On-Topic Pastor nixed from Obama inaugural over anti-gay remarks

[MisterMajestic]

This too is NONSENSICAL. He wasn't ever anti-gay or putting on that appearance.

Did you notice the question mark? I was asking Jack a question and he doesnt need you to answer for him.

 

[T-Rexx]

I find it incomprehensible that Obama keeps inviting these bigots to preach for him.

Is he trying to appeal to the KKK faction? The Fascists? The Republicans?

I don't think the president understands gay rights very well. He only moved to support gay marriage after his vice president forced him to that position. And, he seems not to have a clue how important has been his endorsement of same-sex marriage, however belated. The last year has seen a massive shift in public opinion in favor in favor of same sex marriage, almost certainly because of Obama. This president has done more for gay rights than every previous president in American history combined.

And yet, he continues to reach out and embrace the spokespersons for hatred and prejudice, as if that were the honorable, bipartisan thing to do. It is as if John Kennedy had invited George Wallace to come to Washington in 1963 to give a hate speech, because he thought it only fair to provide counterpoint to Martin Luther King.

It is disconcerting and difficult to understand. Someone needs to sit this president down and explain gay rights to him.

 

[T-Rexx]

Except when their real viewpoints have been discovered they were dismissed.

And how is it that they were invited when their viewpoints on critical issues were not known?

Mistakes can happen, as with this Pastor being invited but the mistake was corrected. So I don't see what the big deal is about?

The big deal is that this is the second time in two inaugurations that this president has made the same mistake. The president's insensitivity the first time provoked a huge controversy.

So, he did it again.

 

[JayHawk]

It's not the President who does the choosing. It's a committee. I'm sure they hand him a final list and probably can provide input on it, but it works much like anything else - the task is delegated to some group to do and isn't done by the President himself.

They also said they weren't aware of his past remarks (these did happen 20+ years ago) and he was chosen for some of the other initiatives he has lead. It's to be expected when choosing religious leaders though, because many have at one point in their life taken the extreme, Bible-based view of many situations. That being said, I also think people can have changes of heart throughout their life. This guy obviously hadn't since he withdrew himself, but I'm not a believer in the idea that once you say something there is no way you can ever think differently. I've seen it in parents of gay friends where they are pretty outspoken against gays until their child comes out and then, faced with the personal experience, many change their views.

Wow a singular rational look at what most likely occurred.

Thanks

 

[T-Rexx]

^ It's not hard to find a religious leader who has NO history of anti-gay bigotry whatsoever; and yet maintains an important and influential position within the religious community.

I can name a dozen or so off the top of my head.

Too bad that the president's committees are so incompetent in this regard. Especially when they keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

 

[JayHawk]

Yeah he replaced his cabinet white three very highly qualified yet unfortunately white guys.

 

[eastofeden]

^ It's not hard to find a religious leader who has NO history of anti-gay bigotry whatsoever; and yet maintains an important and influential position within the religious community.

I can name a dozen or so off the top of my head.

Too bad that the president's committees are so incompetent in this regard. Especially when they keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

I am not so sure this is a mistake. I think they want to appeal to everyone. I think this President has 'legacy' in mind ...maybe more than any other. Judging from his first term it seems he wants to be everything to everybody. Hell...Obamacare is basically the Republican Health Care Plan.

As for being anti gay...he certainly was not "pro gay". Bottom line...the Democrats who supported gay marraige in 2008 were Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez also supported gay marriage (I had one of their bumper stickers though I eventually voted for Obama grudgingly instead of Nader/Gonzales..Kucinich was my man initially). I am far left.

He cautiously avoided having his picture taken with gay marriage maverick Gavin Newsome on two occasions in San Francisco. He told Willie Brown that he did NOT want to be photographed with Newsome. I think he began his campaign in 2004 and what future Democratic Presidential hopeful would snub the Democratic Mayor of a Major American City (and one where he raises a ton of cash?) It was due to Newsomes's stand on gay marriage and Obama did not want to appear supportive or connected to Newsome due to his stand on gay marriage...hardly a man who was "pro gay" and it could be argued from that action alone that he was anti gay because he then went on to appear with very much anti gay Donnie McClurkin and he had no problem appearing with Donnie.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Obama-snub-still-rankles-Newsom-3229408.php

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...stanced-himself-from-Gavin-Newsom-3554313.php

I understand that he eventually turned this around and I applauded him and started donating to his campaign within the hour after his announcement but if I have learned one thing from the Repuks it is to never blindly support anyone or any ideology. You might lose your mind if you do....just look what happened to so many of them EEK! Just because I like him now doesn't mean he should be above criticism or I should forget what he did previously.

I think his support for marriage equality is more smart political calculation than anything he really beleives in. He needed to seal the deal with a less than enthusiastic liberal base and marriage equality did the trick. Left liberals know the Democrats throw them under the bus all the time but also need their support so they need to throw them a bone. In the end it doesn't really matter why he did it...the important thing is that he did it.

One more thing...He is ultimately responsible for the actions of his committee. I don't think there is any mistake. This is not the first or even second time they made this same "mistake"

 

[Kulindahr]

Did you notice the question mark? I was asking Jack a question and he doesnt need you to answer for him.

This is a forum. That means you can ask, but anyone who feels like it can answer. If you want specific one-on-one communication, there are PMs.

 

[Kulindahr]

Something seems to have gone right past a bunch of posters here: Obama didn't pick anyone.

 

[eastofeden]

Something seems to have gone right past a bunch of posters here: Obama didn't pick anyone.

It seems so but not really the case because he is ultimetely responsible for the actions of his committee. He certainly takes credit for the actions of his committee.

 

[T-Rexx]

^^^^ I agree, east. That's actually my point. This was not a mistake.

Given the controversy after Rick Warren, they cannot have been so stupid as to do it again.

The president has a history of trying NOT to be a champion of gay rights. He keeps bungling into it by force of circumstance, not by personal conviction. He is trying to throw a bone to the haters with his choices of inaugural preachers. He doesn't seem to realize (or care?) how insulting this is to those of us who care so deeply about justice.

 

[eastofeden]

^^^Agreed T Rexx^^^ We are on the same page.

 

[MisterMajestic]

This is a forum. That means you can ask, but anyone who feels like it can answer. If you want specific one-on-one communication, there are PMs.

Very true, but just because he felt my question to Jack didnt make any sense or that it was non-sense doesnt mean I don't get to ask Jack the question....

Who goes around forum to forum &/or post to post saying "that question you asked that other Juber doesnt make any sense to me but here is my answer to your question that doesnt make any sense."

It's just a bit strange...I didnt make a statement I asked a question.....

 

[xbuzzerx]

It's not the President who does the choosing. It's a committee. I'm sure they hand him a final list and probably can provide input on it, but it works much like anything else - the task is delegated to some group to do and isn't done by the President himself.

They also said they weren't aware of his past remarks (these did happen 20+ years ago) and he was chosen for some of the other initiatives he has lead. It's to be expected when choosing religious leaders though, because many have at one point in their life taken the extreme, Bible-based view of many situations. That being said, I also think people can have changes of heart throughout their life. This guy obviously hadn't since he withdrew himself, but I'm not a believer in the idea that once you say something there is no way you can ever think differently. I've seen it in parents of gay friends where they are pretty outspoken against gays until their child comes out and then, faced with the personal experience, many change their views.

I'll get on board with Jayhawk and endorse this as the most reasonable interpretation of what happened.

 

[MisterMajestic]

Something seems to have gone right past a bunch of posters here: Obama didn't pick anyone.

It seems so but not really the case because he is ultimetely responsible for the actions of his committee. He certainly takes credit for the actions of his committee.

“Beyonce, Kelly Clarkson and James Taylor. Their music is often at the heart of the American story and speaks to folks across the country,” Obama, who aided in the selection process, said in a statement."

Now if Obama picked the Celebs to sing on stage during the Ceremony I know good and well he hand PICKED Pastor Giglio...

 

[rareboy]

No, actually, for those of us fluent in English, "moronic" is an adjective that does not have inherent personal implications. It can be used for people, actions, opinions etc. And yes, this is EXACTLY how it works. As evidenced by many prolific members of this forum. Feel free to dislike me to your heart's content though.

Hey Springer.

And Majestic.

You are wrong on this. Rolyo is correct.

 

[tigerfan482]

^ It's not hard to find a religious leader who has NO history of anti-gay bigotry whatsoever; and yet maintains an important and influential position within the religious community.

I can name a dozen or so off the top of my head.

Too bad that the president's committees are so incompetent in this regard. Especially when they keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

Then I would suggest composing your list and sending it in because the fact remains that large portions of religious people hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, and while some views have evolved to be more accepting and loving of homosexuals, many still harbor those feelings.

 

[rareboy]

I come back to my original question.

Why does the Inauguration need the services of the Christian clergy at all?

I mean.

Really.

Napoleon had the right idea.

Crown yourself.

 

[Jack Springer]

Think about it Jack...Was Obama REALLY anti-Gay at heart or pro-getting elected at all costs?

MisterMajestic -- when I made the comment "self-righteousness is a heavy burden to carry" it was directed at some of the posters here --- not the President. I should have been more direct in my post.

Some of the posters on CEP appear to want a very strict adherence to their definition of what gays should believe and should act. In some ways they are setting up strict rules that very much look like the extreme conservative religious Christians that they despise and may hate.

I've referred to an Official Gay Manual before and said I didn't have a copy -- no one has sent me one. No one has the right to tell me or anyone how to act and what to believe.

These people whether they are the zealous right, zealous left, or the zealous gay want to impose their values and beliefs on others.

In regards to Obama -- honestly I have no idea what he believes -- I can only see his outward self and he has contradicted himself many times on what his personal belief system holds regarding gay rights and gun rights to name two. Most politicians, no matter who they are, I believe will lie or stretch their belief system to get elected.

I hope that answered your question.

 

[Jack Springer]

No, actually, for those of us fluent in English, "moronic" is an adjective that does not have inherent personal implications. It can be used for people, actions, opinions etc. And yes, this is EXACTLY how it works. As evidenced by many prolific members of this forum. Feel free to dislike me to your heart's content though.

Your calling is to be a politician.