(CNN) — Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month.Warren, one of the most powerful religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as calling for the reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses, and the AIDS epidemic.But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances — including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party’s most liberal wing.”[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now,” Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is “deeply disappointed” with the choice of Warren, and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who is “consistent mainstream American values.”There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson,” Kolbert said. “The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical.”Dobson, a social conservative leader, is founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, “This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.”
Sorry, Mr. President, this will NOT be an inclusive event. If you are to dismiss the 16% of the population by INSISTING on preaching about God, you are not being inclusive. The prayer at the nomination was bad enough, and you’re making it worse for your inauguration by employing Rick Warren to preach at the country on your behalf.Reminder: You’re a Democrat.
jcc
Gosh, the depth of your understanding of evolutionary theory is mind-boggling!
And I bet you’ve even learned how to count past 10 with your shoes on — and now think you’re a better mathematician than Gauss or Newton.
I left out red herrings too, it appears.
The research paper you cited clearly gives the nod to PE constituting a reality – while you keep harping on how it’s not.
Anyone w/half a brain doesn’t cite a paper that runs contrary to what they’re stumping on, @ least w/caveats, which you didn’t supply.
Truthfully, I’m not sure where I stand on PE, & this whole topic is boring the hell outta me, so take your imagined victory & run w/it.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Nice of you to finally concede that…
Because that’s what objective science should demand, not just me. Besides, what’s sauce for the goose; ya know, two can play the “show me the evidence of your claim” game.
That’s partially the point. Any concept that is supposedly scientifically base should lend itself to being experimentally reproduced.
How about a thoroughly controlled and documented experiment that produces a daughter organism that is genetically and morphologically distinct from its progenitors — complete with demonstrable transitional forms at every new morphological step?
You’re tellin’ me. If only Algore had so much as half a brain.
Actually, I think it’s more like, “thinking outside the box.”
Really? Like there’s never been an instance of a significant scientific advancement that resulted from “unconventional thinking?” It’s no wonder you guys can’t get past this whole, “well since there’s no other explanation we’ll accept, evolution, has to be true,” mentality.
I’d have to see it to believe it.
Wow, so you actually have listened to him!! So, what does Rodriguez have to do with Uh-bama being the “magic negro?”
Yeah, you’d think that after 20 years, this country would’ve gotten sick and tired of his “stupidly” and quit listening long ago…
Yes, it was quite absurd for you to somehow think I thought I had access to more information than you guys.
Yep, and it can be fun at times.
You don’t have to. In a culture fed by a media so steeped in atheistic materialism, I’m just trying to level the playing field by coming here.
jcc,
Even though I feel like this conversation really needs to end, I simply can’t help but point this out. You originally said:
And when I first called you on it, you held your ground:
So who was being absurd again?
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Sorry, I thought you understood that since the vast majority of liberals (and atheists here) will not read Drudge, or tune into to FNC or Rush or Hannity or any of the “alternative” media, they are unwittingly restricting themselves to essentially only what the NYT deems as “newsworthy.” So, by consuming news from those other sources, I am exposing myself to “a far greater variety, far more objective, and far more unfiltered sources than where [they] get [theirs],” and that does make me “aware of more information than most liberals are here.”
jcc,
I can’t speak for all the liberals here, but most of the ones I know personally do spend time on the right wing news sites and a few that I know will even flip on right wing radio as a sort of ‘ironic’ (remember this is Portland) form of entertainment. My sister was completely addicted to reading comment threads at foxnews.com during the entire election cycle. (Not commenting, just reading)
It’s not a daily exercise, and no we don’t always catch every new conspiracy theory, but you can be assured that we are aware.