Rev. Warren (Warning: VERY OPINIONATED)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28354114/

I'm admittedly not a Christian nor do I believe in most of what they have to teach. I'm for civil rights for gays including marriage or civil unions (I don't care what it's called). However I do not like what I've seen happen to this reverend.

Quote :

When other conservative Christians held stadium rallies and raised tens of millions of dollars for the ballot effort, there was no sign of Warren. Neither he nor his wife, Kay, donated any of their considerable fortune to the campaign, according to public records and the Warrens' spokesman.

Why should he donate his money? Seems to me like he has more useful things to do with it.

Quote :

But he did so belatedly, with none of the enthusiasm he brings to fighting AIDS and illiteracy.

I think fighting AIDS and illiteracy are much more worthy causes.

Quote :

In fact, his endorsement seemed calculated for minimal impact. It was announced late on a Friday, just 10 days before Election Day, on a Web site geared for members of his Saddleback Community Church, not the general public.

What's so wrong about that? He has every right to preach to his congregation their beliefs.

Quote :

For gay rights advocates, that strategy was nothing more than an attempt to mask Warren's prejudice. They were outraged that Obama decided last week to give a place of honor to a pastor they consider a general for the Christian right.

I really don't believe that from what I've learned about the man. What I do see is a group of people that are reasonably hurt and angry over the recent ballot measure lashing out at someone who really doesn't deserve it. Right now it's an extremely sore spot considering California is a state liberals take for granted.

Quote :

Ever since he began his climb to prominence in the 1980s, he has battled complaints from fellow evangelicals that he isn't nearly conservative enough.

I think Obama saw that he was more moderate than most. However, I think this has been overlooked by most due to the gay community's outrage.

Quote :

He has spoken out against the use of torture to combat terrorism. He has joined the fight against global warming and, encouraged by his wife, has put his prestige and money behind helping people with AIDS. The Warrens have done so at a time when a notable number of conservative Christians still consider the virus a punishment from God.

He has put his focus on causes that many are ignoring. I also want to add that shit happens, and I don't believe it's a punishment from God at all.

Quote :

"If you want to save a life, I don't care what your background is and I don't care what your political party is," Warren said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "I think some of these humanitarian issues transcend politics, or ethnic or religious beliefs."

That's the way it should be.

Quote :

While many religious conservatives openly condemn Islam as inherently evil, Warren reaches out to the American Muslim community.

I won't claim to be an expert because I most certainly am not, but after just finishing a Christian/Muslim Relations course I wholeheartedly agree that Interfaith Dialogue is the way to go.

Quote :

A registered independent who does not endorse candidates, he has called old guard evangelical activists too partisan and overly focused on gay marriage and abortion.

I think that's what people need in a spiritual leader too. Someone who is not going to drive others away because of strong political focus. I felt driven away because of politics. I'm of the belief that most politicians from both sides of the aisle are corrupt and I'll stop short of saying they are evil. I believe they have no place in the house of God.

Quote :

Now he is trying to revolutionize faith-based humanitarian work through his P.E.A.C.E. program. It unites local churches, businesses and governments to fight poverty and disease, promote peace, and combat what he calls spiritual emptiness. The pilot project for this effort began in 2005 in Rwanda, which has been dubbed the first "purpose-driven nation."

This is what church should be about.

Quote :

It is no surprise that he and Obama have become friendly. Each tries to operate outside a strict liberal-conservative divide, and has risked angering his supporters to do so.

"You can't have a reformation without somebody opposing it," Warren says. "If I wasn't making a difference, nobody would be paying attention."

I have to admit I'm shocked that MSNBC was the website that took this kind of look at Rev. Warren.

:soap:

Paul,I'm a liberal and I'm not the least bit concerned or up in arms about Obama choosing him to give the inaugural invocation,like some righties would like people to believe.

he is entitled to his opinion , is he not?

rght or left can we not believe or vote our consience without repurcussion

tater wrote:

he is entitled to his opinion , is he not?

Certainly Tater,It's the far right-wing evangelicals and far left that seem to have a problem with him. I wasn't all that surprised with his pick to give the invocation and I think it was a good move on Obama's part.

i don't care about the pick, i"m tirered so'tired of the retoric

tater wrote:

he is entitled to his opinion , is he not?

My point exactly. I think gay activists are making a big mistake for fighting this one. I for one know how to pick my battles.

Well Paul, where the gay alliances have an issue is Obama did say he supported Prop 8 in California, so now it looks like he is going back on that by picking this guy


Myself I could careless, but its the fact that it appears that he was just another typical politician saying what the people wanted to hear to get elected, and now that he is, its time to toss out what he said

mike3775 wrote:

Well Paul, where the gay alliances have an issue is Obama did say he supported Prop 8 in California, so now it looks like he is going back on that by picking this guy


Myself I could careless, but its the fact that it appears that he was just another typical politician saying what the people wanted to hear to get elected, and now that he is, its time to toss out what he said

That's one way to look at it. I don't know yet myself. I think I'm willing to wait a few months to form an definite opinion on him. I want to see what he does in office, but I'll honestly admit that I have little faith in him. When I went in and voted this fall I damn near left the presidential ballot blank. I reluctantly voted very unenthusiastically.

mike3775 wrote:

Well Paul, where the gay alliances have an issue is Obama did say he supported Prop 8 in California, so now it looks like he is going back on that by picking this guy

Mike,Obama opposed Prop 8 but believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Quote :

Myself I could careless, but its the fact that it appears that he was just another typical politician saying what the people wanted to hear to get elected, and now that he is, its time to toss out what he said

There is a reason that he chose Warren. It's all part of a bigger plan.

It isn't part of any plan Artie

His mind has changedso many times since Nov 5, anything he says now, I have a hardtime feeling

First he said he will create 3 million new jobs, then he turns around and says he will "create AND SAVE" 3 million jobs. So which is it? All he just did is guarentee himself a feather if he gives the big 3 another bail out in March. Because there's more than 3 million people who work in the supply chain for them. Nice way to change his words so that he wins. Yep another typical politician.

He campaigned on change. Yet his entire cabinet is mostly Bill Clinton retreads. Yeah that's change alright, nothing but "insiders" and career politicians. At least Clinton took a chance and appointed people who were new. Not Mr. Change, insiders and career pols, looks to me business as usual

For someone who claimed that he would be better, he is not looking any better than what McCain would have done.

Lets not forget, for someone who was against the Iraq war, why keep the same person as Sec Def? And why keep the Pentagon staff the same? Wow thats really change we can believe in, oh well, at least he got his lifetime pension, but so far it looks an awfully lot like what it has been in Washington for the past 16 yrs.

Quote :

His mind has changedso many times since Nov 5, anything he says now, I have a hardtime feeling

No he has not.

He hasn't "changed his mind" on anything yet.
He's still not the President yet.
He's not going to undue the bush fiasco that took 8 years to create BEFORE he's taken office for cryin out loud.

Give me a breaK.

mike3775 wrote:

It isn't part of any plan Artie

Trust me,Mike,There is,and so far it's working beautifully.

Quote :

He campaigned on change. Yet his entire cabinet is mostly Bill Clinton retreads. Yeah that's change alright, nothing but "insiders" and career politicians. At least Clinton took a chance and appointed people who were new. Not Mr. Change, insiders and career pols, looks to me business as usual

For someone who claimed that he would be better, he is not looking any better than what McCain would have done.

Please.....McCain would be listening to people like Phil Gramm,who created this mess.

Quote :

Lets not forget, for someone who was against the Iraq war, why keep the same person as Sec Def? And why keep the Pentagon staff the same? Wow thats really change we can believe in, oh well, at least he got his lifetime pension, but so far it looks an awfully lot like what it has been in Washington for the past 16 yrs.

Gates has done a decent job. Why change what seems to be working. Besides,In the end he still takes orders from Obama.

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

His mind has changedso many times since Nov 5, anything he says now, I have a hardtime feeling

No he has not.

He hasn't "changed his mind" on anything yet.
He's still not the President yet.
He's not going to undue the bush fiasco that took 8 years to create BEFORE he's taken office for cryin out loud.

Give me a breaK.

He hasn't?

So lets saee, first he says he is going to create at least 2 million new jobs, then it went up to 3, then a couple more words were added which were "or save".

Amazing how it went from creating, to creating or saving jobs, which is his way of saying he did something immediately come March if he is stupid enough to give the big 3 yet another bailout, thus SAVING at least 2 million jobs because he then gets to toss in the supply chain. Yep thats not changing is it, adding a couple words to what he wants to do.

So far, as his way of effecting change, it sure looks like 1992 again in Washington DC.

So where exactly is the change?

Where are the new people at? All I have seen for the cabinet have all been career politicians, yep thats change I can believe in

I am glad I did not vote for either of the two idiots that got the nominations, because neither will do anything but keep up the status quo, which Obama has already done by selecting all insiders for his cabinet.

Notice how he went from a complete troop withdrawal to saying some may have to stay. I wonder if he will call them advisors like Kennedy once did.

I think this is a whole lot to do about nothing. This is one ignorant man talking about hate and all. It makes perfect sense why he picked this guy.

mike3775 wrote:

So far, as his way of effecting change, it sure looks like 1992 again in Washington DC.

So where exactly is the change?

IIRC,1992 to 2000 were pretty good years for this country. Peace,prosperity,and a budget surplus. Care to measure that up compared to what we have now?

Quote :

So where exactly is the change?

I'd say going from the most dysfunctional administration in the history of this country to picking people that are actually COMPETETENT & have a proven track record is a hell of a big change.

im catholic and believe in the church's principle tenants..... which means (among other things) i oppose abortion and gay marriage. im not saying i discriminate against people who support those things. just that i personally oppose them in line with the tenants of my religeon.

now i wouldnt call me a liberal at all...but i am now a democrat.

my question is....

is the liberal left trying to say to all faithfull members of the catholic church that we should have nothing to do with this administration or 'their' party?

personally, i think persons of all faiths and beliefs need to get over themselves. as virtually no one is in total agreement on all issues with anyone else.

what's next? a judge being denied the opportunity for the bench because he once killed a bug? dont laugh peta would oppose him on those grounds.

the oracle wrote:

im catholic and believe in the church's principle tenants..... which means (among other things) i oppose abortion and gay marriage. im not saying i discriminate against people who support those things. just that i personally oppose them in line with the tenants of my religeon.

now i wouldnt call me a liberal at all...but i am now a democrat.

Congratulations on your decision

Quote :

my question is....

is the liberal left trying to say to all faithfull members of the catholic church that we should have nothing to do with this administration or 'their' party?

No,not at all. We even elected a Catholic President in 1960. We're against the divisive preachers like Pat Robertson,Jerry Falwell and the phony hypocrites like Ted Haggert.

Quote :

personally, i think persons of all faiths and beliefs need to get over themselves. as virtually no one is in total agreement on all issues with anyone else.

Agreed

the oracle wrote:

is the liberal left trying to say to all faithfull members of the catholic church that we should have nothing to do with this administration or 'their' party?

See I don't see it that way. I don't think this small outspoken group represents the liberal left. What I seriously think it boils down to was bad timing. As I said the LGBT community is coping with fresh and unexpected wounds from the November election. I don't agree with the approach that is being taken, and while I am very much for gay marriage I am not for isolating the Catholic Democrats from the party.

mike3775 wrote:

So far, as his way of effecting change, it sure looks like 1992 again in Washington DC.

So where exactly is the change?

Where are the new people at? All I have seen for the cabinet have all been career politicians, yep thats change I can believe in

I think the change is coming in a different way. It's coming through good organization/transition which Clinton didn't do with his administration, and it's come through Obama's general attitude and enthusiasm for the job. As I've said before though I want to wait until he's in office and reserve my judgment on him based on what he does and not what we think he's going to do.

paul87920 wrote:

I think the change is coming in a different way. It's coming through good organization/transition which Clinton didn't do with his administration, and it's come through Obama's general attitude and enthusiasm for the job. As I've said before though I want to wait until he's in office and reserve my judgment on him based on what he does and not what we think he's going to do.

Paul,One thing I'd like to point out regarding change so far.....When was the last time an incoming President selected 2 members of the opposition party to be in his cabinet? Robert Gates-Defense and Ray LaHood-Transportation

Artie60438 wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

I think the change is coming in a different way. It's coming through good organization/transition which Clinton didn't do with his administration, and it's come through Obama's general attitude and enthusiasm for the job. As I've said before though I want to wait until he's in office and reserve my judgment on him based on what he does and not what we think he's going to do.

Paul,One thing I'd like to point out regarding change so far.....When was the last time an incoming President selected 2 members of the opposition party to be in his cabinet? Robert Gates-Defense and Ray LaHood-Transportation

Artie, Gates was asked to stay on so the Dept of defense could have some form of continuity(sp) and so I think when things start to "settle down" you will see him leave. Also don't most Presidents ask for at least one from the other party to become part of the cabinet? To say 2 really wasn't an option for Obama, not much change yet, but hopefully we will see it soon.

[quote="Artie60438"]

the oracle wrote:

Quote :

my question is....

is the liberal left trying to say to all faithfull members of the catholic church that we should have nothing to do with this administration or 'their' party?

No,not at all. We even elected a Catholic President in 1960. We're against the divisive preachers like Pat Robertson,Jerry Falwell and the phony hypocrites like Ted Haggert.

Quote :

personally, i think persons of all faiths and beliefs need to get over themselves. as virtually no one is in total agreement on all issues with anyone else.

Agreed

hang on now artie. jfk, was by no means a liberal. i mean what we know about him now personally, obviously he was somewhat socially liberal, but as far as his public policy, he was actually pretty middle of the road.