wndycty]

27. No haven't you heard? Everything is Obama's fault

:kick:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. No.

It's Melissa Etheridge's fault. Obama would have never invited Warren if it weren't for her.

[Political Tiger]

36. First America, then the world!!

It's a conspiracy I tell ya, a conspiracy!!

[Cheap_Trick]

11. I'm not defending his choice. It's a shitty one.

But I'm not red with fury over it either, which to some here makes me a "mouth breather from GD:P", a "homophobe", a "strait", a "breeder".

I just don't believe that having Warren speak is setting policy for the future.

If it turns out to be so, THEN I'd be royally pissed.

[pipi_k]

12. I would rather not

even have prayers said at governmental affairs, but that's just my opinion.

It's also just my opinion that Rick Warren is NOT being honored, but being asked to say a prayer. I guess that's the major difference between people who are "defending" Obama's choice and those who are outraged.

A week...a month...a year down the road....are people still going to be all upset about it?


:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

21. I just don't see

I don't see how anyone can call it anything but an honor. Who amongst us wouldn't have been honored to attend, and speak, on this day. It would seem a bit of intentional avoidance to suggest it is anything other than an honor.

[leftofthedial]

14. Face it. Obama likes fundamentalist bigots better than he likes you.

[polichick]

19. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

:cry:

[Yes We Did]

23. OMG!

:wow:

[Zynx]

58. The sad thing is that I know you actually believe that.

[leftofthedial]

60. I was exaggerating.

He actually likes them the same. Minus the difference between the honor of delivering the invocation and having a marching band in the parade.

The really sad part is, I think Obama believes it.

[Yes We Did]

25. Well... I don't agree with the decision...

But he is not the one being honored... That would be the POTUS.

[zipplewrath]

33. So you wouldn't have been honored.

This argument just really isn't holding water for me. Ask Warren if he thinks it's an honor.

[Yes We Did]

43. It's my attemt at...

Disagreeing while being disagreeable. :hide:

Of course I would be honored, and Obama, while I understand his reasoning, shouldn't have allowed this to happen. It truly is a slap in the face of the GLBT community.

Obviously, Warren himself is not being honored, but it is indeed an honor to speak on such a platform.

[Joe the Revelator]

37. I'm not defending the choice, Obama fucked up, but who gave the invocation at George Washington's

inauguration?

[Political Tiger]

39. Or any other president's inauguration?

Does anybody remember who gave the invocation at JFK's inauguration? Or Reagan's? Or Nixon's? Or both Bushies? Or Clinton's? Or LBJ's? Or Eisenhower's?

Seriously, who cares? It's not Warren's inauguration, it's Obama's!

[zipplewrath]

56. This is not "any other inauguration"

And Warren knows that too.

[zipplewrath]

41. No one

It was an extremely short ceremony. Very few people were on the balcony at all. At there was alot of debate at the time about exactly what should be done.

[NYC_SKP]

44. With "Democrats" in uber rage mode, Obama doesn't need Enemies.

Regardless of the issue.

[WinkyDink]

66. Apparently, he disagrees with you.

[Clio the Leo]

49. I would direct you to my post from five days ago .....

..... when we first started talking about this now dead horse. Good luck finding it. :)

[Egnever]

51. Well gee i dont know maybe because he represents a large portion of the country?

:shrug:

I suppose its easier to just pretend that a large portion of the country does not believe in gay marriage than it is to recognize they are out there though.

[Zynx]

57. Because I never get my panties in a bundle over empty symbolism.

I don't like Rick Warren one bit. However, I think that this is a meaningless exercise that has no lasting impact on the country.

[WinkyDink]

67. If "empty", why do you think Obama bothered, then?

[reflection]

59. I'm not sure anyone's going to add anything

More at this point in the discussion, short of some new dynamic or discovery.

[Recursion]

63. According to Obama, it was because Warren asked O. to his church in 2006...

...despite Obama's disagreement with him on gay rights and reproductive rights.

If that makes no sense to you, then I don't think you're going to get any greater clarity from a DU thread.