He is only inclusive if you share his views of how the world should be. In any case, this is just one more example of this administrations lack of attention to details and doing research on who they are dealing with. They simply accepted this pastor based on limited knowledge about him the same way they are supporting the rebels in Syria with very limited knowledge about them. It is only later that they find out that they screwed up and backed the wrong horse. Sometimes the mistake is easily corrected and other times, like with Egypt, Libya, and Syria, the mistake creates problems that we will have to deal with many years if not decades.

Give the President credit for taking a stand for the LGBT communities. Some fundamentalist religious figures are still living in the past. Jesus would bless all people. Jesus would give a healping hand to the weak...to those whom have been looked down up.

FORWARD...

So he is the President of the United States or the President of those who share his views?

Heaven forbid someone excises free speech. It's only free if Obama says it's free.

JS in SD

This is an example of why gays/lesbians should NOT be treated like second class citizens in the United States of Americ. If the christians would KEEP their religion out of politices then this wouldn't even be an issue now would it.

As for easily corrected 'mistakes', yes... We had 12 embassy attacks resulting in 54 murders during the bush administration. Problems that were never really corrected and passed along to the next administration.

With no women in the new cabinet , should N.O.W. bow out of the all inaugural party's.

First, he and the people working with him are human. Second, did you ever hear "walk a mile in a man's shoes"? The job of the president of the United States is fraught with difficulties and extreme complexities... I for one can see this as people paying attention to more pressing issues than the president's parties.

As to the mistakes you mentioned... The attack in Libya, was facilitated, it seems by mistakes in the ranks. The president does not micromanage (nor could he/she) all operations of the government. You pick the best you can, but in the end, to err is human and again, we don't know the half of what was going on... and, yes, I think we should ask.

But what about the president's success in Libya earlier with the removal of a certain dictator? <crickets>

But as to Egypt... what where the mistakes there again? As I recall another dictator fell...

Simple, just keep the separation of church and state on all levels of government.

Pledging on an xtian bible, allowing xtian benedictions at a Presidential inauguration, the saying of xtian prayers in Congress is the de facto advocacy of xtianity by our government.

It's in conflict with the Constitution, and it clearly goes against the growing Secularism that is becoming more prevalent (25%) in the United States.

As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

I guess that leaves out Jeremiah Wright!

Ummm....doesn't the article state that the pastor withdrew himself from the inauguration? Let's see:

The pastor President Obama chose to deliver the benediction at the inauguration later this month has withdrawn amid controversy over anti-gay remarks he made more than a decade ago.

Leave it to some people to blame President Obama for the actions of others.

As for not being inclusive of people who do not share his views, we even have this in the article:

In 2009, Obama chose Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation, causing some outcry from the left because of Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage.

Try reading before thinking/speaking. It really is liberating! -:)

I like how intolerant people try to project their intolerance onto someone standing against it.

Rejecting intolerance doesn't make you intolerant, duh. Or it makes you intollerant of intollerance, which in ENGLISH means you are TOLERANT.

Not liking what the President does is one thing. Doing it in a stupid way does nothing other than make the speaker look stupid.

I have this arguement with people about George Bush all the time. Seriously, you don't have to be a reaching moron to come up with reasons to dislike Presidents. You can stick to the intelligent ones and save your own image in the process. You might even convince more people...SHOCK!

GRR@ newsvine for not allowing me to edit and spell check my previous comment.. and lol at those who collasped my comment... guess we are supposed to 'continue' pretending that bush never happened..

As for this priest...and other right winged christians...

"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
Thomas Jefferson

I support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, but keep your religious beilefs out of our GOVERNMENT.

We don't want you, Pastor Gigolo, if you don't treat all as brothers and sisters.

As you can see Obummer believes in free speech as long as you believe in his type of free speech - liberal hatred. And as for brothers and sisters, only those in the family of God are brothers and sisters to a child of God and the case id settled - God said that sodomy is a an abomination and for those who are liberal and believe that we should accept any lifestyle an abomination is an activity that God condemns. Finally, I will believe God and all men liars.

Irish-4005040

Reading with comprehension... someone said (see comments above), that this made obama 'incomptent and then referenced egypt.. libya, and the 'mistakes' that were made their. and that will continue for umm decades.. But seemingly, they forget that Obama's predecessor, made quite a few mistakes that carried into this administration. The original comment had nothing to do with a 'priest' and was a bad parrallel, but now clarified.

That is really inclusive of the President.

Maybe he should have included a Nazi too

Exactly. This President, and the "segment" of people he represents, are tolerant and inclusive of everyone... except those who do not share their world view. The new religion they are evangelizing the nation with has a doctrine of tolerance, but they are hypocrites in the following of their own gospel because they have a definite agenda in ostracizing those with a Judeo-Christian Biblical world view or anyone who might get in their way. Their goal is to sanitize the country of Biblically-based societal norms and replace them with moral ambiguity and an "I'm o.k, you're o.k." potpourri of creative religious thoughts which are illegal to disagree with in the public forum from a Biblical perspective. While there is a definite need for compassion and tolerance toward all people, that compassion does not have accept their lifestyles. It is wrong for government to force conformity to ideas that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian values of scripture. Our nation will not enjoy freedom as we have had if this control of public thought continues to constrict us. Let freedom ring!

For those complaining about free speech, please quote the part of the article that says the pastor was fined or jailed for the speech.

For those complaining about a "lack of inclusion" please list all of the white-supremacists, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims that will be speaking at the inauguration. Now list all the Christians.

Pigotry, you are right on a number of remarks about Jesus (whew, good thing I am sitting down!). The fact is that Jesus still cannot tolerate sin in the least. Being homosexual is NOT a sin. Acting on that tendency IS still a sin in his eyes. Being addicted to porn is not the sin, acting out that action is the sin.

Why do so many people denigrate Christians, especially pastors, for preaching the truth from the bible? Any pastor or church who claims to embrace the Bible as the true Word, then caves in to public pressure wasn't serious to start with. The gay community must get rid of all Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin as stated in the Bible so they won't feel guilty in their own make believe worship.

Are you sure that this pastor is member of a Christian Caring Church? Doesn't sound like he belonged in the Inauguration!

pigotry...

What a wonderful bigot you make and what a fool obama is. Ten years is quite a long period of time in ones lifespan. Some of my opinions haven't changed in ten years but many have based on my willingness to learn and adapt and yes even change my veiwpoint.

It appears that you and the potus haven't learned this valuable lifes lesson.

First you had homosexual bashing Chuck Hagel nominated for Secretary of Defense. Now you have this homophobe asked to give the inaugural benediction. On top of that no women in his cabinet and you start to wonder if President Obama doth protest too much?

I wish President Obama would let Jeremiah Wright give the Benediction. And Give the Rep's a big Middle finger. And the horse your road in on too. Jeremiah Wright was railroaded, He didn't say anything that wasn't true. Not one thing. The Rep's just can't have anyone that tells the truth about what they have been up to. Rev. Wright asked why so much money for Iraq, but none for the people of the USA. Any lies there? He said that we are the only Country that ever used an Atom bomb in war. Any lies there? He said we have forced our way into the Arabian to protect the oil for the oil company's. Any lies there? And What about Bush and Cheney laying us into a war in Iraq. Any lies there. We have been in a state of war sense Little Bush took office. That was the plan from day one when the Rep's stole the Election in 2000. I think Bush set back and let 911 happen to get us into war, 2 wars actually. We have be in a state of war every sense. No one cared about the Debt then. Now they want to pay for those wars by cutting entitlements. We The People paid into those programs. That means it is not an entitlement. And its Our tax dollars. Not just the Rep's that pay taxes. Actually its just the opposite. Did we not learn anything from Romney, who only pays 10% tax. What gives people like that the right to say where tax money's go and how it gets there. The american people are on to this now and it will not stand. The Rich are going to start to pay there fair share, you can take that to the bank. Go Rev. Wright.....

Why do so many people denigrate Christians, especially pastors, for preaching the truth from the bible?

Who says it's the truth? You and your ilk that's who. I personalty don't care what Christians want to hear in church. When it starts getting pushed into the government that's when I draw the line. I think discrimination against gays is immoral. I would no more have such a preacher speak at an inauguration than I would have a KKK grand wizard do so. In any case Obama has the right to pick who he wants there.

I'm really wondering where intellectualism as gone to. The president is his own man with his own spiritual beliefs, none of which I agree with, BUT, none of it is any of my business unless he uses his personal beliefs to target or abuse others.

Having said that, I think having a religious service in any government activity, including swearing on a bible and sh!t like that, is making trouble. Religion should be as private as we can possibly make it.

Having said that, I think having a religious service in any government activity, including swearing on a bible and sh!t like that, is making trouble.

Don't worry. He's using two bibles this time . If he flips one upside down they cancel each other out and its the same as he's holding his hand in the air.

There is a lot of talk here regarding homosexuality. Let's see .. what it boils down to is this: There is a partition of society that advocates the acceptance of inserting one another's private parts into another's mouth. And, you say that this is normal and moral. And, you say that God should consider this normal and moral. Honestly, the great majority of society would at the very least hesitate at that one. Duh.

american-2051576

pigotry...

What a wonderful bigot you make and what a fool obama is. Ten years is quite a long period of time in ones lifespan. Some of my opinions haven't changed in ten years but many have based on my willingness to learn and adapt and yes even change my veiwpoint.

It appears that you and the potus haven't learned this valuable lifes lesson.

You expect us to accept that tolerating intolerance makes any sense at all?

Here's a life lesson for you...GLBT folks ain't gonna take that BS no more.

Why do so many people denigrate Christians, especially pastors, for preaching the truth from the bible? Any pastor or church who claims to embrace the Bible as the true Word, then caves in to public pressure wasn't serious to start with. The gay community must get rid of all Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin as stated in the Bible so they won't feel guilty in their own make believe worship.

Actually it seems it is the Christian community that feels they must get rid of the homosexuals and anything that is against their doctrine so they can feel better about their beliefs. I have never met more insecure people in their faith than many of the Christians I encounter. Only the insecure would feel the need to eliminate all opposition, because how can you be wrong if there is no other side? Of course, I can't really blame them when the Christian faith is based on an archaic book for which there is absolutely no proof that any of it is true, aside from some historical information.

Believe what you want to believe, but stop trying to force those ideals on others. Also, don't start crying when the expression of those views have negative consequences in public.

Heaven forbid we should have any pastors who disagree with the president. Wasn't it just a little over a year ago that Obama himself said he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman?! And now, any American who hasn't "evolved" along with him is punished. The audacity and arrogance of this administration to dictate and influence what Americans should think and believe is appalling. It won't be long before we are locking people up for having the wrong beliefs, in order to "protect society" from them. Ever wonder how communist countries came to be who locked up so-called "prisoners of conscience"? Just open your eyes. You are seeing it happen in real time.

@Bruce...WHO got locked up? Who? Who suffered from this? You're in such a hurry to sh*t all over Obama that you make ludicrous statements having nothing to do with this situation.

Obama never suppressed this man's freedom to say these things, he just doesn't want him at his inauguration. Of course some of you just so eager to jump on the "free speech" wagon you can't help but make the same ridiculously stupid conclusions you always do and scream about how free speech is being suppressed.

If I were to hire a preacher for a wedding, but then find out the preacher made statements about people with red hair that I didn't like, firing him from my wedding isn't even close to telling him he can't say those things. It's making the statement that I don't agree with that person.

But go ahead and scream about "free speech"...I like for the morons to be visible so we can see them coming.

There is a lot of talk here regarding homosexuality. Let's see .. what it boils down to is this: There is a partition of society that advocates the acceptance of inserting one another's private parts into another's mouth. And, you say that this is normal and moral. And, you say that God should consider this normal and moral. Honestly, the great majority of society would at the very least hesitate at that one. Duh.

First of, that act is not exclusive to homosexuality as many heterosexual couples practice it as well.

Aside from that, are your heterosexual relationships only defined by physical sex? I assume not, and if they are, then you are not living your standards of a 'moral' lifestyle. So if your relationships are not defined solely by physical sex, why do you think that physical sex is the only thing a homosexual relationship has to it?

So would Romney want an abortion doctor speaking at his, if he won?

Why are pastors invited to any goverment anything??

There is that floating McDonalds ad again. so I'm typing blind.

This inauguration is fast becoming a joke anyway. The benediction seems rather benign given the expectation of this administration. So if they were true to their words the President himself would be stricken from the playbill..... He loves him some division after all.

“Participants in the Inaugural festivities should unite rather than divide.

There is a partition of society that advocates the acceptance of inserting one another's private parts into another's mouth. And, you say that this is normal and moral.

Well I don't know about you but my wife will give me a blow job. Exactly how is it immoral?

Swan...that was a great post about that idiot that posted the truth coming from the bible! Just because some people choose to believe a 2000 year old, out-dated manuscript re-interpreted hundreds of times, doesn't mean I have to accept that garbage as the truth! And...if I were to accept it as the truth, all of it, that would mean that I get to kill my neighbor....as I saw him wearing a shirt yesterday made of 2 different fabrics! Idiots!!

@Mixedpie - No hate here. Jesus proclaimed that God's laws were absolutely right and that there would some day be an eternal accounting for how one has lived. However, he did not come into the world to condemn the world for breaking those laws, but rather, to save those who desired his gift of true and eternal life and an escape from their death beds of self. He didn't come with guns blazing, mowing down everyone who disagreed with him. He didn't come with a terrorist's bomb strapped under his robes. He laid his life down and served and ministered in love, and culminated it with his demonstration of the ultimate form of love, in the giving of his very life, so that others could experience total forgiveness and be set free from all that was holding them prisoners within themselves. That message needs to be allowed to be spoken freely in our land. It is as worthy as any other world view to be able to freely express in the market place of ideas. What we are dealing with here is government-initiated censorship of speech and government opposition to the very Judeo-Christian beliefs our nation has been built upon and thrived in following. Our future is bleak if we depart from these ways.

One thing all of you have in common is that God loves you whether you believe it or not. No Jesus-no peace, Know Jesus-Know peace!

Several people have written that there will be no women on the president's new cabinet.

Would you care to tell me your source for your "breaking news" that Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano and Rebecca Blank are leaving?

Also, but for a whole lot of right-wing-nut-jobbery, it's likely that Susan Rice would be Secretary of State.

You're entitled to your own opinions, folks. But you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Did anyone actually read the article and realize that all this was about something the pastor said over 15 years ago. People change, if we want to ask someone to withdraw from participating from giving a simple benediction over something they did that long ago, we probably have to remove more than half of the politicians if not more.

Why do so many people denigrate Christians, especially pastors, for preaching the truth from the bible? Any pastor or church who claims to embrace the Bible as the true Word, then caves in to public pressure wasn't serious to start with. The gay community must get rid of all Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin as stated in the Bible so they won't feel guilty in their own make believe worship.

imnotlost; It also states in the Bible, Matthew 5:32 that a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. That means that there is a whole bunch of sinners walking around. Probably a large group in the church you attend. Be very, very, careful when you start slinging stones!!

@Bruce...WHO got locked up? Who? Who suffered from this? You're in such a hurry to sh*t all over Obama that you make ludicrous statements having nothing to do with this situation.

No one has been locked up... yet.... But if you can't see the progression we are on you are either blind or in complete denial. Already the department of homeland security has been laying the groundwork by referring to some conservative groups as potential terrorist organizations (while the Black Panthers "monitor" polling stations with clubs). We celebrate "diversity", but only so far as it aligns with liberal thinking. Those outside the box of "accepted diversity" are either "right wing nut jobs" or engaged in "hate speech" (because they dare to disagree with the liberal protected classes).

It won't be many years before Americans will be behind bars for having the wrong beliefs, and the masses will celebrate it (I suspect you would).

Well, I'm sure he can just call up Rev. Wright......

shinelight....nice sentiment, but still strictly an opinion, not fact. Yes, I do believe that a person named Jesus did exist (we have a calendar based on his birth). However, there is no proof that he was the son of a god, and it is impossible for me to accept something as fact if there is no proof. However, you are correct that if we deal strictly with the message, we would be better off. I live my life trying not to hurt anyone and live quite peaceably. But...I am an aethiest. I don't need the fear of god to keep my path in life straight. If the religious nutjobs would stop insisting that life be based on 'the book', then I would keep my mouth shut. Until then....not a chance.

@shinelight - There is no censorship in this case. He is just not part of the inauguration. He hasn't been killed, jailed, or had any rights denied. He is simply no longer part of the ceremony. He can still preach his prejudice if he wants. I just love how people like you are quick to scream censorship when someone else's views that conflict with your faith are being considered. Religion has done nothing but create a divide among people and promote falsehoods. It does not belong in the government of a free people. Involving religion in government is a step toward a theocracy. If people want to believe in an unproven archaic book, then they have the right to, but using it to promote restrictions and prejudice on other lifestyles may have consequences as this incident has shown.

Considering the President's election was a MANDATE on equality, this Pastor should not be speaking.

His quotes make him seem like a hateful man.

Stevefoo there is so much you don't understand about the 2000 year old manuscripts. But on a different note, why was Obama ok with going to a church where the pastor Reverend Wright, condemned America? That is OK but a pastor taking a stand on a moral issue is not ok? Hypocracy. By the well it really is ok for people not to accept the homosexual lifestyle. I for one am tired of it being pushed on everyone as ok. We are entitled to our views just like the pro homosexual people are entitled to theirs.

shinelight,

The Bible I read in Catholic grade school showed that when Jesus was twelve, he was in the temple arguing with the elders about their interpretation of the Bible. Jesus never said one word about homosexuality being a sin, but he did say divorce was. Perhaps it'd be best if we all realized that our nation wasn't actually based on "Judeo-Christian beliefs" but on beliefs in a higher power, and a firm conviction that the Golden Rule should prevail. "Judge not, lest thee be judged", right?

Most of the comments here reflect the hypocrisy of the "progressives" who claim to be the big tent party of inclusion and tolerance...until you have a different moral conviction on anything that affronts their god of "selfishness". Lets just look at history to see where their intolerance is leading the country. Look at societies who abandon freedom of choice in speech, belief, and practice to see where we are headed. Just a clue God's kingdom is based on freedom and love. They are as much a part of God as the natural laws of physics, gravity and magnetism. Ignore natural laws at your peril...including the law of freedom of choice.

Holy crap, you are stupid. The pastor withdrew. You should take the time to read.

What does Obama's going to Wright's church have to do have to do with this issue. Obama's not inviting Wright to speak at the Inauguration.

If Wright were asked to speak would you be supportive? Nope, didn't think so.

joe....how the heck do you know how much I do or don't understand in the bible? I grew up Catholic and studied the bible for years! Of course, when I started asking questions that had no answers, that is when I decided that it was bunk. And...on your other topic....you can hate homosexuality all you want, much like the southerners in the 1800's loved slavery. However, what you can't do is make it the law of the land. And, just like we abolished slavery, eventually, we will abolish the hate emanating from the so-called moral majority, which by the way, is neither. Keep your stupid, hate-filled, religious-based laws out of my country.

The "headline" reads, "Pastor nixed..... " which gives the impression that he was told not to show up......

Seems the "tolerance" of the left can only tolerate itself............

Left and Bart,

I have a problem with anyone who misrepresents God in an effort to advance their own selfish agenda.

Thanks for the name calling and innuendo...further proof of how tolerant you are. I am aware the pastor withdrew...where did it say I thought he was "pressured" to withdrawal? I was judging the comments including yours on their merit or lack of merit. Your own words show the truth of how intolerant you are.

Next

Steve446003...and I'm just sure you would love to have an aethist, anti-gun, welfare recipient speaking at your inaguration. I'm just sure you are that tolerant....

I'm sorry, but why do we have a pastor... or ANY religious figure... as part of the inauguration?

It's called separation of church and state.

Listen, I have no problem if someone wants to believe in a fairy tale. If you need to live your life according to a fairy tale, because you lack the personal convictions to do the right thing on your own... and you require some type of "award" in the afterlife to justify doing the right thing... that is your own problem. But keep your "I hate everyone who is not like me", "a man can live in the belly of a whale", superstitious, hypocritical bull-sh** out of government.

There is absolutely no reason any religious figure should be involved at all.

And moreover,

joe-1387403

Stevefoo there is so much you don't understand about the 2000 year old manuscripts. But on a different note, why was Obama ok with going to a church where the pastor Reverend Wright, condemned America?

Wright wasn't condemning America, he was condemning Amerika...he was condemning the hypocrisy and and failure to live up to the ideals of America. Just as I condemn Christians who spout love and peace and reverence for the Bible and then live their lives in complete contradiction. That doesn't mean I hate Jesus or Christianity per se, it simply means I don't tolerate intolerance.

To call someone who will not tolerant intolerance themselves intolerant is like calling someone who defends themselves by killing a murderous attacker a murderer themselves. It's all about who initiates the intolerance. Fire with fire is sometimes the only avenue out and the only thing some people will respond to.

KUDOS to Obama.

You end religion in America, you end all hate, bigotry, racism, famine and wars...

I don't think remarks made years ago should necessarily mark anybody forever. The real question is what does he think NOW and has he apologized for past beliefs. But this whole religion thing is just getting old. Why does it even matter at an inauguration? Why do they even need a pastor there?

So let me gt this right, Obama is looking for a pastor who has never preached that Homosexuality is wrong and against god? Good luck with that one, if he does find one I would like to see the Bible he reads from. GOD SAYS homosexuality is a sin, preachers preach GODS word,that's what they do. If you don't like what God says ,take it up with God, and let me know how that works out for you.

joe....what exactly makes some words on a piece of paper god's word? Because some humans said so? Tell you what....have your god make a live appearance at the Super Bowl halftime this year....then I will totally believe in him. If I were trying to recruit people and make them follow me, that is what I would do....but then again, maybe I am just more intelligent than your god.

Joe, your god is a fairy tale. And as such, he has no place in our government.

Nothing surprises but it is funny that most of the libs forgot what O said in his books and earlier life. I does not have a good record on how much he like the good ole USA and capitalism....but what's new most libs choose to have amnesia most of the time if it doesn't conform to their ideals.

Most folks that read /study the Bible understand God's position on gays...it is very very clear....just sayin and if you don't believe then it makes no difference and frankly those that believe do not care whether you do or not...just sayin again.

justredd64....have you not been paying attention? Our position is that the bible is just a cute little story that helps the mind numbed get through life. It has absolutely no place in deciding what is and what is not policy of the citizenry. And...while we are at it. Why don't you believe that a man can be killed for planting two different crops in one field? Leviticus said so....right in your bible!

Well....the pastor appears to be a weaselly sort anyway...big surprise...

“Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation and the prayer I would offer will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration,” Giglio said. (Those people I advocated hating and oppressing are going to try and make this all about them, just because they're selfish and political....not because of anything I did or said, or the very real prejudice or harm they have suffered because of me and people just like me.) “Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.” (So forget all the hate and crap that I swore my religion required less than a decade ago...now that it's interfering with my political career, I no longer believe gawd wants us to hate gays....or at least...I won't be saying so in public.)

Not one word of responsibility for preaching hate to begin with...not one word to say that he no longer believes gays should be hated, only that he no longer advocates it in public. Not one word in support of actual inclusion...he still manages to take a swipe at gays by referring to their "agenda" once again. Really classy.

Just another useless slime ball preacher.

This is "the President's inaugural." How could some of you boneheads miss this cogent point. Get it? "The PRESIDENT'S inaugural"; the PRESIDENT'S day. Not YOUR day for pushing YOUR personal, hateful, intolerant and homophobic agendas.

Get over yourselves. As difficult as it is for you folks to understand, it's not all about YOU, and your personal bigotry.

Your hateful little presences are not he center of the Universe. In fact, most of the world pays no notice whatsoever to the 'stuff' that you are pushing, ...except of course to take care not to step in it.

It's a good thing the voters in the USA didn't hold President Obama accountable for comments he made in the 90's or earlier, otherwise he wouldn't be living where he is.

How is the hate directed toward Christians any different than the hate directed toward gays? Hate is hate, regardless of who it's directed at.

it would appear that chuck has a serious problem attempting to communicate using the English language.

It's a good thing the voters in the USA didn't hold President Obama accountable for comments he made in the 90's or earlier, otherwise he wouldn't be living where he is.

The President has come out publicly to say that his opinion has evolved and matured and he now supports full equality. The preacher hasn't...and is still referring to equality as an "agenda". If you can't see the difference there....we can't help you....

1. Black preacher says outlandish things years ago to congregation that included black future presidential candidate. The right's response? Don't vote for the black guy!

2. White preacher says outlandish things years ago, so now he's not going to be at inaugural of black president. The right's response? The black guy is censoring him!

Look, folks, either sermons have consequences for those who embrace them, or they don't. It's the same for both sides of the aisle and all colors of skin.

Frankly, I think it's fairly obvious that the lesson learned from the whole Rev. Wright nonsense is the reason why no one in his right mind would want yet another nutjob preacher to be front and center at such an event. And I'm personally glad that Obama is continuing to show quite a bit more willingness to stick his thumb into the eyes of idiots in his second term.

A pastor chosen by President Obama to deliver the inaugural benediction later this month has withdrawn amid controversy over anti-gay remarks he made more than a decade ago.

Hmmmmmmm.

So, we have Pastor Giglio withdraw due to anti-gay remarks he made over 10 years ago.

So when can we expect the same level of decorum from Chuck Hagel with his withdrawal from being Secretary of Defense due to his anti-gay remarks he made in 1998?

Or, is this just more of the convoluted moral inequivalence we've been exposed to by the Liberal/Progressive hypocrisy?

This is "the President's inaugural." How could some of you boneheads miss this cogent point. Get it? "The PRESIDENT'S inaugural"; the PRESIDENT'S day. Not YOUR day for pushing YOUR personal, hateful, intolerant and homophobic agendas.

Get over yourselves. As difficult as it is for you folks to understand, it's not all about YOU, and your personal bigotry.

Your hateful little presences are not he center of the Universe. In fact, most of the world pays no notice whatsoever to the 'stuff' that you are pushing, ...except of course to take care not to step in it.

Exactly what agenda did this pastor have? Comments and speeches given 15 years ago is NOT an agenda. Had he continued with that line of thought today, then that would be an agenda. The White House originally invited him. Are you willing to hold Obama or any of his cabinet members accountable for the things they have said 15 to 20 years ago?

It appears that the self righteous exist out side the church as well.

Way to take a strong stand for those 1st Amendment Rights, Mr President....what a pair you have!

rabbit trail

How is the hate directed toward Christians any different than the hate directed toward gays?

Simple... the supposed "hate" towards christians ends there. We are not trying to make laws against christians, but we are entitled to our opinions and beliefs.

You, on the other hand, take your hatred towards gays a step further and try to make laws against them. You are entitled to your opinion and belief... but that is where it should end.

You christians can hate as much as you want, that is what you are best at. But just like we do not make laws based on our opinions of YOU, you can not make laws based on your opinions of homosexuals. Deal?

And I'm personally glad that Obama is continuing to show quite a bit more willingness to stick his thumb into the eyes of idiots in his second term.

Hopefully, Obama doesn't poke his eye out.

Skip52

"And as for brothers and sisters, only those in the family of God are brothers and sisters to a child of God and the case id(sic) settled..."


As long as you understand that ALL HUMANS are in the 'family of God' (sounds like a cult when you say it) and that all humans are children of God. I'm a Christian and that is what I and all the Christians I know believe.

As for sins and abominations, how many have you committed today? God is the only determiner and judge of whether a sin has been committed and what the punishment for that might be.

All you finger pointers (especially you SKIP) get yourselves perfect, and when you hit that goal start looking around at other peoples sins.

As for Pastor Giglio, what he said years ago isn't nearly as important as what he says today. But there doesn't seem to be any retraction or separation by him from the statements he made years ago, so it sounds like this was the right move, and I'm not sure it matters whether Obama's team caught this before now.

Uh....spider....you do know that the preacher did not get thrown in jail, right? You can say any stupid thing you want (as evidenced by most of your posts), but there are always consequences to things that are said. Get it?

14th amendment - equal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment.

stevef00 wrote:

"joe....what exactly makes some words on a piece of paper god's word? Because some humans said so? Tell you what....have your god make a live appearance at the Super Bowl halftime this year....then I will totally believe in him. If I were trying to recruit people and make them follow me, that is what I would do....but then again, maybe I am just more intelligent than your god."

God making an appearance in New Orleans, and in the Superdome, to boot? I don't think so, Steve. He didn't seem at all interested in the place in August of 2005 when his help was really needed there. Why would he be inclined to show up now?

Besides, CBS would charge him $2 million for a 1-minute spot.

;-)

You, on the other hand, take your hatred towards gays a step further and try to make laws against them. You are entitled to your opinion and belief... but that is where it should end.

You christians can hate as much as you want, that is what you are best at. But just like we do not make laws based on our opinions of YOU, you can not make laws based on your opinions of homosexuals. Deal?

Please point out where I said I was a Christian. You are certainly quick to jump to conclusions. While you're at it, please point out what I've said against gays. more than anything your own anger and bigotry is shining through. I just pointed out that hate was hate, regardless of who it's directed at.

"Why do so many people denigrate Christians, especially pastors, for preaching the truth from the bible?"

Because Liberals say the Bible is not 'Politically Correct' because it actually spells out what God says is 'Right and Wrong'.

I guess they know better than God (at least in their own minds).

rabbit trial

Way to miss the point.

It doesn't matter what you believe, I could care less. The point is that hate will always exist, ALWAYS. The discussion is NOT about stopping hate, because that is impossible. However, it is not right to create laws based on your opinion.

Granted, it is fun to point out the hypocrisy of christians who supposedly follow Jesus, who was against hate, but they embrace hatred towards gays. But that is more a focus on their hypocrisy, not their hate.

Because god is a figment of your imagination.

Roy.....No, you have that wrong. We aren't trying to make the bible politically correct. We are trying to get you to understand that we don't believe that it is actually the word of any god. It is a nice fairly tale used by the mind numbed as a crutch to get through life and should have no bearing whatsoever on the laws made over the citizenry of the United States. What about that don't you understand?

Joe @ 1.166:

So let me gt this right, Obama is looking for a pastor who has never preached that Homosexuality is wrong and against god? Good luck with that one, if he does find one I would like to see the Bible he reads from.

Don't worry, he'll find one. There are thousands and thousands of "pastors" and "ministers" out there who keep the church full of people by avoiding that subject, among other subjects.

I bet you this, the search for a big name minister has ceased, and some little known will be chosen. Why doesn't he just invite a muslim? Coward, that's why.

Obama's nomination for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, assailed then-President Clinton's nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg, James Hormel, as "openly, aggressively gay," questioning whether Hormel could "do an effective job."

Ambassadors "are representing America," Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald in 1998. "They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay."

Should Hagel removed from consideration for the same reasons? We'll see where the hypocrisy exist.

mguy-478

Way to miss the point.

It doesn't matter what you believe, I could care less... However, it is not right to create laws based on your opinion.

Uhm, you were the one who initiated the comment so if you could care less, then why point it out? BTW, laws are often passed based on opinion.

Roy.....No, you have that wrong. We aren't trying to make the bible politically correct. We are trying to get you to understand that we don't believe that it is actually the word of any god. It is a nice fairly tale used by the mind numbed as a crutch to get through life and should have no bearing whatsoever on the laws made over the citizenry of the United States. What about that don't you understand?

So what does that say about Barrack Obama, a self proclaimed Christian, who is running our country?

" Who says it's the truth? You and your ilk that's who. I personalty don't care what Christians want to hear in church. When it starts getting pushed into the government that's when I draw the line. I think discrimination against gays is immoral. "

OK, well I think discrimination against Christians is immoral. Who wins?
In your case there's no God to derive morals from, so that must mean you got your morals from society. Society has thought gay sex was immoral for thousands of years - so therefore you are immoral for going against societies moral code.
My moral code comes from God. My God says gay sex is immoral and that makes it immoral to go against.
The fact is in either case gay sex is immoral.
I win - you lose.

"Its not God bless America its God damn America" yeah Obamas Rev Wright buddy would be perfect to replace him.

Tim...according to your god (Leviticus, from the bible again), I can sell my daughter into slavery! Nice cherry-picking there! And...since I don't have to answer to any 'god', I always win! You have to walk around on eggshells every day, or according to what you believe happens in the afterlife, you lose!

Rabbit Trail....I always seriously question the intelligence of anybody that believes in the invisible sky overlord, which means I do question Obamas intelligence in this area as well. However, even more than that, I think that anybody that believes that Joseph Smith read golden tablets in his hat is completely crazy! Lesser of two evils....

@Darkshadow1701

No censorship going on? Well, here is my comment #1.20 again that was "collapsed by the community" Apparently I was not censored, but rather, just not invited.

Exactly. This President, and the "segment" of people he represents, are tolerant and inclusive of everyone... except those who do not share their world view. The new religion they are evangelizing the nation with has a doctrine of tolerance, but they are hypocrites in the following of their own gospel because they have a definite agenda in ostracizing those with a Judeo-Christian Biblical world view or anyone who might get in their way. Their goal is to sanitize the country of Biblically-based societal norms and replace them with moral ambiguity and an "I'm o.k, you're o.k." potpourri of creative religious thoughts which are illegal to disagree with in the public forum from a Biblical perspective. While there is a definite need for compassion and tolerance toward all people, that compassion does not have to accept their lifestyles. It is wrong for government to force conformity to ideas that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian values of scripture. Our nation will not enjoy freedom as we have had if this control of public thought continues to constrict us. Let freedom ring!

Shinelight's comments make the most sense out of everything posted here.

Ken...you need to preface things like that with....'in my opinion', because in my opinion, they really don't make the most sense.

I get confused with all the god references. Would you all please specify which god you are referring to in your comments please.

Shinelight,

This President, and the "segment" of people he represents, are tolerant and inclusive of everyone... except those who do not share their world view.

See, this stuff, these false equivalences, this fallacious reasoning, this mendacious indignation on the part of the right really frightens me.

Hitler hated Jews, and I hate Hitler because of it. Am I as bigoted as Hitler is, because I'm not tolerant and inclusive of Hitler?

White supremacists hate blacks, and I hate black supremacists because of it. Am I as bigoted as white supremacists are, because I'm not tolerant and inclusive of white supremacists?

The extreme, bigoted fringe of the right wing has to STOP pretending that intolerance toward bigotry is as despicable as bigotry itself. The extreme, bigoted fringe of the right wing has to STOP pretending that they have the right to be intolerant of gays and we, open-minded humans, don't have the right to be intolerant of intolerance. To stand up to bigotry is NOT as morally despicable as bigotry itself. I can rephrase it a million other ways until you get that through your skulls.

Goebbels would be proud of you people. "You Americans are the bigoted ones for not accepting me and my anti-Semitic ideals," I'm sure he would say.

Because Liberals say the Bible is not 'Politically Correct' because it actually spells out what God says is 'Right and Wrong'.

If your gawd endorses bigotry and prejudice...then your gawd is wrong.

I guess they know better than God (at least in their own minds).

It appears that we are more evolved, more inclusive, and more fair than your gawd...so yes...I'd say we do know better. Maybe you should get a better gawd.

Andres....AWESOME post! Wish I'd said that...I may copy it and repeat it....giving you full credit by the way. Oh....and to your point....they will never get it....which is sad....

My gawd still loves you, even now.

If he had to do it all over again, and you were the only one here on earth, he would still come here again to take your place and die for you. Do you have any other friend like that? He is not in heaven waiting to wipe you out. His love is just the opposite. He seeks after you, even now. He doesn't have to do it all over again. Once was good enough for all who will believe what was said and done there by him 2,000 years ago.

@Laffy - So what if a state completely eliminated the term and concept of marriage from any and all state laws? Would that render everyone equally treated from a marriage standpoint? If so, LETS DO IT!! That will completely squelch the homosexual marriage debate.

shinelight....your gawd actually did not die for anybody. He sent a proxy....a bit cowardly, don't you think? And please don't tell me it was his 'only son' he sent, because he is supposed to love everybody the same, as we are all supposedly 'gods children'. Do you not understand why aethism has become the fastest growing 'religion' in this country? Because a rational thinking person simply can not believe this stuff!

AndresTM's comments make the most sense out of everything posted here.

I told a Polish joke when I was in high school. I guess I should be fired from my job and tarred and feathered!

I thought it said that the preacher just wasn't going to be allowed to give the benediction at the inauguration...I didn't realize he had been fired, tarred and feathered! I guess I should have read more carefully.....wait....I DID! None of that was even mentioned! Way to go waaaaay off course there robbie.

He loves even people who have trouble with believing in Him. You can actually experience the reality of this God that you think does not exist. I did, and I continue to experience Him and His love more and more. He is not far from anyone. It just takes a willingness to consider the possibility that He is there and to ask Him to know Him if He is there. He will take you up on that. He loves you just as much as He loves me and everyone else. He is not waiting for us to get our lives together to approach Him. He says come as you are, with all your questions and imperfections. "Come, and let's reason together" is His invitation. You will wonder why you waited so long.

I told a Polish joke when I was in high school. I guess I should be fired from my job and tarred and feathered!

And that compares to a man setting himself up as a spiritual leader...the expert on how to "save your immortal soul" giving a 54 minute sermon instructing his flock...to hate a minority.....how exactly?

Additionally...this bozo has not recanted his hate...he still refers to the quest for equality as an "agenda" and tries to give the impression that he is the injured party here. I see you're buying into it nicely.

Hey wait a minute! There's no birthday party for me in here!

Shinelight, you don't seem to understand the extent to which people like me completely disbelieve the unscientific, unprovable, and often bizarre things that you are saying. Maybe if I put it this way it will help.

You disbelieve in an awful lot of gods. I'm quite sure of it. You don't believe in the god of the golden calf that the Israelites worshipped in the desert while Moses was off getting the 10 commandments. You don't believe in Ganesh, the elephant-headed Hindu god of war.

You with me so far?

Well, I disbelieve in an awful lot of gods, too. It just so happens that I disbelieve in one more god than you do.

So stop for a moment and think about your feelings for good ol' Ganesh. That's exactly how I feel about the things you're saying.

Would any amount of repetition of the mere statement of Ganesh's existence by a Hindu cause you to budge in that feeling by even the slightest amount?

Right.

Now you understand.

The extreme, bigoted fringe of the right wing has to STOP pretending that they have the right to be intolerant of gays and we, open-minded humans, don't have the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

Is it always the right that disagrees with homosexuality? Is it always Christians that are opposed to gays? Your own disdain for the right is exposing your intolerant underbelly.

shinelight,

We aren't atheists because we just don't know any better.

We are atheists because after learning about your gawd and your religion, we found it Unbelievable. Repeating the same unbelievable things over and over...won't change that. If your goal is to change hearts and minds...you're doing the exact opposite.

Personally....I have no need for imaginary friends. There is no hole in my life that needs filling. I have all the love in my life that I could ever want from real live people. Nor would I ever seek "love" from a being that routinely murders, tortures and abuses others, if they don't worship it. What you choose to do, will be based on your own life experiences/expectations...and is up to you.

But this whole religion thing is just getting old. Why does it even matter at an inauguration? Why do they even need a pastor there?

You must be young. Learn history. It's been happening since the beginning of America and it's been a tradition since George Washington. This is what makes America great.

It seems some people want to go backwards and remove anything tied as spiritual. This would be the downfall of America as George Washington mentioned.

Way to miss the point, Stevefoo!

Thanks a million stevefoo and RonB. It's good to know someone does read my little diatribes and appreciates them.

Steve, if you do copy my post verbatim (which, needless to say, you're more than free to do without attribution!) you might want to proofread it a bit. For some reason, I said "black supremacists" once, when I meant "white supremacists." I make mistakes like that all the time when I'm writing. If only I could learn to do two things at a time (articulate my thoughts and redact well)...

Is it always the right that disagrees with homosexuality? Is it always Christians that are opposed to gays? Your own disdain for the right is exposing your intolerant underbelly.

Pretty much, yes. By definition. Understand that by the right I mean the social right, aka social conservatives. I don't specify social because no one is doing that on this thread; it's pretty implicit.

Note I didn't say, "bigoted fiscal conservatives" or "bigoted gun lovers," so it's not like I'm making undue assumptions. But yeah, one of the main pillars of U.S. social conservatism is the refusal to accept homosexuals as mainstream members of our society, and one of the main pillars of the U.S. social liberalism is the acceptance of homosexuals as mainstream members of our society.

I can't do anything about it, bud, I'm sorry. If you and those who subscribe to your socially conservative movement can find a credible candidate who rightly calls him/herself conservative and fights for the rights of homosexuals, please let me know.

To help you understand why I make this generalization, let me give you an example, on the fiscal side of politics. If I said that I disagree with all fiscal conservatives who don't believe any deficit spending, would you take umbrage at my singling out conservatives? I don't think so. Because if you do believe in deficit spending, you aren't a fiscal conservative. And if you don't believe in it, by definition, you are. The difference is that, deep down, you know that there's nothing to be embarrassed of in being a fiscal conservative, so you don't want to spread the blame. About bigotry against homosexuals, however, there is nothing redeeming, so it bothers you that I placed the blame on social conservatives for that.

And, yes, again, you can call me intolerant of social conservatism as long as social conservatism, in principle OR in practice, stands for something other than full acceptance of all people, regardless of race, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof, income, native language, culture, ethnicity, among others. I'll wear that badge proudly. The moment social conservatism is explained to be inclusive of everyone, and such tolerance is put to execution, I won't have any reason to agree that intolerance toward it is morally reproachable or even hypocritical.

*"As long as social conservatism isn't explained to be inclusive of everyone, and such tolerance isn't put to execution..." is what I meant on my last sentence. I'm sorry for spamming the thread: the window to read your comment and edit it is very narrow.

Rabbittrail, show me someone on the left who disagrees with homosexuality. Show me someone who disdains gays that isn't motivated by some religious or pseudo-religious reason.

I could live without a benediction at the inaugural.

JoAnn....when George Washington was inaugurated, 10% of the population of this country were slaves. As we progress and learn more, we absolutely should move forward. Get it?

And Robbie...I got the point, I was just showing you how stupid that point was.

In the Bible, the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel, we are introduced to two kings of Israel, King Saul and King David, who represent two, polar opposite types of leaders. In reading the text, we discover that King Saul's leadership was born out of his fear of man (his fear that the people would reject him). The result of his routinely ignoring the laws and principles established by God, and even the direct will of God as revealed to him by the prophet Samuel led to him being completely cut off from God, no longer able to hear and know God's will for himself and Israel.
Conversely, we find that King David's primary motivation was born out of his fear of God, and as a result he stood by the laws and principles established by God as he sought to please and obey God rather than trying to please men. Whenever he failed God, he very humbly confessed his sin's before God and fell upon His mercy. This resulted in his being the most celebrated king of Israel throughout the ages, with God calling him "a man after His own heart", and declaring that through his lineage the Messiah would come. This prophecy being fullfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, and with it the birth of the Christian Church.
Nowadays, we see the leaders of our nation more and more being motivated in their decision making by public opinion polls, rather than on the timeless laws and principles handed down to all of us through the ages as found in our Bibles! Nowhere is this more evident than in the dog and pony show which the presidential inauguration has become. Our nation has become jaded to the truths within the Bible as we puff ourselves up and proudly proclaim how technologically advanced and self-sufficient we have become. In our pride we proclaim that God is a quaint notion of a bygone era, no longer worthy of our attention in establishing the course of our future. Instead we use the Bible as a type of prop... good for a clever sound-bite and a great photo opp. This is to our undoing.
People who do not read the Bible like to speak as though they have, and as a result the Jesus of the Bible in no way resembles the Jesus that they have created in their own image within the spaces of their own imaginations. For instance, people routinely make the mistake of portraying Jesus as being some sort of non-judgemental, anything goes, gentle, peace seeking hippie. Nothing could be further from the truth! One passage which clearly demonstrates this is found in Matthew 10:34-38
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Anyone who has been a follower of Jesus for any length of time, and has dared to publicly proclaim their faith and the words of Christ is quite familiar with being mocked, insulted and sometimes even threatened because of it. This too was predicted by Jesus as found in Matthew 10:21-22
"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
I have found that many people who thought that they knew the Bible and about Christianity were rather surprised when they actually read it for the first time. I therefore suggest that everyone read it for themselves and see what it actually says rather than sheepishly taking someone elses word for it!

Another form of "Discrimination"; not letting anyone close to Obama who does not agree with his views--

This is not good at all. Not me, but a lot of citizens in the US have the "right" to be anti-gay--just as us who are not anti gay.

This country is becoming censored both by the Media and the Government--where is all the hard core news since this last election. We hear nothing from the White House about what's happenin vieIssues. That is what a leader as President is commanded to do while in Office. Keeping the people informed.

#1.126 Then again, after my PC locked up, Obama has the right to 'choose"; he should research who he is choosing to speak more carefully, before making so many gaffes. It makes him look like O has bad judgement.

Yet the anti american song writer is fine in the whitehouse. (Gangman Style) What did he call us just recently? Killiers of women and children, we should all die horrible deaths. Don't be Gay sounds so much worse.

I am leaving this post because ,I have never seen the word HATE thrown around so much in my life. The only thing is , the post that I read it from, is always in you Liberal, Atheists writings. I believe if you people would replace all that hate you have for Christians , with a little bit of Gods love, your life's would be much better. See I simply said that God said Homosexuality is a sin, I never said I hated Gay people. My god also says lying ,stealing , adultery, murder, bearing false witness among other things, are also sins. He also tells me , "not to judge others. Jesus even tells us to , "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES". No my brothers and sisters , my God is about love ,not hate, he even loves the sinners, he just doesn't like the sin. I am a sinner and no better than anyone else. If you people have to hate someone ,or something, please don't hate God because, even though you don't know him , he knows you and he loves you. Amen.

@Skip52

WOW! Just wow. Your post, "Brother" Skip, is oozing with so much bitter, bigoted, and ignorant hatred, I really don't know where to start! To the surprise of absolutely NO ONE, it is quite obvious that you must be a republican, albeit an extremely immature one (wait, though, IS there any other kind?). Even without your very "adult-like" name-calling (by the way, how ARE you liking the third grade?), to refer to OUR President as "Obummer", the nasty, condescending tone of your post leaves little doubt that you are a first-class RWNJ. But the TRULY SICKENING reality evidenced by your comment is the ease with which you hypocritically judge your fellow man while, in the same breath, you shout from the mountaintops that you are a follower of Christ who lives at the foot of the cross! What people like you seem to be unable to comprehend is that your actions REALLY DO speak louder than your words. That simple truth is the reason republicans lost big in the most recent election. It is also the reason many people don't want to attend church or, if it means behaving like YOU, become followers of Christ. Even though I am certain I will be wasting my time (especially, if you think your nasty speech and ugly behavior is WWJD? or that He finds pleasure in them), I would like to share some TRUTH with you.

"As you can see Obummer believes in free speech as long as you believe in his type of free speech - liberal hatred."

Okay. I have already pointed out the grade school mentality of name-calling, but I have to ask -- what satisfaction do you get from calling another human (who was created by YOUR God) a name? Is it rooted in some deep hatred you have for one of God's children? Do you disrespectfully refer to your brother in Christ as "Obummer" because it makes YOU feel intelligent?...witty?...OR WHAT? You're probably already planning your response (the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing maybe?), so let me go ahead and address that. Would it be okay with Jesus for you to call President Obama (who, LIKE YOU, is a professing Christian) a disrespectful and/or derogatory name EVEN if he actually WAS a Muslim? Would it be okay with Jesus under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE? What Would Jesus Do?

Secondly, could you please explain to me what "liberal hatred" is and could you give me a specific example of President Obama exercising his free speech of "liberal hatred"? The ONLY hatred that I am aware of in politics today comes from YOUR party, kind sir. Which party is it that expresses an unhealthy HATRED of OUR President, everything he says & does (and sadly enough, things he DOESN'T say or do), everything he believes and stands for? Which party is it that calls OUR President a Muslim (as if that is such a terrible, awful thing), calls him a terrorist, and is EVEN so low-lifed as to question his CITIZENSHIP? Which party is it that has such disdain for women and their right to make decisions about their own bodies/health? Which party is it that despises minorities, immigrants, the poor and is infuriated by ANYTHING our government does to help improve the lives of these people? Which party is it that views their fellow citizens in the LGBT community as worthless "abominations" worthy ONLY of the fiery pits of hell? And which party is it that professes Christ as their Savior but arrogantly judges anyone who is not "one of them" and peddles in hate, conspiracy theories, and fear-mongering? That party is NOT the party of our reasonable, fair-minded, and level-headed President, Barack Obama. That party, my friend, is YOUR party -- the republican party. Think I am wrong??? Go back and re-read your OWN post, "Brother" Skip.

You see "Brother" Skippy, although I am not a practicing Christian, I do understand the definition of the word Christian, so let me share it with you. A TRUE Christian is a follower of Christ who strives to be LIKE Him. A TRUE Christian THINKS as Christ would think. A TRUE Christian SPEAKS as Christ would speak. A TRUE Christian behaves as Christ would behave. A TRUE Christian LOVES as Christ would love. Read your comment again, "Brother" Skip. Would Christ have posted the comment you did? Would he have EVEN thought such vile, hateful, contempt-filled words? Again, I ask you friend, WWJD?

Knowing YOUR TYPE, I am sure you will read my post and immediately search your cold, hardened, black, and wicked heart to see how many hateful things you can say in response to my post that you think will make you feel smarter, wittier or, in some other manner, better than me. Nevertheless, let me leave you with a couple final thoughts. First, when will you (and die-hard partisans from both sides of the aisle) stop trying to out-insult or out-maneuver their neighbor just because they have a different letter after their name? The whole idea of this Republic, these UNITED States of America, is the right of EACH of us to think, believe, speak, live, and worship as we so choose. Just because you and I disagree on probably most issues does NOT mean that either of us is right or wrong. Neither of us is better than the other because of our beliefs. Nor, for that matter, do our differences make EITHER of us any LESS American.

The problem with our country today is that, unlike our forefathers, we have shifted the focus of our political discourse to our differences, rather than the goals, beliefs, and values we SHARE. Remember, we are NOT the Individual States of America. We are the UNITED States of America. And if our nation is to retain its greatness, we MUST put aside petty differences, focus on what unites us, and work together to ensure that this great experiment in democracy thrives on.

Finally, Skip, I will pray for you, for myself, for our neighbors, and for our leaders. May God CONTINUE to bless the UNITED States of America.

" ... Try reading before thinking/speaking. ... "

See here's the thing. You got it all wrong. You think that they want to know. To be educated. To think for themselves. They don't. They want, no, need someone else to do it for them. It's to confusing otherwise.

" ... It really is liberating! ... "

And then you really miss on this one. "Liberating" is way to close to "liberal". And they want nothing to do with that damned Socialist, Marxist, Communist, God hating LIBERAL crap. Liberalism melts your brain don't ya know.

Oops. Sorry. They don't have a brain to melt. Never mind.

I love watching right wingers freak out when they find that they can't be bigots AND sit at the adult table too. Looks like they will never learn and will just continue to make themselves insignificant to American society.

The NEW standard axiom for the progressive liberals: "Let Him live in freedom, if he lives like Me."

Vince-545056.... I am not a religious person but do know right from wrong. I and many many people do not agree with the acceptance of the gay lifestyle as proper or the new norm in our times. It remanis an un natural act. There is NOTHING in nature to suggest that man should welcome homosexualtiy..NOTHING. There is no gay gene either. It is a choise made by the individual to persue personal lust over natureal instinct.I know i know I will be ridiculed for these comments. However I don't believe there is a person out there who has become gay that didn't hide it, and feel ashamed regardless of the family opinion. You could have been raised in the freest thinking family in the world but still feel the guilt ( the natural instinct) that gay activity is wrong. The natural drive is to be straight . that's what our instincts tell us.

The President could have released this minister in any other way but chose to announce it was because of a speach in the 1990's against gays.WHY? Because he hates religion. Religion has to many inplyed guidlines and Obama doesn't like to follow the constitution let alone the rules of religion..lol Is obama the false proffet that Nostradomis talked about form the east ?

You assume too much Avenger.

Harley: I know that song. One hand on the Bible, one hand on the gun.

Avenger,

You must not have read the article. I believe it said the Pastor stepped aside. The President did not ask him to do so.

Anyway, I think the President should be able to choose whomever he wishes to give the benediction at his Inauguration.

I don't think everything has to be the gay agenda, especially in this case.

It should be the individual's choice, in this case, the President's choice, not any particular group. President Obama is a Christian and if he chooses a Christian pastor with particular views, that should be his decision, not anyone else's.

You're free to say what you want - and I'm free not to endorse it.

No one said you can't say what you want, but there are consequences for what you say.

Unless your name is Bill Clinton

People can say whatever they want to say.. but FREEDOM of speech is not FREE.

only a child doesn't understand that just because YOU think Santa is real, doesn't mean everyone else has to believe Santa is real. you can blabber all day long about how real Santa is. but don't get your feelings hurt when lots and lots of people disagree about Santa's reality (or lack thereof). people disagreeing with your reality is not the same thing as telling you not to speak

Freedom isn't free. You are not free to say bad things about Gays and be asked to speak at a Democratic anything. They might just as well ask Rush to speak, Or Beck or Shawn H.

Same with the 2nd amendment, It does not say your can have any kind of fire power your want. The Government can regulate that. Now the Supreme Court has said that. We have the right to bear Arms, But under the Regulations.

Same with the 2nd amendment, It does not say your can have any kind of fire power your want. The Government can regulate that. Now the Supreme Court has said that. We have the right to bear Arms, But under the Regulations.

It's true the supreme courts decides however a plain reading of the 2nd amendment says you can have any kind of fire power you want. The problem is it wasn't an issue when it was written given that people could only carry muskets and rifles. It is now an issue and since we don't have the national will to change it the supreme court has stepped in to regulate it.

Chuck I agree except for the 2nd. We should have the same right to bear arms they used to have. They used to have the same weapons as the military.

Yes, the Pastor has a right to say what he wants but we don't have to offer him the inauguration to do it.

spd32177

why can't people say what they want anymore? It's a free country you know...

Tell that to mods here on the Vine. You are limited and censored on what you can and cannot say.

Obama was right in removing this bitter and ugly hearted man from the event in question. It's suppose to be a day of celebration, not gay bashing.

The issue here is that when liberals don't like what you say, they shut you out of the conversation. They have no ability to have a civilized disagreement with anyone. There are plenty of people who think like this pastor, so why not represent them? Because liberals won't allow it.

Well said in the middle, the left has NO tolerance for disagreement, the vine is prime example of that.

Hi spd,

why can't people say what they want anymore? It's a free country you know...

People can say what ever they want. And other people can refuse to listen when ever they want.
Your rights go only as far as they do until they step on someone else's rights. Does anyone and everyone
have the right to speak at the inaugural? It would be pretty long! And it would be pretty hard to figure out what the president stood for because there would be so many contradictions.

Think about the band at your wedding. Who gets to choose the music? You or the people that hate you from across the street?

Obama said in his first run for office that he believed that marriage was only meant to be between a man and a women. Fast forward four years and he does a complete turn around....how quickly we forget. Where was the uproar when Obama said his first beliefs on gay marriage? Oh I know....It's OBAMA, he can get away with anything!

Exactly. This President, and the "segment" of people he represents, are tolerant and inclusive of everyone... except those who do not share their world view. The new religion they are evangelizing the nation with has a doctrine of tolerance, but they are hypocrites in the following of their own gospel because they have a definite agenda in ostracizing those with a Judeo-Christian Biblical world view or anyone who might get in their way. Their goal is to sanitize the country of Biblically-based societal norms and replace them with moral ambiguity and an "I'm o.k, you're o.k." potpourri of creative religious thoughts which are illegal to disagree with in the public forum from a Biblical perspective. While there is a definite need for compassion and tolerance toward all people, that compassion does not have to accept their lifestyles. It is wrong for government to force conformity to ideas that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian values of scripture. Our nation will not enjoy freedom as we have had if this control of public thought continues to constrict us. Let freedom ring!

This President, and the "segment" of people he represents

"This President," as you put it, represents a majority of U.S. voters.

are tolerant and inclusive of everyone... except those who do not share their world view.

The notion that we should be tolerant of intolerance has been completely, and rightly, dismantled. Would we be having the same conversation if this pastor had made remarks 10 years ago supporting segregation, or slavery? Those things were advocated in the public square in this country, you know.

they have a definite agenda in ostracizing those with a Judeo-Christian Biblical world view or anyone who might get in their way.

An example of this from the reality-based world would be nice. You might as well say "This President and his followers are aliens from Alpha Centauri." You can certainly say such a thing, but consider how it makes you look.

Their goal is to sanitize the country of Biblically-based societal norms and replace them with moral ambiguity and an "I'm o.k, you're o.k." potpourri of creative religious thoughts which are illegal to disagree with in the public forum from a Biblical perspective.

You're confusing the right of free speech with the separation of church and state. Keep your bible at home or in church. Don't go waving it at me, and don't go enacting laws based solely on your interpretation of what someone told you an invisible man once said. We're not talking about beliefs or agreement here, really, we're talking about whether we can use laws to discriminate against our brothers and sisters because of who and how they love.

While there is a definite need for compassion and tolerance toward all people, that compassion does not have to accept their lifestyles.

You don't have to "accept" anything, if by that you mean, "what you believe is right in your heart." But if white people can drink at that fountain, then black people can too. And if hetero couples can visit each other in the hospital, then same-sex couples can, too. Hey, I'm sorry, but you have to "accept" that you can't own your butler. Get over it.

It is wrong for government to force conformity to ideas that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian values of scripture.

OK, so I can kill you if you plant two crops in one field? Come on, your precious "scripture" was once used to defend slavery. Are you saying it was wrong to outlaw slavery?

Our nation will not enjoy freedom as we have had if this control of public thought continues to constrict us.

It seems to me that you're the one trying to control public thought. All I'm trying to control is who we can disadvantage deliberately with laws.

Let freedom ring!

I used to use campy cliche's like they were going out of style, but now I wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole.

shinelight

Religion refers to a belief in a supernatural being(s) or events. A 'world view' by itself isn't a religion, unless it infers divinity. Modern philosophy is actually what you are attempting to describe, not "religious thoughts."

I disagree with the notion that you can be tolerant of all people even if you don't accept the way they live. I don't accept the way that most socially conservative Christians live. I don't tolerate them well. I don't expect them to tolerate me, being that I'm an atheist. It's a mutual feeling.

Can I communicate with people like you? Of course, just as I am now. Do I understand people like you? Perhaps more than you know. Do I accept you? No. Tolerate? Again, no. I don't tolerate unnecessarily socially restrictive and psychologically damaging religious doctrine.

If you want your Judeo-Christian values reflected in our government and its laws, fine. Vote your conscience and I will vote mine. Just know that history will begin to work against you and your kind, and I hope to be around to witness it.

" ... They used to have the same weapons as the military. ... "

Wrong. Because there was NO military. This country had no standing army. Those that were part of the "military" during the War for Independence were Joe Sixpack. And when the war was over, they went back to being said person. And you were granted the right to keep and bear arms because it was the duty of EVERY American to defend the country.

Now people just want their guns. Screw the obligation to defend the country. People want someone else to fight and die protecting their rights. But ask them to defend those rights? Not a chance. Freedom isn't free boys and girls. Freedom has a price. Including the right to own a gun.

Huh. Imagine that.

I find this entire fiasco a little silly. I don't think ANY ordained ministers are going to have a track record of being for inclusion. Why? Because they teach that homosexuality is a sin. It's part of their religion. I'm all for inclusion... but you're trying to find a needle in a haystack. If anything, maybe they should just get rid of the benediction, since most wanting to give it are going to be exactly what they don't want: Gay bashing, hate wielding zealots swinging their book around like it were the end-all be-all word.

Even then, I'm all for religion. I've seen Religion bring a lot of folks together, I've seen communities created because of it of hard working, decent folk. I just wish there was less hate in it, more love and hope, which I believe is the word that Jesus, and several of the other saviors of various religions, tried so desperately to spread.

Don't you just love how some people think freedom of speech automatically includes freedom from consequences?

Most Western civilized religions are full of bigotry. All they have is doom and gloom, and fear and intimidation.

This pastor is a bigot.

Thomas

No. If you're going to spout your nonsense about civilizations falling because of homosexuality, you will cite it. Don't be lazy. It lends no credibility to your rambling to say "google it". I'm going to assume that the reason you don't cite those sources is because the sources are questionable at best and religiously inspired at worst. Let's see them.

And I'm going to argue that kids don't need to learn creationist, Jesus-crazed BS in private schools.

Hate? You are trying to manipulate the discussion. People hate themselves, so that's why they are gay? Don't make excuses for your own narrow and self-centered views. Own up to them.

Pro freedom: I would bet your anything but. You guys piss and moan because Obama has used a page from the Rep's play book. Fact of the matter Obama has learned that the only way to deal with Rep,tea baggers is to hit them hard and fast and don't leave them standing. Bill Clinton showed that. Because that is all they understand.

This Pastor is F'ed up in the head. They should have investigated him earlier, just another snake throwing Baptist who needs to do him own inventory........

IXLR8

This Pastor is F'ed up in the head. They should have investigated him earlier, just another snake throwing Baptist who needs to do him own inventory........

<voted up one> LXLR8.

This pastor is F"ed up in the head..

Oh, and guys who stick their member in another guy's butthole aren't?

I don't know Spider, how does it really feel? This story brings out the trailer trash who splice the internet off neighbors, LOL!!

"spider-737231

This pastor is F"ed up in the head..

Oh, and guys who stick their member in another guy's butthole aren't?"

Nope, that would be the other end. ;-)

Soauman--- I take it you, unlike any number of heterosexuals, have never had anal sex with a woman. You sure do need to get out more. Or at least log on to a few porn sites for some education. LOL

It is difficult to believe that someone who says, "stick their member in another guy's butthole" represents family values. If my children had used that kind of expression in my home they would have their mouths washed out with soap. I find your language morally objectionable. I do not judge others for their gender preferences. My gay friends do not force me to participate, nor do they use this kind of disrespectful expression in my presence. They have more class.

What you do or don't do in your bedroom with your chosen partner is private and not my business to discuss. What I do or don't do in my bedroom is also private and should not be your business to discuss. I find it distasteful to intrude into the private affairs of other people.

This particular pastor has expressed views which contradict those which the Democratic Party espouses, which is the inclusion of all people, all colors, cultures, religions and sexual preferences. Would you expect the inaugeration prayer to be given by someone who espoused Jim Crow laws or slavery? Condemning and excluding people from society and from marriage is no different from Jim Crow laws. You are essentially saying that certain people in society are different and inferior and are not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. This perspective has been rejected by caring, thinking people.

The pastor can believe and preach whatever he wants. He is just not free to represent this adminstration with those beliefs. No one is inhibiting his right to free speech. For example, if you hate black people and consider them inferior to white people, you have the right to say so. But I have the right not to listen to you, not to give you a platform from which to advance those views and not to invite you into my home.

One of the consequences of speaking your mind is that some people will disagree with you and no longer wish to be in your presence or listen to what you have to say. I avoid racists and gay bashers and haters because life is way too short to listen to someone spouting hate and the repression of another person's rights.

Unless those 'rights' used to belong to a conservative.

And which rights have conservatives been denied lately? You can still own weapons, you can still practice the religion of your choice, you can still vote for the candidate of your choice, you're still entitled to trial by jury. In fact, you enjoy every right protected by the Constitution, just like most of the rest of us, except for those people that conservatives want to exclude.

He withdrew. that tells you what his feeling are now.

No it doesn't tell you how he feels Bart. I would like to find out if maybe there was a little pressure to pull out. There is no statement by him saying he does or does not still feel that way. Talk about intolerant.

I agree with Cappy. How he feels NOW is the most important thing. I don't like marking people for life for things they said in the past, as long as they atone for their past mistakes. Let's not take tactics from the rightwingnuts, we have to be better than that.

Well, Chuck Hagel changed his views. And he has done so publicly. This Pastor hasn't.
He withdrew. SOmehow, I get the feeling that he hasn't evolved, or he would have said so.

The article says that he caught the presidents eye (ear) because of his work against human trafficking.
Good for him on that count, but a bigot in the the Presidential Inaugural? Four years ago they had a bigot
preacher. I think that Obama realized that there is not much difference between people who preach hate against
LGBT people and people who preach hate based on race. You are free to feel this way, and to speak this way,
but we do not have to listen to you, or invite you to speak at our functions.

dogs80, it doesn't need a spin or explanation. The reverend resigned by himself. So what's your point? Is your mind a little muddled??

You keep believing he "resigned" by himself. I have the muddled mind, sheep!

No liberal here.. but.. read this please: http://badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/

then spin it back on the 'I can get caught, deny it, then apologize for it" and everything is okay. Hypocrisy at its finest on the right.

Verno....so you think he woke up the other day, remembered what he said a decade ago, and turned in his go-directly-to-the-inauguation-free card out of some sense of remorse and penitence? Really?

IAT, the LEFT invented hypocrisy....... Obama's chief adviser, Jarrett, has her picture in the dictionary under the word.

ItsAboutTime-3704531, the hypocrites from the right will never answer you they will do like Idaho did and ignore it while trying to deflect like crazy. They can't deal with the truth about their own side so they ignore and deflect, deflect, deflect!

Dog the difference is Hagel said he was wrong. Did this Rev ever do that? NOT

Yeh, sure....he Voluntarily withdrew......yeh......ROFLMFAO.

While the withdraw of this Pastor I find is regrettable, because I believe diversity of Americans is the right to be represented, not just what Obama decides should be so, there is something else that troubles me no one else has addressed.

This Pastor has been singled out for controversy because of a comment he made in one sermon a decade ago. Think about that. Really, think about that. Who recorded that sermon and who dug it up? Then think about what you have done in your life that had been recorded somewhere that could be checked out for later scrutiny by our government or some other agency. Because I can guarantee you, there are records being kept you have no idea about, electronically.

How do I know this? Easy, some of the government and civilian organizations working together I have volunteered for like NPS before it was switched it's name to SNS and was taken over to be run by the States, which required those engaging in it to have extensive background checks done specifically by our government , and I was informed what they would be checking. Designed to respond in the event of a biological,chemical or nuclear attack, created after 9/11. It took nearly a year to complete. Nothing like having big brother investigate ones life. Plus working for the government and a family member in a very high government position.

No doubt you have kept up with the latest information on what our government has been gathering for years, and is now centralizing in the largest data base of information storage of all electronic gathering from around the world. Emails, texting, cell phones, you name it. Once it completes its masterpiece in Utah, a multimillion foot high security site to process everything anyone says or sends except what is sent in the mail, it will be able to do complete analysing by computers, to screen for hundreds of words, which could mean you are a suspected terrorist. Like airplane, drill, exercise, emergency, disease, military,airport, or President. Better be careful what you text or email or talk about folks!

You can have all the free speech you want, but those emails, cell phone calls, Internet IPS records, they are all being kept. Plus cybersecurity changes which allow phone/Internet companies to give records to police/government without informing you they have done so, and specifically deny they have done so to you. With over 1.5 billion checks being done looking for criminals. Since 9/11 you better realize, our government is keeping track under the Patriot Act, which our dearly beloved President extended for another four years days before it expired. Allowing anyone to be to tracked, files kept on any American citizen, all without any probably cause or warrants needed or any relationships or indications you have ties to terrorists. Broad sweeping checks of data mining looking for anything just to see what the government can find.

So while some of you may think this is perfectly fine, that this Pastor will be replaced because of ONE-got that just ONE anti-gay comment he made ten years ago.And he is a PASTOR for goodness sake. I guess they aren't allowed to think differently huh? Imagine the President of the United States telling a Christian religious leader how to think.Reminds me of a DICTATOR, don't you think folks?

I don't know about you, but I find that frightening just a little.Especially when he says,"ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans." Notice its the administration's vision, not what we the Americans believe it should be?

Just think about the power of our government, to go back and check records on our American citizens in the past, to look for anything which might incriminate them. Then remember 9/11, those cell phone calls of the terrorists, they were able to reconstruct, AFTERWARD.Personally, this really does frighten me ab it, no joking.

I guarantee you,there is a lot more going on then you have any clue about. Only now and then do the American people get glimpse of some of that, from events on the fringes. Like this Pastor being withdrawn. And by the way. He was pressured to do that.If any of you really believe he did that on his own, I have an alien space ship with aliens I want to show you

The pastor didn't apologize. Thus, he must have the same feelings. duh.

Windancersong,

You are raising the question of the day when you ask how far our government should be allowed to go in the name of "security". Honestly after reading your post you can see why many think we have traded the illusion of security for less freedom and restrictions of the Constitution.

I agree with you but then I am forced yo ask myself, How did Barack Obama get nominated and then elected with all his communist affiliations and upbringing? I don't trust the Democrats. Of course I don't trust the Republicans either but I trust the Demos even less.

#5.10 No need to apologize for stating what one believes. Where's the diversity obama, who works for US, promised?

Hagel is not a liberal, he is a conservative. and yes, an apology would probably go a long way.
The fact that Hagel said Ooops. sorry, sincere or not, is a lot easier to stomach than this guy who
"seems" to feel that he's been deputized to tell us who gets into heaven and who doesn't.

Oops, Double post, sorry

Apparently Obama only wants to include and respect those Americans that believe the way that "mainstream" liberals want us to believe. On the one hand he espouses tolerance for those expressing their beliefs but on the other he vilifies them. For example, in response to a recent petition on his own We the People web site his administration posted the following: "Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment -- or any other matter of public concern." This pastor was good enough to be chosen initially to participate in the ceremonies, but because he exercised his freedom to express his beliefs he now is being excluded. This is NOT inclusive at all. Obama is ignoring a large section of the population that believes homosexuality is wrong.

Windancersong, probably many will ignore your comment and believe you to be a silly conspiracy theorist; but I have actually thought about the very things you commented about. Also, who among us has not said SOMETHING that might not be considered controversial by SOMEONE? And you guys do realize that it would be nothing for the government to know who we are on this blog or any blog like it with all of our comments. We take it for granted that no one would care what we say, but what if someone began to care or if someone began to consider certain types of statements "not inclusive enough" or "not reflecting the beliefs we want for our nation"? It seems that many of you would be fine with that as long as people were inclusive enough by your definition and not bigoted (after all, who wants bigotry?), but what if the tables were turned on you and the government decided YOUR statements or YOUR belief system constituted bigotry and intolerance? After all, if morality is not absolute, then the majority can definite it however they wish-and they may in the future decide to define it in such a way that YOUR beliefs are suddenly declared immoral.

You think that can't happen, perhaps. Well, it's happened already to Christians-some of our beliefs which used to be the gold standard for morality in this country and even by the government (not that we are a "Christian nation" per se or that the government wanted to establish Christianity as a religion, just that the government in the past considered Christian morals or JudeoChristian morals the best guide for behavior-and I can provide numerous sources for that), are now being declared immoral and intolerant! I'm not talking about slavery or anything like that-Christianity was never "pro-slavery." It seems obvious from the comments that a number of you believe it is best that the country turn from JudeoChristian morals and religion altogether-though I may be mistaken, and you may only mean to abandon the religion part. It's just that it is very hard to keep one and completely ignore the other. You don't have to believe in God, accept Christianity, or establish Christianity as a national religion to acknowledge that certain morals came from Judaism and Christianity. (And the Bible is different from the Code of Hammurabi, for those who must insist that Jewish people copied their laws-the Jewish religion is also quite different. If you REALLY do your research on other ancient religions and compare them to Judaism, you will see that if they copied other religions they did not do a very good job. Other creation stories are completely different as are the fact that Judaism begins with one God and never has any other Gods-even the moon and sun are always stated to be created objects in Judaism rather than gods.) I am aware that some of you may believe that morals come from evolution, but I will choose not to get into that discussion now.

I personally believe many of you may be mistaking the use of certain parts of the Bible as moral guides for behavior (note that I said CERTAIN PARTS-no offense, but it seems that some atheists like to pick out obscure Jewish laws and focus on them. Christians don't observe those parts of the Bible for very logical reasons spelled out in the Bible itself-and I'm sorry so many of you guys can't seem to understand our many explanations of this), many of you may be mistaking that with establishing Chrisitanity as a religion; however, perhaps you are doing this as a reaction because, unfortunately, some Christians seem to be making similar mistakes and trying to force Christianity on the country through laws and government. I have tried to tell them over and over again that, not only is that unconstitutional, it will never work. (And I don't think you really need to fear that happening because I don't think there are enough people behind it.) Anyway, I guess time will tell if you are right in concluding that we should abandon JudeoChristian values.

However, let me say as a Christian that, morals aside, I would never wish for any person to be excluded or denied their rights as a citizen of this country. Also that Jesus would have the church welcome all who would come willingly-and all are welcome to come as they are (though it is impossible to truly encounter Jesus without being changed.) Jesus did not hold back in telling truth, but he always loved first; and I believe he would grieve as I do over the way the church has treated many groups of people and hurt them with its cruel judging attitude.

Yeh, sure....he Voluntarily withdrew......yeh......ROFLMFAO.

Just because you choose not to believe it doesn't make it a lie.

spd32177, so if he said he hated black people the President should say cool come on in ?

I do think if he sincerely apologized then it would be ok, people do change. But he said nothing.

People can always "say what's on their mind" if they have one.

Followed by consequences.

But he did not say he hated black people. He did not say he hated anyone, he just does not condone the gay lifestyle based on his belief system. What is so wrong with that?

Almon, that's like saying "he doesn't hate black people, he just wants them all to get skin depigmentation surgery".

He didn't say he hated anyone. He pointed out that homosexuality is a sin which it is. The democratic party has been take over by gays. If you don't agree with gay marriage you're labeled homophobic. If the president is asked to address a black issue, he says he is the president of all people but he sure bows to the gay community

Almon,

Let's re-write it then. If he said he did not CONDONE black people he would have been equally wrong. Simply put his views were not in alignment with the stated direction of the people in charge so he was not a good choice to represent them during this ceremony.

2cworth,

It's only a sin to the narrow minded religious bigots. The Episcopalians and some other Protestant churchs don't seem to think it's a sin.

I say skip the inaugural prayer...God hears the prayers of a righteous man, This administration is searching for a pastor who doesn't preach the word of God but preaches what everyone wants to hear, prayer useless.

@cgtrav Then those "churches" don't believe in the Bible. Therefore they are hypocrites.

Isn't this America? Why can't people say what’s on their mind anymore or have their own opinion without upsetting the entire world. It’s sad.

"Hang dem @!$%#s and jew boys" - I guess you didn't find that upsetting. In any case you can say what you want. You can even say what I just did. You can yell it out on a street corner. However don't think any private or public organization is required to give you a forum.

HeWillRuleAsGod.

I guess you're all knowing then since you KNOW your right and they are wrong.

I thought only God was infallible. I tell you what your interpetation of the bible is worth about as much as anyone elses (probably less).

Leave it to the ignorance of liberalism.....Not only has the Reverend been labeled a Homophobic "hater", they have also managed to turn the discussion into Racism.....i.e., he also hates Blacks. Yeh, and he hates the sight of all those monkeys flying out of Liberal azzes .......not to mention the stench of their oral diarrhea. What a HUGE group of FOOLS!.

He can say what's on his mind, but we don't have to give him the platform of the inauguration to do it in.

And the problem is....???? If that person is qualified to run the country, it doesn't matter to me their sex, color, or sexual preference.

The president doesn't run the country ...ur naive !

Mo-Pho--your options seem fine by me. Why not?

Then shouldn't you be blaming the people who do run the country for the mess we're in instead of blaming President Obama?

A gay, black, female president.......can you imagine how much money that one would spend?!?!?!

And why would that person spend any more money than any other President? Once again you are forgetting the the House of Representatives builds the budget and submits it to the Senate. If they approve it, they submit it to the President. At that time, he either signs it or he refuses to sign it. But the President doesn't spend the money, Congress does.

Why not ?

The B.S. is only half empty.

Suppose Obama had asked Rev Wright to speak. Would that have been okay?

What about all those complaining about the right to free speech?

Wright...who is that Obama would say?!!!

You do realize that Herman Cain is black, right...I think by now, these stereo-types of Republicans hating blacks needs to be laid to rest. Its sad when people like Bill-1260019 choose to focus on non-existing issues when our country is need of some real reform. Bill- you may want to consult a therapist.

Too funny Andrew. Herman Cain breaks the entire stereotype of the white-wing republican party???? Really, too funny.

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck. Republican racism is out there for all to see. Take a tour of a right wing web site sometime. But you guys DO like to deny facts, even when presented with the up front and in your face.

Bill, that is just so much liberal BS. Not all Republicans are racists just as not all Democrats aren't.

Whenever liberals can't come up with an intelligent argument, they throw the race card.

Obama brought back racism - full steam. A person cannot dissagree without the race card thrown.

The guy is going to bury this country - I do not care if he is black- pink- or pokadotted.

His ego and policies are destroying the fabric of the US. And now people can not express their views, unless it meats the views of the liberals. The respect for one another is gone. In four years when I am still working and paying for millions who are illegally on the dole - do I have an incorrect attitude? Racist?

DP you afraid to use your name? Truth is you guys were called out for racism, as hard as you tired you couldn't mask it. You just can't stand the thought of our nation electing our first 1/2 black 1/2 white President. Are you a member of the one drop club? Well from on white man to another. I for one am glad we elected President Obama. The fact that you say your not a raciest is all we needed to hear. Man if anyone said on thing about Little Bush the Rep's went to war over it. I saw some guy on Hardball on night, He had just gave Cheney the keeper of the flame award. Ron Reagan Jr was on and they got into one hell of a fight. Ron really put him in his place. Ron told him to stop Invoking his dad's name to make his living. This guy said Ron's dad would be so ashamed of Ron Jr. What kind of an ass would say that. Point is you Rep's have no room to talk.

Does anyone think Herman Cain would have come anywhere near the Presidency? The GOP flirted with him a bit because it made them seem less bigoted...but only for a minute.

Expect to see more of Allen West in the next few years. Black and Republican.

Both sides are arrogant, the left has no tolerance for disagreement, that makes you a bigot if you do. If you are on the right then you must be racist cause O is black...makes good sense....

yeh, right, a-hole.

You forgot Marxist. LOL

Yeah David, sorta like vetting Sarah Palin for VP right? That went real well for you righties.

Can I get an "Amen"?

Why would a "lib" need an amen...don't forget separation of church and state...duh!

It's true leadership to realize when you're wrong and change your plans.

It's better leadership to get it right the first time.

Why would a "lib" need an amen...don't forget separation of church and state...duh!

Libs practice religion. They just don't believe the government should endorse or enforce any particular one.

Then don't invite him in the first place. The comment was made 10 years ago. This is not some new statement.

Thank you! All the free speech comments on here seem to overlook the fact that it doesn't mean you don't face consequences for your exercising of free speech - you just don't face IMPRISONMENT OR PROSECUTION.

The pastor exercised his free speech. When the remarks surfaced, the President then exercised his own "free speech" by choosing not to include this man or the message he represents in the inauguration. Not a complicated concept.

Rev Wright made his remarks 10 years ago. Would it have been all right to invite him? Didn't think so.

And Rev. Wright wasn't invited, so what's your point, other than nothing?

I wasn't aware God had a representative.

I am God's representative. If we are christians we should be representing Christ. Some represent and endorse their own sinful ways and then claim it's in the name of God.

I'm a Christian and I represent God everyday ...makes you uncomfortable doesn't it !

It seems like those "few" references to homosexuality in the New Testament also addressed Idolatry, Fornication, Adultery and Lying. The "Right" sure did not seem to have much of a problem with Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain's sinful behavior. You see, if you are a "lib" it's already a given that you are not a Christian and you are incapable of asking for forgiveness like these two shining examples of virtue!

Bobauss, then please explain Matthew 5:32 where Jesus tells us that a man or woman who marries a divorced person commits adultery. Thank you.

True Christians Love their neighbors and don't judge. Any other conflicting behavior is NOT Christian

Jesus also endorsed slavery by saying a slave should obey his master.

Bart Conner; Where does Jesus endorse slavery?

The scriptures set a set of examples for us but He knew we could not ahere to them b4 they were written that is why his Son was sacrificed..

" ... I'm a Christian and I represent God everyday ...makes you uncomfortable doesn't it ! ... "

No not at all. In fact I respect/defend your right to.

But if you try to bring it into my house, do/will you, respect/defend my right to show your arse the door and tell you to leave?

Now, just so you know. You then would be welcome back into my house. As long as you don't bring your religion with you. Are you comfortable with that?

I think not.

Huh. Imagine that.

Would a Christian cite a passage where Jesus clearly states that homosexuality is a sin? You cannot, because Jesus never made a statement on that. On the other hand, he did condemn divorce, but I've yet to hear Evangelicals calling for the condemnation of divorcees.

I am God's representative. If we are christians we should be representing Christ.

You mean you should practice love, forgiveness, charity, mercy and compassion? That would be refreshing.

Bobauss, doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I think you, and so many others just wanting to bitch and moan, didn't understand what I wrote, or understand the meaning of words. Yes, you can emulate the teachings of your religion. What I was asking was that I wasn't aware God had a representative. Meaning....God having "A person chosen or appointed to act or speak for another or others, in particular." God doesn't have a representative. He is. What you make of Him, take from His teachings are your own interpretation of how you should live and behave.

The inaugural event and its preparation are paid for by private donations.

I stand corrected on that point -- thank you -- but the fact remains, this situation was born of incompetence.

"Free speech" means that you cannot be prosecuted or imprisoned or legally punished for exercising your rights. That does not mean you are free from consequences. Other people have the right to exercise their own free speech in response to yours. Do you get that?

This man was not charged with any crimes or fired from a job or in any way deprived of his liberty. He was disinvited from an event because he said something that is not in keeping with the views of the administration he would have been representing in his role. He is free to keep expressing his beliefs, and other people are free to disagree or agree with him.

What about this concept is so difficult for you?

Jrz, it's not difficult at all to understand the concept. It won't bother the Pastor financially because he obviously has created immense wealth for himself with his Church and he can survive the economic bump he is sure to feel. If you or I stood up at our jobs and said you don't like this group or that group we will be fired immediately, why? Because of the law, what about a politician saying what really was on his mind about a group of people, his career would be over. Yes there is free speech in this county but with DIRE CONSEQUENCES, do you get that?

It has consequences. Not "DIRE" consequences. If a politician expresses views that others disagree with, voters are of course free to express their views and not vote for him. If you work for a company, you are generally free to say what you please on your own time and free to choose to work for another company or start your own if you do not agree with their policies. I fail to see where the problem is with how free speech operates. The voter has an interest in electing someone who agrees with their views. The company has an interest in maintaining an effective and harmonious workplace. There are a few select jobs where your views outside of work can get you fired - mainly because such views would undermine your effectiveness in the workplace. An avowed white supremacist working as a police officer would be a constant liability, for example. We have free speech to the greatest extent that you can have it. Consequences are a part of being an adult.

He wasn't uninvited as the article implies from the headlines. He was disinclined to acquiesce to the request and since the President didn't want to look like he was rejected, they spun differently in the media.

Hes right there is no free speech. As long as there are ANY consequences, there isnt. That inludes being collapsed, banned, fired, sued, you name it. Jail isnt the only punishment.

Free speech is dead, and this site is an example of it.

I'm guessing all the free speech advocates on here would have also supported an invitation for Rev Wright to speak, right? Didn't think so.

What sort of self-entitled childish bs are you spouting MoreJustice? You get to say what you want and no one else gets to react to it because it would impede on YOUR rights? Good lord. How pathetic.

People and organizations have the right to exercise THEIR freedom of speech and react to your use of freedom of speech. That is what a truly free society is about. If your deeply held views are unpopular and you want to express them, then man up and do so. It's called having a spine and standing up for what you believe in. You will not be imprisoned, killed or disenfranchised. You will not lose any of your civil rights. That is all that is owed to you in this country.

What sort of self-entitled childish bs are you spouting MoreJustice? You get to say what you want and no one else gets to react to it because it would impede on YOUR rights? Good lord. How pathetic.

People and organizations have the right to exercise THEIR freedom of speech and react to your use of freedom of speech. That is what a truly free society is about. If your deeply held views are unpopular and you want to express them, then man up and do so. It's called having a spine and standing up for what you believe in. You will not be imprisoned, killed or disenfranchised. You will not lose any of your civil rights. That is all that is owed to you in this country.

" ... What about this concept is so difficult for you? ... "

Um. The fact that it is a concept. And a concept requires critical, independent thinking. And Religion, the Bible, does not allow for independent thinking of any kind. Critical or otherwise. Just blind obedience. Here's the rules. Follow them or go to Hell.

Huh. Imagine that.

Free speech. Has no one read what it is the Constitution says about it? Here let me refresh your memories .....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The key phrase here is ... " Congress shall make no law ". The Constitution protects your right to free speech from the Government. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It does not protect your right from me. Not from your neighbor. Not from the guy down the street. Or from some random guy in Florida. Just from the Government. If I want to stop you from saying something, you are not protected. If I want to remove your comment, you are not protected. Not by the Constitution.

You have the right to say anything you want. But not in my house. I have right to not have to hear it.

Huh. Imagine that.

What next, a Pastor who wants to bring back slavery?

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Owning a boat is a lifestyle. Living in a gated community is a lifestyle. Bar-hopping is a lifestyle. Being a homosexual is not a choice. All homosexuals are not the same. Homosexuality is an orientation, just like heterosexuality is an orientation, not a lifestyle.

Homophobe

Charger, I agree with you on most points especially that everything is acceptable today but why do you say that only Liberals are ignorant? Not all Liberals believe that everything is acceptable, do you believe that there are no Republican Homosexuals or Lesbians? Markinbecker, who cares if Charger is a homophobe or not he has a right to his opinion. The issue to me here is that there is not free speech in America.

You are incorrect, homophobe implies I have a fear of gays -- on the contrary, I have a disgust of their sin against God and humanity. Homosexuality is wrong, immoral and against the very laws of nature. Just because you believe homosexuality is "normal" does not make it the truth.....

Charger, you are on the money. A heroin addict shoots dope in his arm and loves and believes in it and agrees that to him it is normal behavior, so does a bank robber believes it's normal to rob banks. Who makes the list of what is acceptable and what is not? If I yell at a bank robber (and not get killed) does he have a right to sue me for violatiing what to him is normal behavior?

Actually Charger, there are more cases of homosexuality in nature than mating for life, so if homosexuality isn't natural, then I guess marriage is even worse. Should we quickly take the rights away from all married people as well? I suppose you only have sex to procreate right? Are your heterosexual relationships only defined by sex? Most likely not, and if they are, then you aren't living the 'godly' lifestyle. So if your relationships aren't only about sex, what in your limited mind makes you think that homosexual relationships are only about physical sex?

maybe you need to really read the bible to see where it stands on gays.

Charger--usually very repressed gays has such a hatred toward gays, I wonder about you.

Either way, homophobia (and yes, hatred stems from fear) is literally dying of old age. So bye-bye.

Yea...probably the adminisration should work harder to locate a pastor or religious leader that doesn't believe in Biblical truth. Any time someone stands for truth it is certain to offend sinners somewhere. Perhaps if we're going to side with taking the separation of church and state argument and standing it on its head (keeping all faith out of government-a purpose for which that phrase was NEVER intended) there shouldn't be anyone of any faith offering an inaugural prayer or any other religious ritual. President Obama has clearly identified that it is only ok to quote scripture in the face of national tragedy (the Newton school shooting), but that the Bible has no place in national celebration. Jesus never claimed that it was his goal in life to not rock the boat or upset anyone....

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” George Washington

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not
to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” The US Congress 1782

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.” Thomas Jefferson

Funny how people only bring out the founding father quotes that support their views. How about all the quotes that say quite vehemently that this is not a Christian nation.

Why is there a pastor speaking AT ALL?

Our Nation may not have been founded as Christian, but it was formed as a Theistic Nation - one that believed in God the Creator. To ignore that is to be historically stupid.

Apparantely Obama only supports the freedom to speak your opinions when it suits him. In a recent reply to a petition on We The People his administration replied:

"Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those
disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply
because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment -- or any other
matter of public concern."

Wasn't this pastor just expressing his views...and now he's being punished for them. He was good enough to be chosen initially but because his beliefs are not mainstream liberal beliefs he is being vilified. That's part of what is wrong with our country. If you express your beliefs about certain "public concerns," in this instance homosexuality, you may be afforded protection by the First Ammendment, but you sure are turned into a criminal by the mainstream media and by social media.

All you bumbling left leaning ,liberal morons are completely ignorant of American history and the founding of this nation. Go read some history lessons, then comment on the bogus notion of "separation". You are completely wrong and to ignorant to admit it!!

I minored in American history and I read history all the time. I am constantly surprised by each new revelation I discover about our founding fathers. One of the things that surprised me was the fact that many of the most impressive men of that time actually had a limited view of religion. They believed that the teaching of religion was a good thing because it established a moral base, but they were far more ambiguous about their own concrete beliefs.

If you read Jefferson's writings in their entirety you will find that he was not especially religious. He did not espouse any particular theology. He was very conflicted about slavery even while sleeping with his black slave.

Jefferson and Adams, in particular, were brilliant men, and brilliant men are complicated. They tend to see truth from many aspects and it is sometimes difficult for them to arrive at an absolute position. Adams loved his wife deeply, and believed her to be wiser and more astute than most of the men he knew. Yet he did not press for women to have the right to vote, a fact that he and Abigail argued about on more than one occasion. Very smart people can hold some very contradictory views and those are subject to change.

If you read ALL that Jefferson and Adams wrote, you will discover that the separation of church and state was VERY important to them. Jefferson, in particular, was often irked by organized religion. So be careful when you quote him to defend your positions, because there is probably another quote out there that contradicts the first.

And quit deifying these guys. There were brilliant, and brave, and had vision beyond what any men of their time could hope to achieve, but they were still human. They made mistakes. Jefferson was dedicated to the idea of an agrarian society. He didn't want commerce or manufacturing. He didn't want cities. And he truly believed that this country would be an agrarian society forever. Clearly, his vision failed him in that regard. So please understand that these men were brilliant, but they were still the product of their time and their culture. They disenfranchised women. They institutionalized slavery. We now recognize that both of these things were terribly wrong. But they believed in them. Should we really keep all those institutions they accepted? I think not.

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. - Thomas Jefferson

The doctrines of Jesus, not Leviticus. Kind of a big difference there.

Wasn't this pastor just expressing his views...and now he's being punished for them.

How is he being punished? He's not in prison, his life is not in danger from the government, and he's still allowed to practice his right of free speech. Look up the definition of "hyperbole," and then try to practice it less often.

You are right---the founding fathers understood the true meaning of "separation of church and state," (which, by the way, is not in our Constitution), unlike modern "forward thinkers" who have attached an entirely different interpretation to the concept. The phrase appears in a letter Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Convention assuring them that the government would not interfere in their affairs. Prayers and Bible reading were a part of many (including mine) public school classrooms until the 1960's, when Madeline O'Haire had it removed. That was nearly 200 years after the Constitution and the separation phrase were written. If the founding fathers meant for the Bible to not be a part of our country, and they understood the separation phrase to mean that, why was not all reference to God removed from government and public life then? Why was it only done in modern times, when society has become so enamoured of its immoral self that it can't stand the thought of a God looking down on its actions? And as our decadent society pushes God farther and farther away, we are seeing more heinous and prevalent actions from a Godless populace. Child porn and molestation are skyrocketing; every day new cases come to light. Random shooting of innocent victims, even children, by evil perpetrators. Banning guns will do nothing. These shootings were almost nonexistent when Americans believed they were created by and for God and He was their judge. Now they are taught they are nothing but a form of animal with no purpose and no accountability. That idea itself breeds anger, frustration, and hatred. And for those of you who see the waning of Christianity as a thing to celebrate (Bye-bye), it is exactly what the "fairy tale" Bible says would happen in the last days, a "great falling away" so that the stage can be set for the acceptance of the anti-Christ. There will also be a world-wide economic disaster (Are you keeping up with the world news on that front?), Israel will be a thorn in the side of the whole world (How about that one?), the sun will scorch men and give them grievous sores that will not heal (global warming and skin cancer, anyone?). I could go on and on, but will stop there. For those of you who want proof the Bible is real, just do an indepth study of the prophecies and their fulfillment, if you dare, and you will believe.

You mean he is not "allowed" to have any opinions, viewpoints, etc that don't reflect the liberal ideology. You people make me sick!

Acceptance of gay rights is not liberal, it is right. Hatred by bigots like Mr. Lukewarm makes most people sick.

I'm pretty sure he was forced to drop-out once the administration realized the comments were made so that he would avoid the embarrassment. That is usually how politics work, but since the poorly written article did not explain much, we dont know for sure. So please do inject nonsense where nonsense is not warranted. If we were to hold Obama to what he said over 10 years ago, we would probably throw him in jail. Try to be a little bit more proggressive Mark

Speculation.

So this would also disqualify Hagel, right Markinbecker?

It is interesting to note that homosexuals seldom (never?) use the term 'homosexual'. It is always 'gay'. Why do you think that is? Maybe (likely) it is because down deep inside, they know that the practice of homosexuality is indeed, deviant. Oh sure, there are definitly ligit reasons why one would become a homosexual BUT, the conscience is still there screaming WRONG. I thank my God (Jesus Christ) that he delivered me from that lifestyle many years ago. He can deliver all homosexuals into the freedom of normalicy if they turn to Him.

Gay means homosexual. People don't use "homosexual" because it seems so long and scientific.

I bet you use the term "human" instead of "Homo sapien"--same reason

I can see Jesus hasn't delivered you from anything. You've missed the point of Love thy neighbor and judge not--completely missed the message.

Bart @ 24.7: Loving your neighbor is only a small part of being a Christian. Look at Galations, Chapter 6 verse 1. If you don't have a Bible look it up on the net. BTW, did you feel love and compassion for the shooter at Sandy Hook and Aurora?

Look, if you see homosexuality as being a sin, then fine, but so is everything else I'm sure you all do. Do you ever lie? Are you ever jealous of someone else and/or things they have? Did you have sex before marriage? Did you always do what your parents say even when you were 3? Oh!! You did some of those things and still continue to do so???? Well then you're no better than anyone else. A sin is a sin in God's eyes. No sin is bigger than the other. Speaking from a very strict religious background, I can tell you that you're living in sin unless you are constantly thinking about God, and living FOR him in EVERY WAY. Pray before mealtimes even in restaurants, talking to everyone about God and "spreading the word", and of coarse, not sinning in any way. oh.... 10% tithing too... gotta do that! I am a Christian but am more spiritual than anything. I don't have to read word for word of the bible because the bible has be translated and re-translated many times. It's not meant to be literal even though there are many that do so. I love god and love my fellow man. I try to treat people right and try to teach my children to do the same. I'm not perfect, but no one is. I even love gays and think they'll go to Heaven too.....

He's working on that also ! He has the King complex !

Mike @ 25:

MO-PHO....the next president will be his wife anyway...unless he can find a way to appoint himself dictator for life...

He's got a good start on it! He's probably having constant daydreams of sitting on a throne throwing out proclamations and executive orders like they were feathers in a busted pillow.

For some people, "freedom of speech" means "freedom to make an idiot of themselves".

Grey - actually, this showed freedom of speech and choice exactly...the pastor is free to say whatever he wants/thinks and then the choice is made whether our President wants him representing him at his inauguration. The pastor is not being put in jail/stopped from talking/losing any rights - he's simply being let know that his words have led to someone else being chosen for the inauguration.

While I agree with you on the Constitution being whittled away, this is not an example of that.

If you really believe that freedom of speech comes with no repurcussions, you haven't been paying attention your entire life.

missedmark - great lookin dog