Pastor Rick Warren defends invite to inauguration

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Alright, I hear what you all are saying....but put yourselves in my shoes for just one minute. I've struggled all my life against homophobia and it has affected me a great deal. I believe the discrimination I've experienced is, for the most part, based on the bible and/or religion. And Warren is perpetuating it. I guess I'm not interested in taking it quietly anymore.

Thank you all for your comments.
 
Trooper said:
I believe the discrimination I've experienced is, for the most part, based on the bible and/or religion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I do not question your experience, your perception, or your intelligence.

But, what battle are you fighting?

Do you want to change a legal issue? Or do you want to change someone's mind?

If you think you are going to change the mind of someone whose thoughts are based on their religion, you are going to lose. You may express your anger, but you will lose the war.

If on the other hand, you want to change the law, and you need to change the minds of voters, concentrate on those whose minds and votes you have a chance of changing. And concentrate on those who mind you can change the easiest.

Going after the Mormans or any other religious group is not the best strategy, unless you just feel good going after them.
 
Janet is not openly gay and is still in the closet. Did you ever stop to wonder WHY that is ? WHY she would hide one of the most important parts of her identity ?
Click to expand...

Trooper

I didn't know that and don't see how that has any effect on her governing this state. Hows that for don't ask-don't know? ;-) Even though she is a Democrat I think she was a good governor.

My question is why is there any connection between religion and the inauguration? Why did Obama not select a Hindu or Muslim to represent their followers? Why did he only select two preachers from many different religions.

He is the ultimate political animal. Maybe better than Bill Clinton. I feel he selected representatives who will bring certain constituencies as his real job from day one is to get re-elected. Obama will govern from the center to reach that goal and will alienate some of the far right and far left groups in the process during his first term. I am not sure where he will govern from if elected the second time.
 
Going after the Mormans or any other religious group is not the best strategy, unless you just feel good going after them.

In case you forgot, they brought the fight to us. Not vice versa. So this is all reaction, not pre-emptive. And yes, as a matter of fact it does feel good to loudly stand up for my rights. You can expect me and my peeps in their face at every possible moment during the next two years. It may not change minds, but It will surely make people uncomfortable and bring attention to how ludicrous this all is. Like my favorite sign at the marches said, "No more Mr. Nice Gay"

and yes exsocal.....the Gov of Arizona is a lesbian.
 
Trooper said:
Going after the Mormans or any other religious group is not the best strategy, unless you just feel good going after them.

In case you forgot, they brought the fight to us. Not vice versa. So this is all reaction, not pre-emptive. And yes, as a matter of fact it does feel good to loudly stand up for my rights. You can expect me and my peeps in their face at every possible moment during the next two years. It may not change minds, but It will surely make people uncomfortable and bring attention to how ludicrous this all is. Like my favorite sign at the marches said, "No more Mr. Nice Gay"

and yes exsocal.....the Gov of Arizona is a lesbian.
Click to expand...

My father taught me an important lesson; resistance persists.

So you will get exactly what you profess to. You will loudly stand. You will react, instead of act. You will be in people's face. You will bring attention. And you are correct, it will not change minds. And like you, their resistance will strengthen.

And neither will listen to the other.
 
When it comes to understanding the "yes" vote on Prop 8 from otherwise overwhelming party-line Dem voters I think that Gay Rights advocates really need to stop and consider what happenned. It was not the Mormons or Rick Warren who pushed the vote to 'yes'. This voting block was too small to get anything it wanted and was overwhelmed at the presidential line.

Think more about the urban voters who came out and voted for Obama and Yes on Prop 8. I think that there was a great deal of offense taken in regards to the ads put out by the "No on 8" sides, comparing the plight of a gay white man to the historical plight of slaves. There is also a greater social stigma toward homosexuality within both Mexican as well as in lower income cultures.

Instead of taking shots at the easy religious targets I don't think that the vote will ever be different unless these attitudes are addressed.

At the same time I am not sure what it is exactly that a same-sex preferenced person cannot do in this country? You can be openly gay, work at any company as a protected class (as a white male the only way to be counted as 'diverse' within a corporation is to be gay or handicapped), live with whomever you choose, go to entertainment venues specifically targeted to this lifestyle, go to the movies to watch blockbuster uberhyped movies about gay American heroes, adopt or have surrogate-involved children, receive domestic partner benefits just like a 'married couple' , name your partner as beneficiary on your insurance policy etc. You can open joint accounts, enter into contracts and otherwise manage finances as a legal unit. Is this all not good enough because you can't have a religious wedding in a church? As a secular humanist I just don't see the need to feel 'approved' by a religion.

Just my two cents - please don't misread as an attack...I sincerely am puzzled by some of the vitriolic aftermath of the Prop 8 vote.
 
I can't explain enough why I will not shrink in the face of this blatant discrimination. If you don't understand why I'm doing it by now, I don't know what else to say. I respect you a great deal awgee. Let's just leave it at that.

And as a head's up, you all might want to avoid Hollywood tomorrow night...and Ventura Blvd in the Valley....and check the website for any OC locs, I haven't done so yet.

n709790411_2198392_8191.jpg
 
Irvine5, Welcome aboard.

There is also a greater social stigma toward homosexuality within both Mexican as well as in lower income cultures.

And where, pray tell, do you think they learned it from ? (hint: the church)

Instead of taking shots at the easy religious targets I don’t think that the vote will ever be different unless these attitudes are addressed.

Again, I'm telling you that the majority of this all stems from the church's teachings. Be it past or present. Ask anyone why it's "wrong" to be gay, and most will respond "because the bible says so." Really. Try it sometime.

Is this all not good enough because you can’t have a religious wedding in a church?

This has nothing to do with religious weddings. The law was never going to force ANY church to participate or allow gay marriages if they chose not to. The law was going to give me equal rights and responsibilities in marriage. Just like you have. Domestic Partnerships are not marriage. I want what you got.

How many of those things are true in California?

Three. I'm lucky. The majority of gays in this country have to deal with all 6.
 
OK, but careful what you wish for. Ask many a divorced man about what rights and priveledges legal marriage cost him - like the right to keep 50% of his salary and to the right to his see his children at will. In fact much of marriage law is based on the concept that the woman as bearer of children and dependent of the earning power of the man needs to be protected and compensated when the union dissolves. I am interested to see how the first wave of same sex marriage divorces bumps into current family law.

Don't worry about me, even though I did not vote for Obama I did vote "No" on 8, I definitely have no interest in preventing people from doing whatever they want as long as it does not harm others. I do think that the gay community faces a challenge from the hispanic community (I have lived in both Mexico and Central America and know who deeply these attitudes run) as well as with large portions of the black community when it comes to getting reforms done through a general vote. Notice I give no suggestions about how to reach these people because to be honest I don't have any.
 
At the same time I am not sure what it is exactly that a same-sex preferenced person cannot do in this country? You can be openly gay, work at any company as a protected class (as a white male the only way to be counted as ‘diverse’ within a corporation is to be gay or handicapped), live with whomever you choose, go to entertainment venues specifically targeted to this lifestyle, go to the movies to watch blockbuster uberhyped movies about gay American heroes, adopt or have surrogate-involved children, receive domestic partner benefits just like a ‘married couple’ , name your partner as beneficiary on your insurance policy etc. You can open joint accounts, enter into contracts and otherwise manage finances as a legal unit.

And SO much of this is not true in many places in the U.S. Really...you should read up on the issue before you make those assumptions.
 
You're awesome, Trooper :-)

But what I don't get is how attacking religion, the church, and fluffy, lovable Rick Warren is going to win anyone over to your side. I understand what you're doing from an emotional POV. Totally get that. But I don't see any tactical benefit. It just unifies your "opponent" and diminishes public sympathy.
 
Well where the heck have you been 4Walls ? I miss our discussions.

We're not attacking the church, were making a statement and bringing some of the discriminatory things they've done to light. I think it will be a toss up whether we lose or gain sympathy. But keeping silent does nothing.
 
Trooper said:
I can't explain enough why I will not shrink in the face of this blatant discrimination. If you don't understand why I'm doing it by now, I don't know what else to say. I respect you a great deal awgee. Let's just leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Trooper said:
We're not attacking the church, were making a statement and bringing some of the discriminatory things they've done to light. I think it will be a toss up whether we lose or gain sympathy. But keeping silent does nothing.
Click to expand...
Trooper, please think about what I write before you reply. In the past, your singular mindset has been to blame the various churches, causing you to be dismissive of any criticism regarding that tactic and apparently ignoring the multiple posts from multiple people advising you that it is a pointless endeavor... if your goal is legalize same sex marriage.

Attacking any "church" does nothing to convert people to your cause, in fact it only causes other segments of church-goers to identify more strongly with your persecutors. They are being held up as a target because they are vocal and easy to identify, but you have no chance of using them to convert others to your side. You are losing the political war because your side insists on committing all your human resources to attacking an image. You claim you are standing up for your rights, but the people you are standing up to cannot grant you your rights any more than they can take them away. The battle you need to be fighting is against those who took away your rights. Marching in Hollywood is akin to America responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Canada; sure it feels good to be doing something, but the action is completely misdirected and guaranteed to annoy the neighbors. Instead of attacking the churches, you should be pitting them against one another by asking Jews how they would feel if the Catholics revoked their right to marry. March on black churches and ask them if this is "Justice" while holding up posters of gay and lesbian activists marching with MLK. Form a coalition with immigration groups to mutually support each other's drive to obtain ALL the rights of natural, heterosexual citizens.

In short, address those who voted Yes on 8 and quit attacking those who funded it.

In continuing this tirade you are putting too many regular people on the defensive when your goal should be to make them fear your fate. I can't tell if you are being pig-headedly stubborn or if you come here to post after attending some sort of ra-ra rally, but I am going to be as blunt as possible now: continuing this way is going to lose you an entire generation of voters that marginally supported you either because they attend church, or are growing weary of this particular brand of ineffective demonstration, or have come to associate gay marriage activists with extreme left-wing kooks like Kucinich and Nader. You are starting to sound like George Bush insisting that Iraq was an imminent threat long after it was clear that a WMD/nuclear program was not present; you may think you are right, but the rest of us are telling you that you are wrong, wrong wrong.

I'm not saying your feelings about this whole mess are illegitimate or that you shouldn't fight. I understand and share the desire to see this kind of descrimination ended permanently. But I cannot support people who insist on ignoring reality in favor of their own delusions. Personally, I find your own dogged attachment to this point of view and course of action to be mind-boggling in the face of overwhelming objection from people who support you and your cause.
 
In short, address those who voted Yes on 8 and quit attacking those who funded it.

Oscar, the majority of those people are sitting in those churches. Not just the he LDS, but the Roman Catholic, the Evangelical, Muslim etc. etc. (with the exception of the vast majority of Jewish people) And it all still boils down to the bible/koran/book of mormon/etc. If "the church" would stop perpetuating the myth that homosexuality is an abomination, and stop interfering with MY LIFE, I would welcome them to do whatever else it is they do. I was never concerned with Mormons or Catholics before this...as I said before, it was none of my business what people did religiously. Until now. If people consider me a "left-wing kook" for standing up for my rights, so be it.

So call me pig-headed all you like. I hear what you say but am unsure what group you think we've left untapped in our quest for equality. Here is a sample of who we had aligned with. Am I missing anything?

On November 15, 2008, five civil rights groups asked the California Supreme Court to annul Proposition 8 on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups.[151] The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California State Conference of the NAACP, and Equal Justice Society petitioned the state Supreme Court to issue a stay of Proposition 8.

I'm standing by my ascertation that the group we need to concentrate most is religious people. As you all have mentioned, it's not going to work. Well, we're still going to try. What have we got to lose ? Wait.... more rights! (Yes, the orginal petition these Yes people tried to get on the ballot sought to remove our domestic partner benefits as well).

The statistical trends from the CNN exit poll of 2,240 voters suggested that an array of voters came out both in opposition to and in support of Proposition 8, with no single demographic group making up all of either the Yes or No vote. These demographic trends were published in the media, including the following:

The following list comprises a detailed, though not exhaustive, account of the demographics voting Yes on Prop. 8 from the CNN exit poll:

84% of weekly churchgoers – (32% of those polled);[note 1]

82% of Republicans – (29% of those polled);[note 2][note 3]

81% of white evangelicals – (17% of those polled);

70% of African Americans – (10% of those polled);[note 4][note 5]

68% of voters married with children (31% of those polled);

65% of all Protestants - (43% of those polled);

65% of white Protestants – (29% of those polled);

64% of voters with children in household – (40% of those polled);

64% of Catholics – (30% of electorate);

61% of age 65 and over – (15% of those polled);

60% of married people – (62% of those polled);[note 6]

59% of suburban dwellers – (51% of those polled);

58% of non-college graduates – (50% of those polled);

56% of union households - (25% of those polled);

53% of Latinos – (18% of those polled);

51% of white men – (31% of those polled).

Polls showed that gender and income differences shared virtually no correlation with the vote

Wikipedia has a wonderful unbiased summary of the whole Prop 8 battle HERE.
 
I think the top down approach is failing miserably, and in turn is only making the bottom support their top more. If the bottom up approach were taken, then the bottom could change the top. But until this approach is taken, then what is perceived as one step forward will actually be two steps back. I understand the need to change the mind of one will change the minds of many, but changing the minds of few will change many more. It's time to work the way up, not work your way down.

‘If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.’

— Lao Tzu
 
Trooper,

Here is a discussion going on at a different posting community and I thought it might add to the topic here:

The problems our country faces right now are really quite overwhelming. If the Republicans spend all their time blocking and trying to shut down congress and appoint special prosecutors for every little infraction they THINK he has committed (like selling Senate seats?), it will be difficult indeed for Obama to be effective.

What Obama has to do ASAP is turn the haters into a group that will work with him during his administration, so that he can possibly affect the change he campaigned on. Face it, health care (for ONE) in our country will not ever get better unless BOTH sides work together to fix it. Or change it.

What thrills me about this scenario is that the huge majority of Warren's followers at Saddleback voted for Bush twice and McCain this time and are staunchly fundie-Xtian-republican. That group includes my husband's parents, and both of his sisters and their families. And I have tried my utmost over the last 8 years to get them to look at GWB in the reality-based world. I nearly killed myself trying to convince them that "libruls" aren't Satan. They would have nothing of it. So knowing that their purpose-driven leader is giving the invocation for that "Muslim terrorist librul" is personally very satisfying. "Oh my goodness, they are praying together!!! But he's a MUSLIM terrorist!!! Pastor Rick, Pastor Rick, what shall we think of this?!?" (Asked with hand-wringing, teeth gnashing, hair pulling anguish)

By doing this prayer with this Pastor, which includes no policy changes, no laws made or broken, no international treaties agreed upon or shredded, and no constitutional shenanigans - he is gaining credibility from a HUGE group of people who would accept him by no other means. Pastor Rick will not be Obama's new mentor; Saddleback will not be the Obamas' new church. Warren has been assigned no position within the cabinet or anywhere else, as far as I know, anyway.

So while I don't love it - as I don't love that there is a prayer said at all - I see the reason for it and I'm okay with that. I voted for Obama because he gained my trust over time that he is a man who makes solid decisions based on solid reasoning. I may not always agree with his decisions, but until he gives me a solid reason not to trust him, I’m going to continue to think and hope that he knows what he’s doing, and that he’s doing it for the good of us all.

okay, I'm done. for now.

Here is the rest of the thread, if interested: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=27280098&sort=whole#27284133
 
Oscar said:
You are starting to sound like George Bush insisting that Iraq was an imminent threat long after it was clear that a WMD/nuclear program was not present;
Click to expand...

This is off topic from the thread, but can you show me a single instance of President Bush saying that Iraq was an imminent threat?
 
WINEX said:
Oscar said:
You are starting to sound like George Bush insisting that Iraq was an imminent threat long after it was clear that a WMD/nuclear program was not present;
Click to expand...

This is off topic from the thread, but can you show me a single instance of President Bush saying that Iraq was an imminent threat?
Click to expand...

Ok, so he chose to invade and start a war because they weren't an imminent threat, yeah, that's better.
 
Oscar said:
continuing this way is going to lose you an entire generation of voters that marginally supported you either because they attend church, or are growing weary of this particular brand of ineffective demonstration, or have come to associate gay marriage activists with extreme left-wing kooks like Kucinich and Nader...you may think you are right, but the rest of us are telling you that you are wrong, wrong wrong.
Click to expand...

By discussing views, seeing the continuing demonstrations, and hearing about lawsuits, those that are marginally supportive may actually come to understand how important it is to change the result of the passing of Prop. 8. If they are "growing weary" of people wanting basic rights, that's their problem. There's a reason why things have to continue: wanting basic rights for all people is the focus of the demonstrations and court actions. Excuse me, but do not assume that everyone thinks that Trooper is "wrong."

Oscar said:
But I cannot support people who insist on ignoring reality in favor of their own delusions. Personally, I find your own dogged attachment to this point of view and course of action to be mind-boggling in the face of overwhelming objection from people who support you and your cause.
Click to expand...

"People" are not ignoring reality nor filled with delusions. They're hoping very much to make changes, just as anyone else would do.

There was not an "overwhelming objection." The voting results on Prop. 8 were quite close. Wouldn't you have a "dogged attachment" to your point of view if it represented basic rights and wanting to be like everyone else in the USA?

If you can't support it, that's your thing. But do not assume that everyone else agrees with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top