Greta Von Susteren Asks Huckabee About Rick Warren's Role At Obama Inauguration
By Nicole Belle Monday Dec 22, 2008 1:30pm
When you have questions about how upset the gay community is over the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, who better to ask than equally anti-gay homophobe Mike Huckabee?
Predictably, Huckabee's response is a big ol' heaping cup of "so what?":
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me jump to another topic, which you probably weren’t expecting, is that President-elect Obama has chosen Rick Warren to give the invocation and there are a lot of gay Americans very upset. What do you make of this?
HUCKABEE: Well, it’s ridiculous for people to be upset with Rick Warren. He’s one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation. I’ve known Rick for over 30 years. We were actually in seminary together in Ft. Worth, Texas, back in the mid-1970s. He is today what he always has been, and that’s a humble, gracious, thoughtful, very intellectual capable person. I think it’s a wonderful thing that Barack Obama reached out to him. I thought it was a tremendous expression on Barack Obama’s part. I’m proud that Rick Warren is going to do it and I think that people ought to recognize…look, that’s part of what being religious is all about. You have strong convictions and nobody is going to have a religious leader who is in agreement with everybody.
Talking about avoiding the question. No one is demanding a religious leader who is in agreement with everybody--what a strawman. But it would be nice to have -- in this post-partisan age Obama is allegedly ushering in -- to have "inclusiveness" actually mean all of us.
To understand how angry and disappointed many Democrats are that Barack Obama has invited evangelical preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural, imagine if a President-elect John McCain had offered this unique honor to the Rev. Al Sharpton -- or the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. I know, it's hard to picture: John McCain would never do that in a million years. Republicans respect their base even when, as in McCain's case, it doesn't really return the favor.
Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters -- feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community -- by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead.
Well, exactly. Ironically, Huckabee points out exactly why it's troubling to those that Warren has likened to pedophiles: he's one of the most influential spiritual leaders in the county...sending out a message of intolerance. But for fellow intolerant Huckabee, that's a tremendous message on the part of Barack Obama.
Login or Register to post comments.
Why don't these violently insane Christian fascists and traitors leave America? They hate everything we stand for so why don't these insane fuckers just leave? I'm sure they would find Iran's government and laws more in keeping with their Christian hatred of everything America stands for.
I can't help but wonder who HIllary might have picked...or any of the other democrats.
I am so disappointed but not at all surprised at Obama picking Rick Warren.
Because, actually, she would have probably been saddled with the same choice as was Obama (none), a choice made by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. So be disappointed in Diane Feinstein.
Anyway, Fat Ass Warren is going to have two or three minutes to say a prayer, not set the legislative agenda for the new government.
When Obama appoints a Justice to the SCOTUS who stands against the legal theory of "Compelling Interest" as derived from the 14th Amendment (which, btw, is the theory on which CA's Prop 8 should be overturned), then we should worry.
As it is, Warren is one of two ministers saying a prayer at a ceremony where a guy will raise his hand and swear("I really, really mean it- Stick a needle in my eye!") to uphold the Constitution- a fat lot that really means.
So only worry when it's already too late? No thank you!
Me, I'd rather fight for my freedoms while I still have them.
Boo on Obama. Boo to those that apologize for his trerrible decision.
Totall bullshit. As if the descision would have been exactly the same if some other democrat won. Or as if Obama didn'rt have any say at all in the decision. /eyeroll
And the JCCIC decides to invite Warren, but HRC rejects the proposal and makes a big noise about it. We're right where we've been since the day Nixon was impeached- abject hatred disguised as politics and governance.
But, instead, Obama acquiesced and is now taking the heat, but, interestingly enough, as pointed out by POP:
Mon, 12/22/2008 - 14:22 — pissed off patricia
Just heard on Hardball(s) that Warren's church has rewritten their website in the past 24 hours to make it more inclusive and welcome to everyone. Much if not all the the anti-gay language has been taken out.
Maybe the sunlight shining on the church has caused it to re-think some of it's bs. One can only hope.
Do you think this would have happened if HRC were preparing for her inauguration? I don't see it.
Remember that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy adopted during Bill's first term? How's that one working out?
That the JCCIC made the choice themselves has been thoroughly debunked. Obama hand picked Warren and informed the committee, who then invited Warren.
Catch up.
I hope this wasn't your defining election issue with all the other bullshit out there.
..blah, blah, blah.
I still just don't get it. It may be minor, but this was simply a mistake on Obama's part.
She look more masculine than he do.
if "inclusiveness" meant the same thing to everyone.
In my book, "inclusiveness" means accepting people for who they are and what they believe in even if it is radically different. It doesn't mean you have to like who they are or believe in their beliefs. Now if Rick Warren gets up and delivers an anti-gay speech at the inauguration, I think outrage would be warranted. I doubt Obama would have chosen him if he thought this would happen. Maybe Obama is thinking that by including the evangelical faction, he will bring the country closer together instead of shutting out anyone who has a different belief.
But why not give the guy a chance?
If we want to live in an inclusive world then we should lead by example.
So, you'd be fine if this guy said you were the same as pedophiles and the incestous? Glad you're fine with that, but I'm not. Why should I be fine with someone who represents EXclusion in this little inclusion-fest?
the argument makes no sense.... no one is talking about whether the gay community likes Rick Warren.
sounds like the cowardly democrats are back to their old tricks....I wont be able to unite with someone who compares my 16 year relationship to that of a pedophile.
We also dont need "breeders" deciding when its appropriate for the gay community to complain.
Um..because he's a bigot?
By your standard I guess Obama should also be standing up there next to David Duke? Or does that not apply to racial bigots? Only homosexual bigots? Maybe if he invites the KKK they will get all warm and fuzzy because they are being included too!
Yeah.
We want to live in an inclusive world, but that does not mean accepting and embracing bigots. Of any bent.
..evangelicals being entirely barred-- or at least being severely limited from having any access whatsoever to the White House for the next eight years or so..
..but hey, that's my own bigotry and prejudice showing..
...is Mike Huckabee "proud" that Rick Warren is giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration? McCain was always yapping about how "proud" is was of Palin. Proud? Do these guys know what proud means and when it's appropriate to feel pride.
As for van Susteren, I simply can't express how proud I am that she is still an idiot. So I won't.
"Well, it’s ridiculous for people to be upset with Rick Warren. He’s one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation." this is an absurd comment. i'm sort of afraid to look, but i'm curious how the evangelicals are reacting to their beloved mr. warren speaking in front the "first muslim president" are any of them repudiating him?
"Well, it’s ridiculous for people to be upset with Rick Warren. He’s one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation."
This also describes...
Billy Graham
The Reverend Moon
Jimmy Swaggert
James Baker
Jerry Falworth
Pat Robertson
Antisemitic, pro assassination, homophobic, pro war, anti choice, anti union, pro evolution, anti environment, regressive, social darwinist lick spittle tools of the Empire of the Eagle.
The alleged savior, Jesus of Nazareth, would have little to do with these "men".
This issues shows how both sides are out there in their own realities.
When this idiot was up on the stage with all the other repug clowns during the primaries, I actually felt sorry for him. He was sort of the bozo that played nice, but everything was spewing out of his evangelical rainbow mouth, and he demonstrated NO knowledge of international affairs or issues.
Now, we have to suffer by listening to this twit's take on issues of the day, and it's driving me nuts. Go get a little white church in the KKK-ountryside, and live out your days bothering those who WANT to come listen to you.
What an idiot.
about a pompous, homophobic, buybull-thumping minister than another pompous, homophobic, buybull-thumping minister whose son tortures and kills dogs?
Fair and balanced.
best description i have heard about this jack ass posing as a "spiritual leader"
terrible choice.
yet, i am fascinated how people here and elsewhere spin the inclusion of an agent of intolerance as a demonstration of tolerance. orwellian to be sure. wouldn't the best way to show how tolerant and inclusive you are to actually pick a "spiritual leader" who actually is inclusive and tolerant?
the pretzel-like twists the defenders of this flub have to go thru is amazing.
Can you be both LGBT tolerant and in favour of more traditional definitions of marriage? Or is thinking marriage should only be between two heterosexual people automatically considered evidence of homophobia.
Is any position, other than an insistence that same-sex couples should have a right to get married, merely evidence of "hate" or, at least, "intolerence"?
I'm just curious here.
By tolerant of LGBT you mean that you don't think they should be put to death? Do you believe it is a lifestyle choice like the kind of clothes one wares? I would love to know what your mean by tolerant. The definition of marriage has changed many times over the years so there is no traditional definition that you speak of.
and will change again.
I believe that US society is becoming more socially liberal over time and that social conservatives have been fighting a rearguard action for decades. I see this as a good thing.
Next time, try not to read too much into my questions.
Ah yes, the "separate but equal" crowd.
Yes we have just the product for you: Bigotry lite. All the great taste of white supremacy with one half the guilt.
Great Taste. Less Guilty.
No one is ever "just curious" unless they've already thought about doing it.
I was asking a serious question. Thanks for making assumptions about what you assume I must believe and thanks for immediately launching personal attacks.
Next time you accuse someone of being a bigot or of intolerance or hate, go look in a mirror...
Joe Scarborough was asking pretty much the same question this morning. He was saying that if for any reason you are against same sex marriage you are immediately called a "bigot" and the conversation ends there. He said he didn't believe everyone who is against it was indeed a bigot. I've been mulling that around in my head all day.
For the record here, I am 100% for gay marriage and have been for a very long time.
I personally equate the ban on gay marriage to the ban on interracial marriage then yes in my book if your for a ban on interracial marriage your automatically a bigot. If your for a ban on gay marriage then yes your automatically a homophobe.
for a calm, intelligent response.
RayC, Zenrage - could you be a little more kneejerk and bigoted in your responses please? People who give responses like yours are easily marginalized. US society becomes more inclusive despite, not because, of people like you.
Anyone else want to answer my questions without making assumptions about what I believe?
Because I honestly do not understand this being an issue. The ONLY benefit gay marriage would have, is within the tax laws of any given country. That is all they want? Or do they want church recognized marriages? As far as I'm concerned, tax laws do need to be changed drastically. I don't know about your tax laws, but after I got married here, my tax "credits" actually decreased substantially. (Wifey and I actually lived together first and here it is considered common law marriage---more lawyer crap). So I don't see the big deal. I really don't.
beyond tax law - power of attorney, spousal benefits, and of course, being "legally married" in the eyes of the law. These things vary from state to state.
It's a big deal to those affected to be sure.
Parental rights, too, amongst others, are effected by this.
Anectdotally- Two very good friends of mine, A&N, are lesbians. A gave birth to their son, but if A were to die or otherwise become incapacitated, N would have no parental rights according to MI law. Those rights would devolve to A's mom in FL, who's a raging homophobe.
Also, when A didn't have insurance, N couldn't have their son covered under hers.
while providing equal rights to same sex couples (providing the same legal benefits and disadvantages as to hetero couples) is important, nomenclature is also significant.
Providing equal rights with diffent terminology ("union", rather than "marriage", for example) is also something hotly contested. I've heard arguments for and against same sex "marriage". One argument against adopting the term for legally recognized same sex partnerships is that it co-opts same sex unions into the dominant hetero social meme.
And, actually, A&N had a "civil union" ceremony in Vermont before they moved back west.
IMO, the "marriage" argument is chickenshit semantics perpetrated by the religious right. The closest thing they have to a real argument is in the common law (unless I'm mistaken, common-law marriage has only ever applied to heterosexuals), but to use this argument they'd have to admit that canonical marriages didn't exist until the 16th century, and then only applied to the Roman Catholic Church for quite some time.
the various responses to Rick Warren's involvement in the inauguration.
On a different thread, someone asked if there was any legitimate compromise position on gay marriage. There may very well not be.
If you take the position that anything less than immediate acceptance of same sex marriage is grounds for contempt and condemnation, then a very antagonistic response to Warren being involved in President Obama's inauguration naturally seems to follow. It also explains responses which are very critical of President Obama for allowing or aquiescing in the choice of Warren.
What about the various comments defending Obama notwithstanding the choice of Warren? What do the authors of those comments think?
BECAUSE YOURE NOT GAY!!!!
are you that much of a moron that you can see past your own bias? your retarded post makes me want to cancel my trip to Canada in 2009.
Also if you dont see why its a "big deal" then why do you post a comment???
Oh Canada.... Americas retarded distant cousin.
The word is a subtle implication that you think youre better than another person. In the sense you use it... you imply that you "tolerate" gay people. tolerance is not acceptance.
I dont need you to tolerate (or by extension accept) my relationship.
This is about media manipulation. Rick Warren is being sold as a "moderate" which he is not.
I am not a pedophile. Rick compares gay relationships to that of pedophiles. a line must be drawn between what is acceptable discourse and what is not. We're going down a very old road which is demonization of the gay community.
This is what people like you fail to grasp. This isnt just about gay marriage.....its much broader than that.
As Falwell and Robertson acknowledged after 911, evangelicals believe America is losing favor with the Almighty due to it tolerance of homosexuals. I haven't figured out what alternatives they would suggest to rid America of homosexuality in America if it is bringing judgement to us. I believe most of them would advocate a levitical solution, despite their claims that they love teh gays.
Since when do Falwell and Robertson speak for all evangelicals? Sojourners has been around for a long time, offering evangelical takes from the political left.
Just heard on Hardball(s) that Warren's church has rewritten their website in the past 24 hours to make it more inclusive and welcome to everyone. Much if not all the the anti-gay language has been taken out.
Maybe the sunlight shining on the church has caused it to re-think some of it's bs. One can only hope.
Is anyone else seeing the MeetMiltarySingles ad right below this article? How ridiculous is it that there's an ad for a website that blatantly discriminates against homosexuals under an article that attack anti-gay sentiments?
[Here's a link to the "Advertising" subsection of the C&L FAQs. Site Monitor]
If one happens to believe in Zeus, then Warren is an atheist with a government supplied pulpit at a government function who will be prosletizing for another god. If one happens to be agnostic, then you'll have the nonconsenual experience of two religious ceremonies without setting foot in a church. So, it doesn't matter who they select, it cannot be inclusive and religious ceremonies shouldn't take place at the inauguration in the first place.
Bravo - my thoughts, exactly!
"...He’s one of the most influential spiritual leaders of this generation....."
If that's true, it looks like we're all in trouble.
No thanks, Mr. Hucksterbee. I think I will tend to my own spiritual leadership needs, sans "help" from any clergy-types like yourself. Doesn't look to me like you, or anybody you respect, have a whole lot to offer. You guys' idea of spirituality mostly reminds me of an empty oyster shell: it's just a dead lifeless shell; the animating presence has long since departed and the pearl has been plundered. Come to think of it, you guys are the ones who cracked it open, ate the poor thing alive and then made off with the pearl. And now you're hawking this empty, lifeless shell without a clue in the world that the shell itself has no meaning or value, all the while presumming to think of yourselves as spiritual leaders.
That's rich. That's really rich.
Well put, Paul.
I can see the concern in your eyes for gays everywhere. Greta follows L Ron Hubbard, who mentally and physically abused his son Quentin until he committed suicide, he stated that homosexuality was a "contagious disease" to be wiped out, and viewed them as non-human to such an extent that in the COS perfect world, any who refused to renounce their homosexuality and become Scientologists would be actively killed as if they were vermin.
Not necessarily "African American."
Mebbe it's just semantic; mebbe more than that. It seems to me to describe a difference.
Mebbe he can tolerate intolerance because he doesn't have the 'genetic' experience and imprint of slavery in his lived history. He didn't grow up hearing the stories of (let it be said, "Real") oppression that shape the learning experience for "native" blacks in the USA.
I post this with some trepidation, because I'm a white guy, pretty privileged even as white guys go. Because my folks both grew up significantly well-off (college grads from good schools, circa 1940) my own up-bringing imbued me with manners we couldn't afford. I fancy I understand elites because I was raised by elites, albeit ones unable to afford their status. So I am struggling to understand how Obama cannot comprehend the significance of this blunder to the left-ward side of his constituency, and I'm trying to examine unique circumstances for any clues they might reveal by way of explanation. This is tone-deafness unto cacaphony.
is a more accurate definition of President Obama than either black or white alone.
Unfortunately, that's not how racism works. The amount of melanin in your skin is irrelevant once you get darker than a suntan. I expect that mulatto's have to deal with just as much racism as other visible minorities.
Maybe President Elect Obama can tolerate intolerance because he thinks that's the first step to changing the intolerant person's opinion. Starting a dialogue and engaging in diplomacy is not just far preferable international policy to the Bush doctrine, it also works within America.
his flock to abandon some of spiritual certainties that are among the only things that still permit them to feel superior to the lower orders, you and he are delusional...
So why doesn't he invite the KKK?
ix-nay on the ullato-may. not a welcome term. And you are correct. Many of my friends who are light skinned catch hell no matter what, and are very offended at being called white.
Yes, and forgetting the inconsequential part of religious study that involves contemplation and humility, the part that is a conduit for studying the self and being in awe of the mystery that comprises us, going deeper and until it becomes obvious that judging the behavior of our neighbors is hardly the core of religious strength. I wish these people would get off their pulpits and spend a few years in silence digging potatoes or struggling with the essence of prayer in a monastery, or crosslegged, working with a strict teacher, and see how important their opinions of the private behavior of others becomes in the struggle for religious understanding. Much less their high opinion of themselves, which should shame any novice. Indeed, strictly speaking, my own pride, evident here, is nothing to be proud of.
You know, my faith is one that admits some doubt.
"Barack Obama"
Amended: He must get that from his Mother's genes. :-P
Isn't this akin to asking Jeffrey Dahmer for a character reference for Ted Bundy?
Just consider the sources: Fox, Greta AND Huckabee.
Where did the separation of church and state originate?
1. France
2. Soviet Union
3. United States of America
4. Nazi Germany
United States of America. The U.S.A. was the first nation in history to separate church and state.
Which early colonies practiced freedom of religion?
1. the Pilgrims and Puritans in Massachusetts
2. the colony in Virginia
3. Roger Williams' Providence settlement
4. all of them
Roger Williams' Providence settlement
Trick question! Roger Williams' Providence settlement founded in 1636 expressly guaranteed religious freedom. However, the Pilgrims originally were a tolerant people, when they founded Plymouth in 1620. By 1691, the Pilgrims had adopted the theocratic, intolerant Calvinism of the Puritans, who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628. The Puritans came to this land expressly to establish a bible commonwealth, and banished "heretics" and dissenters. In Virginia, heresy was a capital offense punishable by death by burning. Quakers were particularly persecuted. People who were not orthodox Christians were not legally protected, could be denied civil rights and jailed. The founders of the new nation of the United States of America, conversant with extreme religious intolerance and violence in the several colonies, were determined to put an end to it. That is why they established state/church separation.
The Puritans escaped religious persecution and, in their own colony, allowed religious freedom for
1. everyone
2. all Christians
3. Puritans only
4. Puritans and Anglicans
Puritans only. Puritans (Congregational Calvinists) only were allowed. Even practicing Puritans were held to strict litmus tests. (The Puritans loved religious freedom so much that they kept it all to themselves.)
want to see something ridicules they should look in the mirror!
It's just reality-based politics. Where else are the LGBT folks going to go? To teh repugs? I don't think so. Warren is just going to take up a little time with some unimportant nonsense, and go away. If Obama can win over some moderate Republicans, or even some evangelicals with this, then everybody wins. Now Warren owes Obama, and the debt can be collected at leisure, and it will be collected at some point. Get over it already.
Obama agrees with Warren on the issue of marriage. Biden agrees with Warren on the issue of marriage. There is no debt unless Obama and Biden are dishonest pandering politicians. Guess therein lies the hope.
If any of you (by you I mean people disgusted by Rick Warren and his idiotic views on homosexuality) can find a christian who actually reads the bible AND has anything but animosity for the GLBT community, I would challenge you that they haven't read the bible closely.
I have.
It says quite clearly that homosexuality is an abomination. If you're a follower of the tradition of an Abrahamic god, it has been spelled out for you.
Everyone calm down, and realize the problem is not JUST one man and his insane belief in iron age mythology, it is an affront to reasonable people everywhere to have to deal with these fairy tales in a serious manner. The fact that you can't be elected to virtually any position of power in this country without paying lip service to Yahweh should be far more frightening than Obama bringing someone from the right to speak at his invocation.
It is to me.
As long as we're out to pull specific rights away from specific areas of the population...
(Bill Maher styled) New Rule, you can't use the bible as your source for proving the validity of the bible.
Homosexuality is an abomination in the bible, that's true. In exactly the same way, and to the same degree, that playing football (touching the skin of a pig), eating shrimp, oysters, and catfish is. They're in the same place, and are the exact same abominations. I don't see many christians giving up football, nor any of the other abominations. Calling homosexuality an abomination is completely disingenuous, and completely hypocritical. But that's the morality of evangelicals, or lack of it.
I've never known such a time in my own short life when an inanimate book has been thumped upon as much as it's being thumped upon these days.
Maybe at some point, the drummers will render it to the pulp it actually originated from.
I need a chuckle now and then ;)
I need a chuckle now and then ;)
and it's a hollow shell of an ideology. The christians that don't follow the narrow letter of God's Law are ideologically bankrupt. Either the bible is the holy word of god, or it isn't. Some passages concerning slavery, homosexuality, and the place of women (along with shellfish;]) are blunt and brutally straightforward. There really is no other way to 'interpret' or 'contextualize'.
I agree that calling homosexuality an abomination is disingenuous, because I don't believe the bible is the holy word of god. If you do believe it so, you would be remiss to ignore Leviticus as god is infallible (according to the bible) and, regardless of the sermon on the mount, 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.' Without doubt Yahweh has a view on homosexuality.
How can you pull any level of tolerance from that passage?
Would your prefer he be sworn in on a masonic bible by a seriously anti-everything liberal minister. Rick Warren is at least compassionate, if not condoning towards gays. I am not a fan of the gay agenda, but I accept people as they are and have an open mind. Im sorry if you think the democratic party means they need to promote gays rather than just acceptance of them.
You're kidding right?
whether you are a fan of the 'gay agenda' or not, whatever that means, this is a CIVIL rights issue. We in this country all have the same rights, one of which is to marry the person of our choosing. Heterosexuals of every type are guaranteed this right.
We marginalize unabashed racists, but for some reason we want to 'include' unabashed bigots like Warren? If his attitudes were racial in nature, nobody would ever put up with that!
This is one of the very big reasons I did not vote for Barack Obama. He waves his racial civil rights flag HIGH, but has no qualms about presenting segregationist views on other marginalized segments of the population. He will proudly stand on the stage with Rick Warren, a huge bigot.
Mui hypocritical if you ask me. Civil rights are civil rights, doesn't matter what flavor.
Really. What is it to which you are referring as 'The Gay Agenda?'
Is it that they want the same rights straight and straight-acting people have?
and no offense intended, swearing on a Bible IS NOT required to be sworn in. The Oath of Office is to The Constitution, not a God.
That has GOT to be the most useless, boring story EVER on C&L.
Why do we want to watch Susteren all of a sudden? A penchant for re constructive facial surgery?
Not meaning to be judgmental about her numerous and expensive cosmetic surgeries or anything though. I should look as good as her even before she signed that pact with FOX.
he thinks Obama disrespected his base by choosing Warren. He says out one side of his ass that it's a wonderful thing that Obama did but out of the other side he says Cons would never do something like because they "respect their base."
I think you nailed it.
She looks like she's about to hurl chunks.
That I get. The concept of including hate I do not get. Very disappointed in Obama and there is no way to explain this one away.
Login or Register to post comments.