Gay Bishop to lead Obama's inauguration week prayer

[DisgruntledVirus]

Kinda funny how pro-obama this forum was during the election.

Now that he won, and is about to take office it's "bash obama" time.... Kinda funny actually

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Kinda funny how pro-obama this forum was during the election.

Now that he won, and is about to take office it's "bash obama" time.... Kinda funny actually

eh? for the most part, the people that were on the hope train are still there and the people that were bashing Obama still are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Kinda funny how pro-obama this forum was during the election.

Now that he won, and is about to take office it's "bash obama" time.... Kinda funny actually

Is it really that shocking? Nobody actually wants to take responsibility for things, they just want to complain. That's why everyone always frames their political views in the 'least worst' context. In reality, most people on this forum probably agree with the vast majority of one of the two major party platforms.

Now people will just wait for Obama to make one or two decisions they don't like, and then they can write him off and go back to complaining. That's what politics are for!

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
Obama takes both sides of an issue and never actually offers his real views on hard, controversial subjects that don't lend themselves to easy compromises? I'm shocked at this turn of events

Yeap....


The first time he is forced to make a 'hard' choice it will be interesting to see what he does.

If there is one thing above all else that I'm looking forward to with the Obama administration, it's having less of this black and white worldview injected into every single political discussion. Sure, you guys will still TALK about it, but at least it won't be the approach of the people actually running the country.

Very few real world issues are binary ones, there is not all in on one side or the other...and intelligent leader, hell an intelligent PERSON, knows that hard decisions hardly every involve taking a hard and fast stand 100% one way or the other.

Obama obviously doesn't support gay rights as much as I might like, but he's also willing to extend a olive branch to gay rights advocates who are a little pissed. Do you guys really think that's a BAD approach to leading a country with 300 million people in it? I'd say that's a dramatic improvement over the grade-school simplicity that has been embraced by the current administration and its supporters.

The problem is, over the last few years, we as a nation have become used to a polarizing view of everything. This is one of sad aspects of Bush's legacy. You're either with us or against us. Its 'us' vs 'them' whoever the us and them are. The world is either black or white with no room for subtlety, nuances or shades of gray.

Finding common ground has come to be viewed as a sign of weakness whereas I feel that is a strength of character. I can only hope we see more of this approach rather than less.

 

[nageov3t]

is it really "finding common ground" to invite two lightning rod figures and actually say nothing about any of it and take no stand one way or the other?

I think we elect our leaders to take principled stands on the values we saw when we elected them, not offer up everything that everyone wants even when it's in direct conflict (see also: giving the republicans the tax cuts they want regardless of the fiscal implications).

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: halik
Well not for being gay alone, but practicing gay = continuing sinner. So unless your argument is "everyone gets into heaven, regardless of what you do" it wouldn't work. Here's a good back test: replace the word "gay" with "contract killer" in what your wrote and see if you believe it (all sins are equal).

Also for the last time, I'm not a christian or follower of of Jesus. I'm merely drawing a conclusion based on the stories in the bible.

Jesus H. Christ, I have never once in my life been Christian, and even I know that your logic is completely retarded. Jesus never once said "thou shalt not be queer;" that primarily came from Leviticus (who also said you shouldn't eat shrimp or fuck donkeys... he was a weird guy). The Ten Commandments, however, do make it pretty clear that you shouldn't kill people, and they are taken a lot more seriously by the Judeochristian religions than the writings of Leviticus, regardless of the fact that you can find both in the Bible. Jesus preached "do unto others," "love thy neighbor," etc.; contract killing pretty much flies directly in the face of these teachings. Homosexuality does not. So while certain branches of Christianity do condemn homosexuality with the Bible as a base, it is not the words of Jesus that they are using to do so, nor the Ten Commandments, which are fairly universal.

Good God man...

-EDIT- Also, since you've admitted to being a non-Christian, it seems to me a bit presumptuous on your part that you would think you would know more about the Christian religions than the various faiths that practice it. How the Hell can you possibly think you know more about Episcopalian Christianity than the Episcopal church? Are you daft?

lulz nice pwnage.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
is it really "finding common ground" to invite two lightning rod figures and actually say nothing about any of it and take no stand one way or the other?

I think we elect our leaders to take principled stands on the values we saw when we elected them, not offer up everything that everyone wants even when it's in direct conflict (see also: giving the republicans the tax cuts they want regardless of the fiscal implications).

How can you say he hasn't taken a stand? It might not be one you like, but it's certainly a stand. He supports the repeal of DOMA and DADT. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but supporting the repeal of DOMA effectively makes gay marriage legal in the entire United States for the cost of a plane ticket.

The funny thing is that this policy of including both sides of the debate is EXACTLY what Obama ran on, these ARE the values you voted for.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: halik
Errr gay bishop?

Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

let he who is without sin throw the first stone

Yeah, you missed the end of that story:"... go and sin no more."

I'm don't consider myself religious, but having a gay pastor to me makes about as much sense as having a practicing contract killer pastor. Your job is to steer people clear of sins and lead them to haven/jesus/* ... being a practicing gay guy doesn't exactly set a good example.

But not everyone thinks that being gay is a sin or that it precludes you from going to heaven.

I was born and raised Catholic and I never once got the impression that Jesus would have hated gays or denied them a place next to Him in heaven for being gay. Nor do I think Jesus would have castigated one of his apostles from having had the audacity to spread His word while being gay.

I do however; have the impression that Jesus would not have been pleased with His so called followers who think themselves divine enough to place judgment on others in His stead. He was actually pretty clear on judging others.

Well not for being gay alone, but practicing gay = continuing sinner. So unless your argument is "everyone gets into heaven, regardless of what you do" it wouldn't work. Here's a good back test: replace the word "gay" with "contract killer" in what your wrote and see if you believe it (all sins are equal).

Also for the last time, I'm not a christian or follower of of Jesus. I'm merely drawing a conclusion based on the stories in the bible.

I'm not religious in any way shape or form, but as long as you are telling people how they are allowed to worship I think a more apt replacement would be "shellfish eater".

"Contract killer" would be murder, which would get into ten commandments, a clearly set apart subset of sins, gay would I think be down on the level with shellfish eating. Murder is up there with coveting as one of the bad ones.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's why they're hypocrites also, but that doesn't excuse this particular guy either. As a christian priest you're supposed to be a paragon to the people.

I really don't see how you can subscribe to the dogma and comfortably ignore the parts that talk about your sexual orientation. If that's ok, then you might as well have the swinger priest, combo christian/hindu priest (save time!), the klepto priest etc.

You mean... the parts in Leviticus, which is pretty much gleefully ignored when it warns against eating shellfish, wearing clothing of two different materials, men shearing the hair from their temples, etc?

Yeah,
not to mention getting stoned for:
- cursing at your parents
- incest
- inter species erotica (5 points if you know the reference)
- being Miss Cleo
- using Lord's name in vain

Don't hate the messenger though, I'm not the religious one here, that guy is. I'm only trying to point out the absurdity in having a gay christian priest.

What is absurd is judging a modern Christian Bishop by old testament, fundi' values.

How far away from the Bible can you go and still consider yourself a Christian? Why bother at all when ultimately you'll end up doing whatever is convenient for you?

Like I said, can you be a swinger priest? Contract killer priest? I always figured if you want to subscribe to Christianity, you have to follow the rules... or at least try.


Disclaimer: I don't consider myself a christian or any other religious persuasion; it just doesn't make any sense to me to do it half assed if you do.

Just read the book and stick with Jesus' teachings and forget the crazies before and after. God talking to prophets happened because they were sleeping in caves with seeping petroleum fumes.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jonks
He had to have planned this all along. Piss off the libs with Rick Warren, then put out the fire just before the inauguration. Not just a pro-gay bishop or a bishop accepting of gays, but an actual gay bishop.

I didn't have any skin in the game either way about the Warren pick, it seemed BO's MO at this point of picking people one wouldn't expect. I imagine many on the right won't take this any better than the adament left did Warren.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/go...bama-inauguration.html

After Rick Warren Flap, Gay Episcopal Bishop Tapped for Obama Inauguration

There's no symmetry around the reaction of political groups - 'left hates one, right hates one'.

One is a voice for bigotry, one is not. There's no such 'symmetry' as implied in your original commentary.

Having said that, Warren seems to have some redeeming qualities leading him to soften his position lately - we'll see if that progresses.

There is absolutely symmetry in the reactions, simply not in the reasons. As you say, the left is pissed because they view Warren as a bigot. The conservareligiright is pissed because a gay clergyman offends what they perceive as central to their faith. Both sides are pissed for different reasons, but Obama's plan, if he ultimately did plan it this way, was based on the anticipated reactions, and not the reasons.

I get your point that you think the left has justifiable reason to be pissed and the right does not, but tweaking both sides may have been the ultimate goal.

 

[Craig234]

Posting oops, for later editing

 

[Zebo]

Whats up with this clergyman bullshit anyway? I thought it's Roberts responsibility to swear him in?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the democratic party has a history of paying lip service to the gay community and then sweeping us into the kitchen when company comes over. it's oddly enough pretty comparable to the republican's relationship with the christian right. stuff like this just reinforces that in my mind, but there's going to have to be a time when they put up or shut up. Obama can't ride the fence forever and there are no compromises that are going to please everybody.

All true. Except you're insinuating that it's Obama's fault for having to play both sides of the fence. You know as well as I do that it is political suicide to support a uniformly pro-gay agenda. The people of this country aren't ready for it and you should probably direct your frustration at them.

 

[Budmantom]

This is the left in all it's glory.....

 

[nageov3t]

awesome... the inauguration committee prevented the bishop from actually being broadcast.

This was supposed to be the Inauguration's make-up moment to gays and lesbians everywhere for the inclusion of the vile and reprehensible homophobe Rick Warren: Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly-gay Episcopalian minister kicking off the week with an invocation on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. And while he did lead a prayer (read it below), you'd never know it unless you were standing with the thousands at the Reflecting Pool in D.C.

HBO cut Robinson's prayer from their coverage of "We Are One: The Inaugural Concert" and attendees at the event said that the sound on Robinson's prayer cut out at one point. HBO's response was to say that Robinson was part of the "pre-show" and blame Inauguration organizers, who determined the on-air vs pre-show show schedule. A spokesperson from HBO told AfterElton:

"The producer of the concert has said that the Presidential Inaugural Committee made the decision to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show."

http://www.queerty.com/live-bl...tion-concert-20090118/

somehow I'm guessing they won't forget to put Rick Warren on television.

edit: better source

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I hope gay bishop and rick warren are caught making out.

lol that would be hilarious