Serious question because maybe I missed it. Has Obama said anything publicly about Warren yet?

[shadowknows69]

[marylanddem]

1. He needs to address Warren's calling his critics "Christophobes"

That is a reprehensible comment not to be uttered by anyone giving an invocation on inauguration day.

[shadowknows69]

2. I agree, with more and more silence on this from the President elect

I'm rapidly losing more respect for him.

[dem629]

7. I think he was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the "-phobe" and "-phobia" claims against

people who believe like he does.

[shadowknows69]

8. absurdity?

If you preach or accept hate as a doctrine you're a something-phobe.

[dem629]

12. Yes, absurdity.

It's nothing more (by both sides) than an attempt to silence those with whom they disagree.

I am aware of no one who has an irrational fear of "the same" or "any member of the genus homosapien." You know, words actually have definitions. Remember in second grade where you learned about compound words?

Hyper-politicization has warped language.

[Solon]

21. That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, as if language, or word definitions, never evolve...

Newsflash, word meanings, and language, evolve over time, much of it relating to cultural and/or political shifts. Get used to it.

[Turbineguy]

3. And it would have been

easy to miss around here!

:hide:

[shadowknows69]

4. No it shouldn't have been

I've been kind of intentionally staying away from news lately, holidays depressing enough, thank you anyway, and so a bit out of the loop.

[jonnyblitz]

5. here is a link to a youtube video of Obama defending choice

of Warren. The"I am a fierce advocate .." speech. it was posted numerous times here at DU after this whole mess began.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLtrOz53y-A

[shadowknows69]

10. Thanks johnnyblitz

I hadn't seen it. Been staying away mostly last few days.

[jonnyblitz]

11. we aim to please!

happy holidays! :hi:

[shadowknows69]

13. Well, that was kind of weak

In the primaries he was flat out inspiring, sorry, lately he's sounding like a politician. You already won President Obama. It's ok to show a little strength on the issues you're a "fierce advocate for..." blah blah blah. Inclusion is one thing. Rewarding the author's of divisiveness is quite another.

[merh]

6. the naming of Warren is his statement

since he named him as a participant at his inauguration, when the naming became an issue he said:

"A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion," he said. "Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/obamas-talking-points-on_n_152056.html

[marylanddem]

9. Do you suppose he made some stupid promise to Warren

at the historic moment he spoke at the dumbass's church, perhaps in a joking way, that, if inaugurated, Warren would give the invocation? I can imagine that happening & then Obama being stuck with it...although, of course, he could demonstrate righteousness and give Warren the heave-ho.

[merh]

15. I think that is what happened.

I'm one of the ones that has been vilified because I support civil rights yet do not consider warren's prayer as an attack on the glbt community. I'm a political junky and I don't recall any invocation given at any of the inaugurations I have watched over the years. I also have problems with angry attacks and with little activism. I see no effort to organize efforts to let Obama know how strongly folks oppose warren.

I also know that you can hold a "personal opinion" which differs from a "legal opinion".

Think about it - there are "good catholics" and/or other religious folks that are judges. They may, by virtue of their religion, not believe in divorce yet they preside over divorce proceedings all the time and grant divorces under the law. They set their personal feelings to the side as they follow the law, to follow the oath they took.

I believe Obama will be that type of leader. He may not, by virtue of his religion, be in favor of same sex marriage. Yet, he is a con law scholar and he knows that equality under the laws of this nation mean you abide by the law and not allow your personal feelings to interfere with the rights of others. That is how many are regarding pro-choice. Personally, they would not get an abortion and don't like abortions, but from a civil rights stand point, relative to equality under the laws, they support the rights of women to control of their bodies and the right to make their own choices, thus they are pro-choice.

[TankLV]

19. "I'm one of the ones that has been vilified..." AND RIGHTLY SO!!!

Bigotry and hatred is never "excusable" - no matter how much you idiots wish is so...

Let us know when he "sits down" and "dialogs" with the KKK...until then it and all you idiots EXCUSES are just BULLSHIT...

[merh]

20. not rightly so

And you let me know when you are doing something more than attacking pixels on a screen.

You let me know what you have done over the course of your lifetime for civil rights. Tell me what more is there than bitching at folks on the internet.

[shadowknows69]

14. That's a bullshit comment from the Pres Elect IMO

Does Obama really think he would have been given the same access to the pulpit if he were openly gay or made a speech there advocating abortion rights?

[merh]

16. What I want to know is what will happen when Obama sits down

with the Pope. That will be giving credence to not only a spiritual leader that condemns gays, but to a world leader that condemns gays and it will last longer than a prayer.

What will matter to me on inauguration day is not the prayer given by warren, it will be the words of Obama. That is how I will measure Obama, by his words and his subsequent deeds as president, once he takes the oath of office.

[shadowknows69]

17. by his words and his subsequent deeds as president

In the long run that's how we should all end up measuring him of course, but this shit was avoidable, and its unnecessarily hurtful to a number of people Obama claims to champion. I haven't weighed in much on this. I got destroyed by making the mistake of going into the GLBT forum and trying to make some constructive protest suggestions, but I understand the anger. I don't think we should let it lie. At least make sure your voice is heard. I still say the best way to annoy a politician into seeing your view a little clearer is to dump a million REAL letters on their front doorstep. Emails, protests, even boycotts of products to a large degree easily ignored. The sudden arrival of multiple large sacks of mail at least makes the Secret Service mail room earn their pay and it's likelier that word will get to the big guy's ears.

[merh]

18. I understand the anger and the hurt.

Even if I don't agree with the reactions to warren, I agree that the man is a bigot and if it were me in Obama's place, I would not have included him. But then again, I wouldn't include religion in a government function.

I believe prayers and spirituality are private and personal and have no place in state functions (and if the fundies ask, I can give them the gospel verse that specifically states just that).

As you noted, there is no organized effort, there are just posts after posts of complaints and anger. I'm with you, there needs to be some structured effort to let Obama know about the anger and hurt, some real efforts at civil disobedience and protest. I've not seen any calls to organized and support.