<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Rick Warren Won&#8217;t Be Uninvited</title>
	<atom:link href="http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/</link>
	<description>"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:43:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Obama and Homophobic Violence &#124; Revolutionary Act</title>
		<link>http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/comment-page-1/#comment-716</link>
		<dc:creator>Obama and Homophobic Violence &#124; Revolutionary Act</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://revolutionaryact.org/?p=490#comment-716</guid>
		<description>[...] Why Rick Warren Won&#8217;t Be Uninvited [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why Rick Warren Won&#8217;t Be Uninvited [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/comment-page-1/#comment-711</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://revolutionaryact.org/?p=490#comment-711</guid>
		<description>Jeff,
It isn&#039;t exactly the same thing, its a bit worse.  Rick Warren isn&#039;t just a bigot, he&#039;s a bigot who is trying to mainstream bigotry and religious extremism.  Obama&#039;s move is legitimizing it.

When I refer to the unlikelihood of voters turning against Obama over this I am not apologizing for his choice, I am simply indulging in cynicism and pragmatism.  One should always look at the political cost and benefit of an act (and what that tells us about the state of our country).

When I look at Obama apologists I see a very understandable desperation to cling to the victory and the surrounding myth that we&#039;ve finally cleared woods and left the suffering of the past 8 years behind us.  To effectively counter, we need to understand that need.

The harm and shame of this action is immediately clear.  It is compounded by the actions around this nation restricting gay rights, women&#039;s rights (Warren is just a peach on abortion) and separation of church and state.  What isn&#039;t as clear but is supremely important, is how do we make this politically costly?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff,<br />
It isn&#8217;t exactly the same thing, its a bit worse.  Rick Warren isn&#8217;t just a bigot, he&#8217;s a bigot who is trying to mainstream bigotry and religious extremism.  Obama&#8217;s move is legitimizing it.</p>
<p>When I refer to the unlikelihood of voters turning against Obama over this I am not apologizing for his choice, I am simply indulging in cynicism and pragmatism.  One should always look at the political cost and benefit of an act (and what that tells us about the state of our country).</p>
<p>When I look at Obama apologists I see a very understandable desperation to cling to the victory and the surrounding myth that we&#8217;ve finally cleared woods and left the suffering of the past 8 years behind us.  To effectively counter, we need to understand that need.</p>
<p>The harm and shame of this action is immediately clear.  It is compounded by the actions around this nation restricting gay rights, women&#8217;s rights (Warren is just a peach on abortion) and separation of church and state.  What isn&#8217;t as clear but is supremely important, is how do we make this politically costly?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Napolitano</title>
		<link>http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/comment-page-1/#comment-710</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Napolitano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://revolutionaryact.org/?p=490#comment-710</guid>
		<description>Obama having Warren at the inauguration is akin to John F. Kennedy (whom Obama has openly admired and aspired to) having George Wallace at his inauguration; both men were bigots, both men wrong on the key civil rights issue of the day, both had significant popular followings.

We know what to think of JFK and the message he would have sent to his Black supporters if he had made Wallace a key part of his inauguration.  We should think the same of Obama (particularly in light of Obama&#039;s own distasteful anti-gay marriage stance).

Obama apologists refer to the political advantages to having Warren involved in such a symbolic event.  I have not seen or heard these apologists refer to the morality or principle involved, short-term political gains aside.  Perhaps it takes being a member of the queer community to realize the harm and shame this brings to an administration that has not already begun.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama having Warren at the inauguration is akin to John F. Kennedy (whom Obama has openly admired and aspired to) having George Wallace at his inauguration; both men were bigots, both men wrong on the key civil rights issue of the day, both had significant popular followings.</p>
<p>We know what to think of JFK and the message he would have sent to his Black supporters if he had made Wallace a key part of his inauguration.  We should think the same of Obama (particularly in light of Obama&#8217;s own distasteful anti-gay marriage stance).</p>
<p>Obama apologists refer to the political advantages to having Warren involved in such a symbolic event.  I have not seen or heard these apologists refer to the morality or principle involved, short-term political gains aside.  Perhaps it takes being a member of the queer community to realize the harm and shame this brings to an administration that has not already begun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/comment-page-1/#comment-708</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://revolutionaryact.org/?p=490#comment-708</guid>
		<description>mrclmind,

He was never fully in the right place on Gay rights.  Taking the position he has taken on marriage has won him no support from the right and cost him on the left.  I don&#039;t think third party candidates will benefit from this, since in 4 years the prospect of President Palin will once again spur liberals to unite and fight under one banner (even if it is a centrist one).

The question becomes, how do we attach a sharp political cost to this move?  And how do we systematically lesson the political desirability of pandering to the religious right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mrclmind,</p>
<p>He was never fully in the right place on Gay rights.  Taking the position he has taken on marriage has won him no support from the right and cost him on the left.  I don&#8217;t think third party candidates will benefit from this, since in 4 years the prospect of President Palin will once again spur liberals to unite and fight under one banner (even if it is a centrist one).</p>
<p>The question becomes, how do we attach a sharp political cost to this move?  And how do we systematically lesson the political desirability of pandering to the religious right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Invasion of Love and Privacy &#171; Fitness for the Occasion</title>
		<link>http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/comment-page-1/#comment-706</link>
		<dc:creator>Invasion of Love and Privacy &#171; Fitness for the Occasion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://revolutionaryact.org/?p=490#comment-706</guid>
		<description>[...] not approved by their interpretation of the Christian Bible.  (And these are the types of people Obama is trying to reach out to).  They aren&#8217;t pro-family, they are [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] not approved by their interpretation of the Christian Bible.  (And these are the types of people Obama is trying to reach out to).  They aren&#8217;t pro-family, they are [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrclmind</title>
		<link>http://revolutionaryact.org/2008/12/why-rick-warren-wont-be-uninvited/comment-page-1/#comment-704</link>
		<dc:creator>mrclmind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://revolutionaryact.org/?p=490#comment-704</guid>
		<description>I, like so many of my gay friends, gave a lot of money to Obama&#039;s campaign. We worked tirelessly to get him elected. Now Obama decides to invite Rick Warren, who equates gays to rapists and child molesters; and who excludes gays from being members of his church to do the invocation?  How many of Warren&#039;s followers do you think gave as much to the campaign as gays did?  How many of Warren&#039;s followers worked as hard to get Obama elected as gays did?  Warren is to gays what a Grand Wizard of the KKK is to African Americans.  Obama has made it perfectly clear with this invitation how he feels about the gay community.  

Do you think Obama would have had as much of a landslide if it wasn&#039;t for the gay community?  I don&#039;t think so.  I hope for his sake that all the evangelicals he is pandering to move over to his camp come reelection time; gays will be voting for a third party candidate from now on. It&#039;s been made perfectly clear that the Democrats don&#039;t want us. Good luck to Obama with his presidency.  I don&#039;t support him any longer. I, like so many fell utterly betrayed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, like so many of my gay friends, gave a lot of money to Obama&#8217;s campaign. We worked tirelessly to get him elected. Now Obama decides to invite Rick Warren, who equates gays to rapists and child molesters; and who excludes gays from being members of his church to do the invocation?  How many of Warren&#8217;s followers do you think gave as much to the campaign as gays did?  How many of Warren&#8217;s followers worked as hard to get Obama elected as gays did?  Warren is to gays what a Grand Wizard of the KKK is to African Americans.  Obama has made it perfectly clear with this invitation how he feels about the gay community.  </p>
<p>Do you think Obama would have had as much of a landslide if it wasn&#8217;t for the gay community?  I don&#8217;t think so.  I hope for his sake that all the evangelicals he is pandering to move over to his camp come reelection time; gays will be voting for a third party candidate from now on. It&#8217;s been made perfectly clear that the Democrats don&#8217;t want us. Good luck to Obama with his presidency.  I don&#8217;t support him any longer. I, like so many fell utterly betrayed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

