Pastor Rick Warren defends invite to inauguration

Fair enough. But what this man does harms my people. I don't like that. And yes, of course I voted for Obama (even though he doesn't yet support gay marriage...a fact I'm well aware of). But if you are going to make a Rev. Wright / Ayers (Old, lame argument btw) vs. this Ssempa guy argument, I don't see it. Wright didn't advocate for the eradication of homosexuals, at least that I know of. And if he was foolish enough to do so, Obama hopefully would have been smart enough to distance himself a long time ago. Yet Ssempa stepped foot inside that church and was treated like "family". With tears for emphasis even ! You don't see a problem with that ? Really ?
 
I totally understand you don't like what these folks believe. As I said, I don't know anything about this Ssempa guy, but i can't imagine he's throwing gays into fire pits or Warren would have nothing to do with him. They see homosexuality differently than I do and certainly differently than you do. You don't have to support them, can support alternative organizations, etc, but neither you nor I have the right to try and make them go away or force them to change their beliefs.



The Obama and Ayers/Wright, etc is the exact same thing. There's no difference except Obama was on your side and the other wasn't.



There's lot of parallels out there. I hate what Scientology says about psychiatric diseases, but I'm not going to stomp on their right to preach it and promote their beliefs. I think their beliefs hurt people, but unless they are breaking the law they can do what they want. Freedom works for and against us. You can't have one without the other. That's the price.



Your post, to me, was saying a basically good man was a jacka$$ for uttering words about kindness and respect. To me, that's wrong. Warren is not a bad guy.



I also understand what Warren and his ilk promote in some ways hurt your people (your words). Obama wants to shut down Gitmo and treat terrorists like captured civilians....let's say he does and lots of these prisoners go free and blow up Americans. What Obama believed, what he preached, what he promoted turns out to harm our people. Are you seriously going to condemn Obama to the point where you'd hammer him for saying something as benign as "When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us". Of course you wouldn't. Neither would I. I disagree with Obama completely on this issue, will probably always vote against him, be pissed off, and roll my eyes at some of his stupid ideas...but as misguided as his philosophy is (IMHO) it doesn't make him a bad man. He just believes differently than I do.
 
It's worth noting that the possibility of prisoners being released from Guantanamo Bay engaging in activities against us isn't just theorhetical, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q">it's already happening.</a> And, of course, the attitude that simply treating the enemy with respect will disarm them is not only naive, it's dangerous. It also places the blame for 9/11, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, the bombing of 2 American embassies in north Africa, and numerous other acts of terrorism against Americans on Americans.



The fact is that you can't win a war by being nice to the enemy. The only way you can win a war is to destroy all hope that the enemy has. To make them realize that the only rational choice they have is surrender. Coddling terrorists will never stop them. It's well past time that Americans wake up to what's happening in the world.
 
So Concentration Camps that Violate the Geneva Convention and The United States Military Code of Conduct and the rights of Habeas Corpus as defined in the US Constitution are acceptable?



"A writ of habeas corpus is a legal action against unlawful detainment that commands a law enforcement agency or other body that has a person in custody to have a court inquire into the legality of the detention. The court may order the person released if the reason for detention is deemed insufficient or unjustifiable. The Constitution further provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may not be suspended "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Supreme Court held that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended while the civilian courts remained operational. State and local governments are also prohibited from suspending habeas corpus".



So we change the law with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Which the Supreme Court has ruled is now invalid. The decision, striking down the Military Commissions Act, was handed down on June 12, 2008.



Our Country is ruled by laws. Sometimes those laws protect people that have harmed us.

But they are OUR LAWS. We dont get to pick and choose when to ignore them.



Closing Guantanamo is necessary because its ILLEGAL to operate under our existing laws.

Yes. Some of these guys are going to come back and kill. So should we hold summary

executions ? Maybe ? If the law allows us to execute them so be it. But you dont hold people

without charges for years on end. This is the United States of America. Not some Soviet Gulag

allowed to make people just disappear.
 
Comparing GITMO with a concentration camp? Wow. That is simply inaccurate and offensive. Have you been to Dachau? Comparing the rights of soldiers captured while fighting in uniform and under the flag of a sovereign nation with terrorists who have no uniform and represent no nation is likewise inaccurate. Saying that "yes, some of these guys are going to come back and kill," as though a federal constitution that is incapable of addressing this the modern day terrorist circumstances would somehow require the imperilment of innocent individuals is cavalier at best.



This is not a traditional criminal justice situation, and applying criminal justice rules is short-sighted. Nor is this a traditional war against a sovereign nation, and thus, conventions, such as Geneva, are similarly inappropriate.



Look I appreciate the criticism of the Bush administrations efforts to address this issue. I wasn't much of a Bush fan myself. But I am more interested in hearing what you would recommend as an alternative. What do you expect the government to do with these individuals?
 
[quote author="GrewUpInIrvine" date=1232891303]Comparing the rights of soldiers captured while fighting in uniform and under the flag of a sovereign nation with terrorists who have no uniform and represent no nation is likewise inaccurate.</blockquote>


Just to nitpick, most of those brought to Gitmo were not terrorists. Most of those put into Gitmo have been released. Some of them did nothing more than piss off a neighbor who lied and turned them in. See, this is the the crux of the problem -- we imprisoned innocent people for years. These people weren't the exceptions. The dangerous ones were the exceptions. What we do with those in Gitmo now is a problem. This is another reason we never should have done it. It is another case of Bush doing something horrible and not having an exit strategy.
 
<img src="http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg" alt="" />
 
Hey ! Get your own thread about GITMO.



4Walls. <em>There?s lot of parallels out there. I hate what Scientology says about psychiatric diseases, but I?m not going to stomp on their right to preach it and promote their beliefs. I think their beliefs hurt people, but unless they are breaking the law they can do what they want</em>



But what if Scientologists (or insert any other group here) somehow came up with a ballot measure saying you couldn't get married. I realize this is a total stretch of a hypothetical, but go with it for a second. Would you just roll over and play dead ? Wouldn't you be riteously pissed and do everything you could to try and thwart it ? Again, I don't give a sh*t what Warren does in his church, as long as he leaves me and my rights alone.



FYI, I'm not a fan of Rev Wright and kinda wish he'd get hit by a bus or something.



<em>If what you say is correct, a gay person can?t join his church. Big deal. There?s a million clubs you and I can?t join for a million different reasons. From gender, to medical history, to skin color?things that are completely out of our control exclude us from things all the time, whether or not we think it?s fair. So what? There?s a thousand other groups we can join.</em>



I am merely mocking him for saying he "loves gays", yet we can't join his church. Sounds like he's talking out of his a*s to me.



<strong>When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us</strong>.



You and I are obviously reading this quote differently. Although I don't know how. Let's just let it be.



And WINEX said it best : <strong>The fact is that you can?t win a war by being nice to the enemy</strong>. To me, he <em>is</em> the enemy.
 
Hey ! Get your own thread about GITMO. Sorry Trooper. I just saw that post (without reading all 4 preceding pages) and just "lost it." Back to your topic.



I'm not sure why, but I'd have felt more comfortable if Warren would lose the beard/gottee thing. It just doesn't look right. And the apparent over-emphasis on the kids names was obnoxious. As for the enemy stuff? Hmm. Not sure that is the most effective strategy. Look at prop 8 and how the tide turned when Gavin Newsome started appearing in all of those commercials saying "like it or not!" It pissed a lot of people off - as if something was being forced upon them - and boom, that proposition passed.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1232907732]

And WINEX said it best : <strong>The fact is that you can?t win a war by being nice to the enemy</strong>. </blockquote>


What I said about war only applies to actual war. It is unfortunate that people in our society overuse the term "war" because it waters down the actual meaning of the term.
 
I am encouraging everyone to watch "Prayers for Bobby" tomorrow night (Tuesday) on the Lifetime channel. I believe it begins at 9PM, but that might be East Coast time, so check you guides. TiVo this thing. In watching it, you will get a small snippet of what I went through as a child. The outcome was not the same as mine, but damn close.



People like Rick Warren cause things like this to happen.



<em>In "Prayers for Bobby," Mary Griffith is a devout Christian who raises her children with the conservative teachings of the Presbyterian Church. However, when her son Bobby confides to his older brother he may be gay, life changes for the entire family after Mary learns about his secret. While Bobby's father and siblings slowly come to terms with his homosexuality, Mary believes God can cure him of what she considers his 'sin' and persuades Bobby to pray harder and seek solace in church activities in hopes of changing him. Desperate for his mother's approval, Bobby does what is asked of him, but through it all, the church's apparent disapproval of homosexuality causes him to grow increasingly withdrawn and depressed. Guilty over the pain he is causing Mary, Bobby moves away, yet hopes that some day his mother will accept him. His subsequent depression and self-loathing intensifies as he blames himself for not being the 'perfect' son and is driven to suicide. Faced with their tragedy, Mary begins to question her faith when she receives no answers from her pastor concerning her devastating loss. Through her long and emotional journey, Mary slowly reaches out to the gay community and discovers unexpected support from a very unlikely source. The film is based on the 1995 Leroy Aarons book of the same name. </em>
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1232900300]<img src="http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg" alt="" /></blockquote>
 
My fear for this movie is that it will be a political statement and not a quality story about a sad tragedy.



No piece of Hollywood proganda is going to convince me the Church is "bad" and no piece of Biblical rhetoric is going to convince me homosexuality is "bad."



I'm sick of heavy-handed film attempts by the Left that insult intelligence. Hopefully, this movie is good on it's own merits as a piece of non-fiction storytelling.



I feel sorry for anyone who went through something similar as a kid. I know it blows chunks (and sticks with you for a long, long time).



PS Trooper, yes I am Elizabeth from The View. Don't tell my husband I was looking for advice on starting over as a single person on the IHB!!
 
PS Trooper...more than happy to agree to disagree on Warren and drop it as you suggested. I understand you have a dog in this fight and I don't, so I want to be respectful of that.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1233045310][quote author="Oscar" date=1232900300]<img src="http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg" alt="" /></blockquote></blockquote>


<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
Look at my post on the "Irvine Ponzi Scheme".

".<a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/4239/">http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/4239/</a>



Looks like Rick Warren had some Church members that were

helping out the community in a slightly different way.



"When the alleged scheme came to light in 2006, SEC officials told The Times that Vander Tuig and Carman were members of Saddleback Church, had recruited salespeople from an addiction recovery program operated by the Lake Forest mega-church and had handed out copies of the bestseller "The Purpose-Driven Life" by Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to prospective investors".
 
So, 4Walls, did you watch "Prayers" ? I haven't gotten the chance yet, but I've Tivo'd it. I will really need to be in the right frame of mind to watch it, as I'm assuming it will hit very close to home for me. Feedback I've gotten so far is: Bring tissue. What did you think? (And I think you know it's a true story, right?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top