Let me get this straight:
A 20-year association with a radically leftist, anti-American, racist preacher whom Obama referred to as a spiritual adviser meant absolutely nothing about Obama’s judgment or philosophy, and illustrated only the bigotry of those who dared criticize it.
A 20-minute association with one of the country’s most well-liked, mainstream evangelical preachers who happens to support traditional marriage cannot be countenanced and illustrates only the bigotry of those who would dare allow it.
Got it.
Zing! Well put!
It goes along with the Democratic party idea that Gov. Palin – with no family connections, no “approved” east coast education, and no money, who managed to work hard to be elected to city council, mayor, and governor with the executive responsibility of a state budget and who quit a high-paying position because of her ethics and then blew the whistle on those of her own party who were committing wrong-doing – is not eligible to be a vice presidential candidate, but Caroline Kennedy – with no elected experience and no work experience, but with plenty of the “right” background and money – is somehow eminently qualified to be a senator.
Bingo.
[i] Liberal Logic out the Window on Rick Warren [/i]
One-fifth of American adults identify themselves as liberal. That’s 44 million people. Only a miniscule proportion of them are atwitter about Rick Warren.
Here’s another way to think about it. The number of liberals upset about Obama’s choice of Rick Warren is dwarfed by the number of conservatives who believe Obama is . . .
(1) a Muslim
(2) a dangerous radical
(3) foreign-born and ineligible to hold the presidency
(4) all of the above
Stop equating democratic liberals with antidemocratic radicals. It’s as dishonest as equating mainstream conservatives with the Michigan Militia.
Irenaeus – but that “miniscule proportion” are the ones who pay for and drive the agenda of the Democratic party.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i] That “miniscule proportion†are the ones who pay for and drive the agenda of the Democratic party [/i]
In your mind.
Irenaeus, I don’t see anyone trying to tar and feather ALL liberals here.
But it does appear to be true that SOME of the liberals who were most vocal in defending Obama’s association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are also those most up in arms about the selection of Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural.
#5, I would love to find the facts you base your statement on. I would assert that such a statement may have been true in the past. However, in recent years, particularly in the Obama campaign, we now see a greater majority of moderated liberals paying for and driving such an agenda. It is interesting to note how much of Obama’s “war chest” was provided by organizations’ members of PACs that are not considered radically liberal: Goldman Sachs ($884,907), JPMorgan Chase & Co ($600,210), Time Warner ($517,748), IBM Corp ($416,946) are just a few examples (contribution amount in parens – from opensecrets.org).
I can understand the ire of the gay population on this one. They simply want the freedom to do what they want with their own lives so long as it doesn’t infringe on others. They are not forcing the recognition in gay marriage in our churches. They simply want the same government benefits afforded to heterosexuals. I don’t see how we ARE being democratic, taxing a minority, and then forcing them to fund our morals.
9, they are in fact forcing it down our throats, and their immorality does infringe on the rest of us.
Are ya surprised Mary Katharine?
[i] SOME of the liberals who were most vocal in defending Obama’s association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are also those most up in arms about the selection of Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural [/i]
Karen [#7]: That’s no doubt true, as “some” means three or more people. In that sense, millions of outlandish “some” statements are true because you can find three or more Americans (in a population of 305 million) whom they fit.
Take a good look at Ham’s headline. It doesn’t say “Some Liberals’ Logic Out the Window.” It says [i]Liberal Logic Out the Window[/i].” Ham purports to deal with the logic [i]characteristic[/i] of liberals.
This is not an isolated slip of the pen. Conservative polemicists are systematically seeking to conflate democratic liberals with antidemocratic radicals, just as they sought to depict Obama himself as a dangerous radical.
PS to #12: I’m curious: who are the liberals who were so “vocal in defending Obama’s association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright”?
[blockquote]They simply want the freedom to do what they want with their own lives so long as it doesn’t infringe on others. [/blockquote]
Freedom they already have; what they want is specific legal rights; what they really want, in my opinion, is social approval for their sexual perversion.
[blockquote]They are not forcing the recognition in gay marriage in our churches.[/blockquote]
Yet. That comes next as evidenced by the demands for public accomodations.
[blockquote] They simply want the same government benefits afforded to heterosexuals. [/blockquote]
I skipped the radical individualism of the first quote above and could, I expound for awhile on the “no man is an island” theme. However, since those government benefits are paid for by all of us, it’s pretty clear that, yes, same-sex relationships brought into the public realm do impinge on the rest of us.
[blockquote]They are not forcing the recognition in gay marriage in our churches.[/blockquote]
Where the heck do [i]you[/i] live, Justin? The rest of your post just makes no sense.
#4,
And you know that how? Given the fact that the Bishop of Washington felt the need to make a public jackass of himself over this issue, I’d suspect that the number of leftists upset about this is far higher than you think it is.
#9 – how does a man’s relationship with a same-sex partner affect your life in any way?
#15 – When has the gay lobby has never tried to say that the government should force gay marriage on churches that don’t want it?
#14 – The gay lobby is seeking specific, legal rights. Let’s get the government completely out of marriage and have them grant civil unions to all. Leave marriage to the churches. And let the churches have complete freedom to define marriage according to their beliefs.
Unfortunately, in the US, the government won’t get out of marriage. Ever. I don’t believe in gay “marriage”, but if it’s no legal protections vs gay marriage, gay marriage it should be.
Do you know, when I heard Obama’s choice my first reaction — even though I’m not really familiar with Rick Warren – was hear is a nice bridge-building choice. Something any incoming president, especially one who faces such difficult challenges, ought to seek to be doing. The last couple of days of reading about both gays and evangelicals who are offended by *such a small thing* – considering what we are all faced with – depresses me deeply.
Irenaeus,
I’m guessing you don’t read the Weekly Standard or its online version much so I’ll read your comments in that light. This particular article was part of their daily blog feature, which functions a lot like Weekend Update on SNL–quick, funny little bits never pretending to be anything more than that. I agree with your premise but don’t think this is an example of it. In other words, I doubt you’d get the author to say her point was meant to be anything other than funny to those already “in the know.”
Charles – California has civil unions, which grants same-sex couples pretty much all legal rights as marriage – so it’s not exactly a choice between “no legal protections” and “gay marriage.”
Irenaeus, the number of people who identify themselves as liberal is a statistic that tells us nothing in particular. There is, first of all, the limitation on imposed by those who will identify themselves in no particular way because they do not choose to. Then there is the limitation imposed by those whose social positions are of one sort and whose political/economic positions are the opposite. During the campaign we heard about these people with some frequency; we can cite the black vote in Cal for Obama and, on the opposite side, the vote in favor of prop 8. Maine is increasingly liberal socially but its economics is still quite red. Finally there is the number of people who are quite liberal and don’t know i, perhaps because they are pragmatists and think primarily in terms of how a matter works, not where it stands in a political spectrum. Obama’s generation is of this sort, so the op ed pieces in the NYTimes tells me. In short, I doubt that your statistical assertions and comparisons from from them rest on anything convincing. Larry
Gay liberal checking in. I’m fine with Rick Warren (and agree with others who have said he is a good bridge building choice). I was also unaware of his lobbying against prop 8. Maybe I should turn my toaster in . . .
I can understand disagreeing with Rick Warren on this or that issue, but to say he should not be involved in an inaugural event seems to smack of the same old “We won, you lost, no seat for you” mentality of politics that Obama claims to want to move past. Good for him for seeming to do just that.
Dirk Reinken
[blockquote]When has the gay lobby has never [sic] tried to say that the government should force gay marriage on churches that don’t want it?[/blockquote]Charles you have read something into the comment that is not there. I did not see a reference in justinmartyr’s post to using goverment action to force churches to accept gay marriage. The gay lobby is indeed directly forcing acceptance of their lifestyle on denominations.
I skipped the radical individualism of the first quote above and could, I expound for awhile on the “no man is an island” theme. However, since those government benefits are paid for by all of us, it’s pretty clear that, yes, same-sex relationships brought into the public realm do impinge.
Yeah, it would be wrong for you to have to fund the homosexuals marriages with your tax money. I’m sure, in the same spirit, you’d let them opt out of funding yours? 🙂
Let’s get the government completely out of marriage and have them grant civil unions to all.
I just had this discussion on another blog, and am still waiting for some evidence of a substantial difference between a civil marriage and a civil union. The point remains that whatever you call it, I will still be paying taxes to support same-sex whatever-you-call-it.
[i] Given the fact that the Bishop of Washington felt the need to make a public jackass of himself over this issue, I’d suspect that the number of leftists upset about this is far higher than you think it is [/i] —Christopher Johnson [#16]
Christopher: An extraordinary non sequitur: because a conspicuously irrelevant bishop made a “public jackass of himself” on one of his signature issues, therefore lots of “leftists” have their bowels in an uproar. And all that somehow indicts the 43.9 million American liberals who continue to go placidly about their business.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Widening Gyre [#19]: Thank you for the clarification.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Larry [#21]: Your meanderings hardly substantiate your efforts, here and on [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/18863/#315644]other threads[/url], to characterize democratic liberals as despotic radicals.
[i] This thread is off topic and getting too personal. Please return to a discussion of the original post. [/i]
Irenaeus. The Warren story is getting major coverage on every major liberal news/commentary outlet I’ve checked. Look at Salon, The Nation, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, Slate, the San Francisco Chronicle, the LA Times… it’s frontpage news everywhere the Left is found.
I don’t see how anyone who has made an effort to look into the question could conclude otherwise than that this is a major issue for liberals, generally speaking. Not, of course, for every last individual who calls himself liberal, but if this isn’t a liberal issue there are not liberal issues.
You still haven’t provided me with any actual numbers that prove that more people believe all that stuff about Obama than think this is big deal. You’d be on firmer ground if you stated that numbers of both groups were roughly equal.
But the fact that a bishop from an allegedly-respectable, mainline Christian “church” felt the need to publicly libel Mr. Warren in such a way suggests to me that this story is resonating with a lot more people than just the goofball left.
Will it hurt the President long-term? No. Other things will do that and in a couple more months, the question of who gave the invocation at the Obama inaugural will win you quite a few bar bets. This may not be a huge story but it is a middle-sized one.
Because it got me an Instantlanche. 🙂
Besides, Irenaeus, the issue is not mere numbers, the issue is leverage, control of power and how that power is used. The Warrencase is an example of how the left has chosen to use its power, that is, it has tried to use it to stifle dissent and to enforce agreement with its agenda. So powerful is this lobby, that few politicians dare speak out on the “wrong ” side of homosexual issues
and common people censure their own speech out of fear that they will inflame political correctness.
This is nowhere seen so plainly as on college campuses.I know Dartmouth well, and I know from long involvement the issue of the censureship of politically incorrect speech is the hottest of issues. I know from my other contacts in the Ivies, that this issue is not Dartmouth’s alone. The Warren case is simply another example of attempted suppression, and listening to the Lehrer Report makes that abundantly clear.
Why are you so adamant in this matter? I do not understand.
Larry
Actually, justinmartyr, I’m single.
But I would support same-sex civil unions/civil marriage or whatever term you wish to use if it could be shown that said relationships contribute to social stability at about the same rate, and consume social resources at about the same rate, as heterosexual relationships. Unfortunately, getting honest data in today’s degraded political environment is pretty hopeless.
Not all of us think that this is a horrible thing.
http://padremambo.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/warren-gets-the-lefts-knickers-in-a-twist/
In fact, President Barack Obama and his running mate, Vice-president elect Joe Biden have both publicly stated their opposition to gay marriage. So why wouldn’t he choose someone aligned with his beliefs on such a major issue?
ddcreinken: Glad you checked in. No need to return your toaster. Rick Warren is entitled to vote as he believes he should on Prop 8 and, since he is a paster, to express his feelings on the issue. Your comment is a sane, down to earth one.
From a Titus I:9 ‘devotee’
Bill
#7 Karen:
[blockquote]SOME of the liberals who were most vocal in defending Obama’s association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are also those most up in arms about the selection of Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural.[/blockquote]
True, but I suspect that “many more” of the liberals who were most vocal in defending Obama’s association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright were African-Americans who understood — perhaps more so than most — the historical and environmental context of the Jeremiah Wright sermons. And I suspect that few of these individuals are all up in arms concerning Rev. Warren.
Glbt Affirming Catholicism and former Integrity member (too liberal even for this reappraiser!) checking in.
Rev. Warren is an excellent chioce and a principled and kindly Pastor. I applaud and support his leading the prayer.
Attention Religious Liberals: I thought we need not all believe alike to pray and worship together?
Rev. Warren seems to have the godly and prophetic gift of equally upsetting and offending liberals and conservatives alike.
There is much to learn from religious conservatives that has nothing to do with conservatism and the same goes for liberal Christians.
Choosing Warren is a surprisingly wise first choice for Obama (whom I voted for only after joining Democrats For Life in protest of his pro-abortion position).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/us/politics/20warren.html?_r=1
VGR is going all inclusive about this and rebutting the claim of the PB that there are many paths to God! VGR claims that he and Warren do not pray to the same God.
Love that inclusiveness and baptismal covenantism coming to the fore there!
VGR as quoted in the NYT:
And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.â€
I completely agree.
#38 right you are. Once people realize that this has been true all along they should find it easier (what has taken so very long?) to leave ECUSA. It’s a different religion from Christianity.