On Fri, December 19, 2008 4:57 am, Chris Gehlker wrote: > On Dec 18, 2008, at 6:00 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > >> Here's my bottom line - Rick Warren is repugnant to at least some >> minority of Obama supporters, and that had to have been well known - >> perhaps Obama's calculation is that it's worth more on the upside - in >> forging some connection there to Warren's movement - but it doesn't >> change the fact that I, and others, have a real distaste for seeing >> this guy given this kind of legitimacy with the administration > > I just saw a video of Rick Warren going on about how he doesn't use > "marriage" to describe the relationship between two men or a man and a > child or a brother and a sister ..." and it explains a lot. It is also > new information to me and I suspect to many, maybe even to Obama. > It's one thing to be a preacher who cannot accept gay marriage or > abortion as legitimate but who doesn't make that a major issue in his > sermons. It's quite another thing to be someone who gratuitously > insults gay people. The MSM has depicted him as the former. The gay > people on the video made it plain that their primary objection was not > the policy difference but the insults.
Ok - so now you see at least why people would be offended. Granted, many of us are not political operatives, so I am also willing to grant Obama the benefit of the doubt with respect to whether it's a wise political move - offending a subset of his followers, in exchange for some other benefit. Homosexuals, for instance, are well used to this phenomenon. But that remains what it is - a political calculation knowingly offending a part of his constituency... and I would *hope* it's at least a knowing act, not a careless mistake. Rick Warren is media savvy and unabashed when it comes to his positions on major issues - there's no mystery about what he believes and what he preaches and writes. And, again - I would have no problem with Obama engaging with Warren on specific issues where they have common ground - appoint him to a council on AIDS, for instance, where they can work together on common issues - though keep him on a short leash (in other words, don't make him the chairman of such an organization!). But I simply do not understand giving someone like him national attention in a much broader context - if nothing else, it's like having your parents invite that *one* guy who has tormented you at school to your birthday party because they want to do business with his parents - it's supposed to be a time of celebration, and to have him there is a spoiler. Cheers -R _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
