America's Pastor Rick Warren

[zipplewrath]

Yeah, I heard that it was just a prayer. But it was more than that. Obama honored him. And now that's being used to elevate this guy to "America's Pastor". This was predicted by those that opposed the honor in the first place.

"With the Rev. Billy Graham ailing, Rick Warren has aptly filled Graham's role as America's pastor, presiding over last year's presidential inauguration."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-myword-theology-012810-20100127,0,556357.story

[WCGreen]

1. Fuck this guy... His nothing but a entrepreneurial preacher...

Giving well off suburbanites cover for the disparity of wealth in this country...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. Ummm....you DO KNOW that the inaugeration was a year ago,right?

That's quite the long fuse you've got there.

And if you read the whole article, it was basically saying that the older voices of religious intolerance need to be replaced with new voices for compassion and justice. Warren is mentioned in passing, but is not explicitly identified as being a voice for compassion and justice (that would be something of a stretch, in my opinion).

The article is calling on the faithful and the media to reject the "sensational distractions found in the wings of all houses of faith." In other words, the media should stop paying attention to Pat Robertson -- who is explicitly identified as one of the "aging voices" that should be ignored.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. It goes like this

Inauguration. No 'e' in the word at all. The article clearly calls Warren 'America's Minister' and cites the Inaugural prayer as the main reason for that title. Warren is a voice of bigotry and division. Same deal as Pat Robertson, not better for being younger, sorry.
A year ago, how does that matter? The whole point is that a year has gone by, and Warren's image is still boosted by that 'just one quick prayer' song and dance. This is a point that becomes more important as the event fades in the past, as the impact of that event remains. That is the whole point. That the honor still reflects well on Warren, even after a year. And that is why it was a poor choice for Obama to put him up there. In ten years, that choice will still have been a poor choice. Time does not mitigate such actions as standing with bigots, it simply makes the results more apparent.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

13. So you plan to stay prmanntly pissd...

In your honor, I hav rmovd all "e's" from this mssag.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. I'm not pissed. I'm just honest

You are the one who sounds pissed, shouting that things that are a year passed mean nothing, even when discussing the long lasting impact of such vile choices.
In my honor, you should learn to spell inaugural, that was the point. You misspelled the word. I assume because your fingers can not not keep up with your rage that others have a memory for facts you do not like. Typing in a frenzy of Warren support can make anyone make 'mistakes'.
You want to pretend that this did not happen. But it did. And the repercussions continue, for example, you have an opinion that I should not have an opinion about this. After a year, you are still upset at the truth.
Maybe you should take it up with the Newspaper that wrote that which angers you so. They wrote it. Not me. I didn't even post it. I just gave my opinion, which is not yours to control. It is mine.
I note you had no actual response to what I wrote at all. Just snipe. Figures. No foundation to your 'reasoning'.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. No. You're just boring (nt)

[Lyric]

41. No--your willful denial of reality is boring. n/t

[EFerrari]

51. It's odd the way "a year" becomes a relative measure.

Obama has only been in office "a year" but Warren's elevation was "a year ago".

lol

[zipplewrath]

54. Yeah, that bar is real flexible

The way I'd put it is:
1 year is 25% of his term, if there are things he is wanting to accomplish, he'd better get moving.

He's had a year to show some sorta benefit from honoring Warren. Where is it?

[LisaM]

55. I agree with you , Blue

I, too, have a long fuse about things like this. Not that I think a year is such a long time; you'd have to have a really, really short attention span to think that.

[zipplewrath]

23. Yes, and pay attention to Warren

It was calling for Warren to effectively replace Graham as "America's Pastor". The justification being that he "presid over last year's presidential inauguration". There were reasons people objected so strongly. It wasn't "just a prayer".

And it speaks to why trying to "reach out" to the radical right only comes back to haunt you. Give 'em an inch....

[Malikshah]

52. "aging voices" Warren is one of them as well. Of course it's

the Orlando Sentinel--smack dab in the middle of christo-fascist death cult land.

[QC]

3. Warren is often refered to that way now.

As a quick Google search reveals: http://tinyurl.com/y8cao55

[barbtries]

4. not this american's

if i attended church it definitely would not be his. he sickens me.

[struggle4progress]

5. who?

[LiberalFighter]

6. Someone from the Orlando area needs to challenge this in a letter.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Ellie Light can do it

[babylonsister]

9. UnRec. He's not my pastor, nor yours, so what's with the shitty OP? Flamebait

at it's finest. :eyes:

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Um, sorry you do not like the truth

But the impact of Obama's elevation of Warren is still resonating a full year later, and that is a worthwhile point to make, it was in fact the point many of us were making when he selected Warren to pray with him in public. Time will not mitigate that, nor make it go away. It will never, ever be forgotten.
You seem to miss the point, that the press now calls Warren 'America's Pastor' largely due to the Obama connection. This is how life works, one's actions follow and define them, long after the fact.
You should write to the Orlando paper and say 'he's not my minister' but to claim that what the press is saying is not a worthy topic, when many DUers defended the use of Warren from word go, that is just nonsense. Plug your ears and go 'la la la' if you can not accept the actions and the results of those actions.

[jonnyblitz]

15. it's sad Obama had to throw his pro-gay family pastor

under the bus only to take up with this homophobic jackass. :puke:

[Odin2005]

10. No, the bigoted Anmericans' pastor.

fuck hum.

[JTFrog]

12. Obama must have hit it out of the park last night.

Expect to see all kinds of retread threads today.

:eyes:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. Back in the Fourth Grade, Obama cut in front of me in line....

:eyes:

[QC]

34. You mean you're not in the fourth grade now? n/t

[zipplewrath]

17. No, just bad timing

The sentinel published that op-ed the day after the address. I thought about waiting to not get it mixed up in the post address conversation, but then it'd fall off the website and no one could read it in context. It really has nothing to do with the address other than a bit of "we told ya so" as a basis for "we're telling ya again".

[JTFrog]

19. Retread has always been about timing.

"we told ya so" "we're telling ya again"

R.E.T.R.E.A.D.

[CakeGrrl]

31. +1000. "We told you so" is never a good idea, but that

doesn't stop some people from using any and every opportunity to say it over and over.

Why don't those who are so twisted up over Warren go check in on Bill Clinton to make sure he's still not in communication with the guy he invited to participate in his Global Initiative? Is he helping raise Warren's profile too? Expecting crickets on that one.

[zipplewrath]

38. Big difference between the two

Being inclusive of people in larger efforts is one thing.

Elevating a single individual to a position of honor at the second most important inaugural in our history is another.

[CakeGrrl]

49. Well, the "elevation" didn't work on me.

Those who want to support the guy will do it.

Those who don't subscribe to his beliefs will not.

Those who are influenced by such gestures, well, there you go. I am not one of those types, and you can't much do anything about those who are.

[zipplewrath]

53. Sure ya can

You can not elevate these suckers. More importantly, you can elevate those that will benefit you, even if it is being some sort of "useful opposition". As you say, there are those that will be influenced. Even with your opposition, it is important that you control who gets to go out and say "I was just at the oval office and I told the president...."

[Lord Helmet]

30. Bingo. nt

[crikkett]

16. 1 year later I'm still thinking it's a brilliant move.

Perhaps the game is not what you think it is.

[Zenlitened]

18. I'd love to hear more about how it was brilliant.

Frankly, I don't see it that way at all.

:shrug:

[crikkett]

33. well,

the move wasn't showing weakness but taking the high road.

Pres Obama showed that he was President of the American People, not the President of the Democratic Party. I was reminded of the parable of the cloak. (Wind & Sun make a bet to see who can get a man to remove his coat, etc).

In graciously giving Warren that prayer he made the guy take a higher road too - cooperate. Which he did, to the extent that he did.

Yeah, he took a minute longer than he was given, and yeah he prayed for Dominance rather than coexistence, and yeah his blessings over Obama were lukewarm.

But every negative news story I've seen about Warren since has started with something like "and here's the guy who the President was nice enough to give a podium to... our Nation's Pastor so to speak, being ugly..."

IMO Warren's being held to a higher standard than he would have if he weren't given that podium. Every bad story about Warren makes Obama look like a bigger man.

[Zenlitened]

35. I understand what you're saying, but disagree that Warren's held to a higher standard now.

And his selection for the inauguration was nothing but alienating to quite of a few of the American people.

I appreciate hearing your POV, though. Thanks for explaining further. :)

[crikkett]

42. I agree with what you said about Warren's selection alienating many, many people

I sympathize with that, too.

It's a tricky situation, trying to please everyone. Or if not please everyone, trying to relieve the bitterness and anger that the losing side holds onto with such passion. I wonder what factors exactly went into calculating Warren's selection.

Supposing Obama's team were trying to include as many people as he could in the inauguration, I wonder who could have been an acceptable alternative... to include even more people/alienate even fewer?

Thanks for your civility.

[zipplewrath]

47. He had a choice

He can choose "milk toast". Someone unpolitical and unoffensive to just about anyone. As many said, it was going to be a prayer so there are those that aren't going to flat out like that. However, it wouldn't be about the person so much as the prayer. He can choose someone from supposedly "his side of the aisle". No one could have really blamed him, not really even the right wingers. There is what he did, which was to "try to be inclusive" and put someone objectionable to his supporters on the stand and hope to encourage his opponents. As he has seen again and again, his opponents are not impressed with this kind of action. It also makes his supporters suspicious of him. He could have put Rev. Wright up there, but I would not have advised that. The point isn't to poke your adversaries in the eye either.

As I repeatedly suggested then, and the point of the original post was to establish it as fact, is that whom ever he chose to honor, it was going to elevate them with their peers, and within the larger political community. One of the most powerful things a president, or alot of politicians, can do is to provide "access" to himself, even if just at an event like this. Obama writes about it in his first book when dealing with the mayor of Chicago. His selection for that day should have been done to elevate someone who could ultimately have been a significant ally. Warren has not, and it has not "bought" Obama anything and it was the beginning of establishing mistrust with his own base.

[zipplewrath]

39. It definitely wasn't showing weakness

Quite the opposite, Obama felt so strong that he could insult a huge portion of his own base.

The question always was whether that was a good idea.

But strangely, the reason you SEE any negative news stories at all is BECAUSE Obama elevated him in the public consciousness. Otherwise he'd be "just another tele-evangelist". No one would be calling him America's Pastor if Obama had not chosen to honor him in this way. He isn't being "held to a higher standard". He was elevated to a higher position.

[crikkett]

40. I'm sorry for you, that you can't imagine a bigger picture than outright betrayal.

1) Someone had to deliver the benediction. Benedictions by definition are religious.

2) Rick Warren was already in the news, and not in a negative light. You have a short memory.

3) He was another televangelist like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggert, Billy Graham. All newsworthy characters insofar as they had enough money and influence to buy their own cameras.

I maintain that while a portion of Obama's base was hugely insulted, a huge portion of his base was not insulted.
You disagree, as a member of the hugely insulted portion.

[zipplewrath]

44. I think we are closer to agreement than you might imagine

1) Someone had to deliver the benediction. Benedictions by definition are religious.

It had nothing to do with his religiosity. Plenty-o-religious figures that could have been chosen that hadn't just finished campaigning against human rights and had no connections with homosexual cleansing in Africa.

2) Rick Warren was already in the news, and not in a negative light. You have a short memory.

He was "in the news" for 2 reasons. 1) His book 2) His stand against Prop 8. Whether those would be considered "negative" is up to the reader. Obama's honoring of him elevated him above most of his peers. (as the referenced article in the OP demonstrates)

3) He was another televangelist like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggert, Billy Graham. All newsworthy characters insofar as they had enough money and influence to buy their own cameras.

Graham had the reputation he had because of his ability to transcend political issues. By honoring Warren, Obama put him in THAT category, as oppose to Pat, Ted or Jerry. (as the original post attempted to establish. That referenced article was about how it was Warren that should be looked upon as a representative of mainstream Christianity, not the others that you referenced, especially Pat). Obama GAVE him the appearance of being above politics, otherwise his Prop 8 activities would have put him in the Pat, Ted, and Jerry column, not the Graham position.

I maintain that while a portion of Obama's base was hugely insulted, a huge portion of his base was not insulted.
You disagree, as a member of the hugely insulted portion.

I don't disagree that the MAJORITY of his supporters paid little attention. Those that did were quite insulted, and they were not an insignificant portion of his base. Furthermore, it was a harbinger of things to come, as he threw the progressives, repeatedly, under the bus again and again. His whole freeze/deficit/tax credit schtick is going to be much more of the same.

[Zenlitened]

45. Excellent post. - n/t

[TrogL]

20. So you guys have finally admitted you're running a theocracy down there?

[Phx_Dem]

21. Give me a break. Rudy Guiliani is called "America's mayor," but

that doesn't mean he really is. This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard on DU, and there's been alot of stupid arguments.

If this is the only thing you have to worry about, your life is in great shape, so quit bitching!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Phx_Dem]

25. No, I don't think I will.

[zipplewrath]

24. Did Obama make him as such?

Nothing Obama did made Gulliani be considered "America's Mayor". However, he did contribute directly to making a bigot "America's Pastor". It was a mistake. People warned that it was a mistake and were chastised that it was "just a prayer". It wasn't, and here's the example.

[Phx_Dem]

27. ROLFMAO! Are you serious? Obama annointed Warren

American's Paster?

Good one.

[zipplewrath]

28. Law of unintended consequences.

He was warned that his actions would in effect result in the elevation of this bigot to this kind of status. It did.

[atmame77]

32. Let's kill all the gays in Uganda.

Let's kill all the gays in Uganda.

Yup, He's pro life.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

37. And non-believers have no reason to explain themselves anymore.

Case closed.

[AzDar]

43. 'America's Pastor' SHOULD be an oxymoron.

:puke:

[EFerrari]

46. IT'S JUST ONE NATIONAL MANTLE!

[zipplewrath]

48. Clever

That's a good way to express it.

Presidents have the problem, and power, that one of their most useful tools is merely engaging people. It is often opined that it was one of Carter's misunderstandings. People don't go to see the president to discuss policy, they go to him for the photo, and the ability to tell everyone that they had gone to see the president. In ways big and small, to meet people, to have the photo op, to just schedule the appointment is to empower those people in some way. Even if it is to establish you "worthy opponent". The opposition loves to be seen as the White House. It establishes them as a "leader of the opposition".

By honoring Warren, he elevated Warren. What did it buy him? Has Warren been useful in anyway? Even as an opponent? One will note that in the whole Haiti rescue effort, Obama looked to Bush II for help, not Warren. Has Warren helped with health insurance reform? Even taking on the role of "reasonable opposition"? No. Has Warren helped in anyway in "dividing" the opposition, in confronting tea baggers, in countering Rush, in moving Snowe, or breaking a filibuster in any way? No. Has it sown a great amount of distrust amongst members of his base? Yup.

And the same with the Single Payer folks. They got thrown under the bus in an attempt to try to cut off the opposition, and all it did was moving the debate right. So far right he couldn't even hang on to a public option.

He bailed out the banks, and got nothing but a stronger opposition for it.

He bailed out GM, and undermined the unions in the process.

He protected the torturers at the CIA, and got forced to classify the photos of abuse.

He is sucking up big time to his opposition, and I struggle to find anything it has gotten him.

[EFerrari]

50. Being Bill Clinton worked in the 90s. It's not going to work this time.

And of course we called it when we said he was elevating that huckster.

[zipplewrath]

56. I'm tempted to makes some "calls" on DADT too

I'm kinda holding back. There's been little in terms of "countering" actions, other than Warren and some DoJ court briefs that I suspect the WH had little involvement. But the current words are extremely measured and very deferential to the Pentagon. I'm worried DADT won't actually go away, merely de-emphasized some how.