Pastor nixed from Obama inaugural over anti-gay remarks

[chrisrobin]

............
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...y-remarks?lite

Sometimes I wonder about that president of ours. Being conciliatory is nice. I wonder if someone in the Obama administration would like to negotiate with Dracula. Problem is, Dracula being conciliatory is unrealistic. All he wants to do is put his fangs in your neck.

James Dobson must have been busy!

[justdra]

Whomever does the vetting and researching on his team needs a boot in the ass. How hard is it to google someone and get their history in just a few seconds or put in a phone call or two.

[Jack Springer]

Obama was also anti-gay at one point. Does that mean he has to resign as President? no

self-righteousness is a heavy burden to carry

[justdra]

If he still had those views, most likely he wouldn't still be the POTUS. It's also one thing to not support gays, its another to degrade them.

[White Eagle]

MisterMajestic started this thread. I would think Obama is trying to please everybody and you know how that goes. It can't be done.

Thread: Obama's Inaugural Ceremony line-up is done and they're trying to please Everybody...


http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...ease-Everybody

[Rolyo85]

Obama was also anti-gay at one point. Does that mean he has to resign as President? no

self-righteousness is a heavy burden to carry

That was a lie and reported as such ^_^

[rareboy]

Oh Christ Springer...

Obama was also anti-gay at one point. Does that mean he has to resign as President? no

self-righteousness is a heavy burden to carry

That is bullshit.

He said that he did not support homo marriage some years ago....but anti-gay?

Prove it.

[rareboy]

And to be blunt about it, It isn't like any President needs a pastor at the inauguration.

It always smacks of muddling the separation of Church and State.

It always makes me think of the coronations of princes and the apparent need for them to have some pope or archbishop or another of the Christian church's minions confer a measure of credibility to the exercise of temporal power.

Why does the US still need this nonsense?

[eastofeden]

Obama appeared on tour with Donnie McClurkin and then invited Rick Warren who DID influence Uganda's anti gay legislation...so this isn't exactly new for him.

I wish he would have invited his own former pastor...Reverend Wright. I liked LOVED that guy..even more than I liked Obama.

[tigerfan482]

............
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...y-remarks?lite

Sometimes I wonder about that president of ours. Being conciliatory is nice. I wonder if someone in the Obama administration would like to negotiate with Dracula. Problem is, Dracula being conciliatory is unrealistic. All he wants to do is put his fangs in your neck.

James Dobson must have been busy!

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.

[rareboy]

Actually I suspect that Springer, Benvolio and Reardon and a whole lot of fundies were expecting him to have a mullah or Imam say the blessing.

[xbuzzerx]

Oh Christ Springer...



That is bullshit.

He said that he did not support homo marriage some years ago....but anti-gay?

Prove it.

What gets me is how even if this were TRUE, this wouldn't stop any of our resident Republicans from supporting any Republican.

It's completely intellectually dishonest when a Republican criticizes a Democrat not because they actually agree with the issue at hand but because they simply believe they have ammo to say to liberals "see he's not as liberal as he SHOULD be for you guys!"

[Lestatnj]

I love it when TPTB listen to us (LGBT Community)

I had just signed a petition on Whitehouse.gov

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...y-remarks?lite

Screams of "predjudice" from Faux News, Rush, Santorum, Huckabee, NOM, Perkins, Fischer, etc in 5, 4, 3.......

[GiancarloC]

Obama was also anti-gay at one point. Does that mean he has to resign as President? no

self-righteousness is a heavy burden to carry

Obama was not anti-gay. Try the old tired line again... maybe on some right wing forum where people will believe that tired bullshit.

[Jack Springer]

Actually I suspect that Springer, Benvolio and Reardon and a whole lot of fundies were expecting him to have a mullah or Imam say the blessing.

Actually, I now expect him to pick an atheist.

[Rolyo85]

Actually, I now expect him to pick an atheist.

Moronic. Atheists are just non-believers. An atheist is not defined by non-religion the way a believer is defined by his faith. What's an atheist gonna do there? Preach from the Book of Atheism? Fucking clueless...

Oh, and btw:

[Jack Springer]

^^^

You know, I really despise the names you call people. Call me or anyone else on CEP a moron or any other negative name like that again and I will report you to the moderators.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has that opinion.

[MisterMajestic]

Whomever does the vetting and researching on his team needs a boot in the ass. How hard is it to google someone and get their history in just a few seconds or put in a phone call or two.

Not only that but every Player in the ceremony was called on Dec 12th..That was a month ago. So they NEVER vetted Pastor Giglio. He worked with the Obama team to shed a light on Human trafficking here in the States and Obama put it on BLAST during his United Nations speech. The Obama team figured the Pastor was just a Good guy and forgot to check his closet...

He deserved to have his invitation snatched back but he didnt deserve to go a whole month celebrating the event with his family and friends. Once again the Obama team proves all they know how to do is Campaign like no other but everything else they just let slide without double-checking....

Just to give a quick example...Look at the passage of Health-care...They campaigned on health care reforum even before Obama won the 2008 election. Then campaigned like Soldiers to get it passed. Then when it was passed they forgot to sell us on what was in the Bill, thought it could sell itself and lost the House in 2010.......

Obama was also anti-gay at one point. Does that mean he has to resign as President? no

self-righteousness is a heavy burden to carry

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

You know, I really despise the names you call people. Call me or anyone else on CEP a moron or any other negative name like that again and I will report you to the moderators.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has that opinion.

Just be patient, he lacks self-control with the name calling. That will likely be his downfall.

[Rolyo85]

^^^

You know, I really despise the names you call people. Call me or anyone else on CEP a moron or any other negative name like that again and I will report you to the moderators.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has that opinion.

As advised by the moderators, I only ever comment on your posts. No word that I have used in any response to you has ever been directed at you, but only to the posts you write. According to the rules of CE&P, I am perfectly within my right to call your posts moronic and clueless. Which they are.

[MisterMajestic]

As advised by the moderators, I only ever comment on your posts. No word that I have used in any response to you has ever been directed at you, but only to the posts you write. According to the rules of CE&P, I am perfectly within my right to call your posts moronic and clueless. Which they are.

Total Hawgwash....Nice try though...You can't call someone Moronic then when they call you out you come back and say "Oh I meant your posting was moronic, I wasnt really talking about you as an individual.."...LOL...

That's not how it works so your original posting and the name you called him still STANDS...Moronic still means having qualities of a Moron..Which means its still a Violation....

You are Checked....

[Rolyo85]

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.

[GiancarloC]

Moronic is a word directed at the content, and indeed I do agree. The content of that post was ridiculous and nonsensical.

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

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

[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.

[GiancarloC]

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

I can answer to what I please. And notice the second part of my statement.

[GiancarloC]

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

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

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

I think he knows it quite well and has demonstrated that. He has done more than enough in a proper fashion. 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? Sometimes people won't be vetted to the level they need to be... as there are many other issues going on.

The inaugural was going to include a gay poet too... albeit one I haven't heard about it.

[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/articl...om-3229408.php

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier...om-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.

[MisterMajestic]

Your calling is to be a politician.

Try Used Car Dealer...

[Jack Springer]

Try Used Car Dealer...

[rareboy]

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.

But you have never offered a bit of proof that Obama was anti-gay.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

You're missing the point.

[Rolyo85]

That's because there's rarely a point to your posts.

You have never offered any proof that Obama was anti-gay. Just as you have never offered any proof that anyone here wants to force the others to think anything. Of course, if you call self-preservation "forcing people what to think", I am not sure I can help you.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

... and yet no comment about what I said regarding the self-righteousness of some.