• Jon Meacham did not mention the founders name (to my recollection) in this informal panel discussion on MSNBC's "Good Morning Joe." ...Mr. Meacham is known for the book  "American Gospel"; so I imagine those that watched the show (myself included) takes his view as one that is crediable....
    My interpetation to what Mr. Meacham said["There’s a, there’s a distinction between, church and state and separating religion and politics.]

    December 29, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.

  • Mike,
    You metion that Jon Meacham (editor of Newsweek) said one of the founders indicated that having a man of the cloth deliver an invocation comes awful close to violating church and state, which founder said this?? Having studied the writings of the Founders and the Congressional Records that include the discussions of the ninety Founders in the first federal Congress who, from June 8 to Sept. 25, 1789, framed the First Amendment, I am unaware of ANY Founder (other than Thomas Jeffeson who used this term in a private letter to the Danbury Baptist Association re-affeiming that the sole purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that the federal government could not interfere with public religious expressions)who used this term.  I who be very appreciative if you could direct me to which Founder Mr. Meacham is refering to.

    December 27, 2008 at 10:44 p.m.

  • maryann, Pat had your problem in reverse…lol
    I suspect all my relatives are Democrats except for my nephew (a Pentecostal) I suspect him and his family are of the right side of the political side….Since we don’t let him preach us out of our Catholic ways, we will never know.
    We only had one Thanksgiving political discussion but we were all in agreement on the Mary Schaivo case…..That was very real in our family especially having to make the decision to let my sister, step-father, and grandmother go peacefully without pain.
    I have kept silent when those on the right were dying and I pretty much have left Bush/Cheney alone until they started making the rounds trying preserve what’s left of their legacy; that gets me all stirred up again..
    I can remember making myself a pledge to only make one posting(only on politics) to correct a myth, back it up with sources and then quit…That never happened, because it got to where people were saying if the Catholic church cared so much about the poor they would melt down the golden alters at St. Peters and spread the wealth amongst the poor, or not making past the Al Gore carbon foot print in having a debate on global warming…..I noticed you corrected many of catholic myths like praying to idols, the 3 Gods, and world population control.
    Yes, it has to been fun dialoging with someone I have learned to watch my manners and my words.
    Same here, to a traditional Merry Christmas for you and your family.

    December 21, 2008 at 5:49 p.m.

  • Hello Mike,
    What I meant by "I'm not going to drop a subject of importance in ordinary circumstances just to keep the peace," was that in ordinary conversation, postings here, I'll bring up my point of view just like the next person can do, even if it is divisive.
    Non-ordinary circumstances would be at the dinner table of my Democratic family and friends, or even in their homes.
    Kind of like when Ted Kennedy found out he had brain cancer- IMHO, it's not the time to bring up trash about his past or present. I'd rather figuratively kick a man or woman when they're not down, so that they can kick back. I realize others strongly disagree.
    I think there are times for leaving some issues off the table- to be discussed later, of course.
    These are my own standards. I'm not going to talk about abortion and some Democrats at my mother-in-law's table, as she is elderly and gets upset easily. In the garage with the other in-laws, we have a good go at it.
    I didn't notice that the left-of-center people have stopped blogging, but I guess you're right. Plus, it is after the election, and for many of them, their candidate won, and there is no longer such a contest going on. Anyway, when I bank the time that I could have spent posting, I do get many important things accomplished.
    Though dialoging with reasonable people such as you has been a good thing, Mike.
    I hope you and your family have a great Christmas season!

    December 21, 2008 at 1:53 p.m.

  • Legion357
    MY comment was aimed directly at Sandwichh and not intended as a tit-for-tat…We go back a couple years and the comment was aimed at a cumulative amount of posts. The “demonizing Democrats, liberals, or any of the conflicting views” was followed by a LOL….. I figured Sandwichh would see the humor in that…. Perhaps I was wrong.
    You took my comment out of context, but I can see how it was confusing but it was not contradicting because the house is made up of 45 blue dog Democrats(conservative Democrats) that are not in line with the Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party. With the Democrats having an overriding majority, it will lead to infighting for control of the agenda. The Republicans on the other hand have to band together because of their small numbers and most of it being regional....A good example of this was shown on the first bailout...Nancy Pelosi could have easily gotten the Dems to pass the bailout but refused to take full ownership...Now,even with a greater majority,the Dems cannot seen as fighting among themselves.
    I have said many times that these comments (25 words or less) can be very deceiving and taken as being close minded. Anyone that writes a blog can be accused of dismissing any debate by simply stating their opinion. For the most part the wedge issues have deepen that line in the sand and most are reluctant to give an inch, because they think it's a sign of weakness.
    A good example of this: I stated that David Hagan is a self -promoting individual (letter to the editor) and not a team player. These statements were not debated, you merely dismiss them as not being relative and went on to state your opinion of the city Council and why David Hagan should not play ball with them.
    You see in that particular post; I admitted I did not know Mr. Hagan, so that automatically opened it up to debate.

    December 21, 2008 at 12:06 p.m.

  • Hello maryann
    I personalized my comments to Sandwich, because he of all people should not be criticizing a political party or person for being divisive…. We go back a couple years so and he will inject polarizing politics at the drop of a hat(IMO)….. Am I furthering the polarizing issue with this blog? That’s subjective because IMG1 said "little ado about nothing” and Vet said “let him speak.”
    I hate to read between the lines but I really do not know what you mean by “dropping a subject of importance in ordinary circumstance.” … Your next sentence implies that you will champion your causes instead of just sitting on the sidelines…. I don't consider that polarizing.
    Polarizing politics is when the extremes take the leadership on wedge issues such as gay –marriage, funding for embryonic stem cell research, immigration reform, or the line between church and state….IMO
    Have you noticed that the left of center posters have left the forum? Except for an occasional post, the other side is not represented on the threads or blogs…I agree with your assessment that these blogs and threads are time consuming so I think after the first of the year I will also pursue other interests.
    BTW There are now three blogs on this subject and you accuse me of furthering this issue…LOL

    December 21, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.

  • Mike, I don't think that it's correct to say that Sandwichh is the epitome of polarizing politics when..... Barack Obama chose this Warren guy to begin and began the polarizing within his own partee with, AND you're the one furthering the polarizing issue with this blog.
    Have to include myself in here too as a polarizer of sorts.  I'm not going to drop a subject of importance in ordinary circumstances just to keep the peace. Otherwise, we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote, as these were two very polarizing issue also.

    December 20, 2008 at 7:10 p.m.

  • . " The fact that both houses will be controlled by the Democrats will make that much tougher; because history shows divided government is what works best.
    Sandwichh, you are the epitome of polarizing politics….. You will be posting Christmas Eve and Christmas Day demonizing Democrats, liberals, and any other conflicting views…lol"
     Ummm excuse me , but is not your above comment contridictre to itself and also divisive politics?
     If you just want to hear only one side of a debate (demonizing Democrats, liberals, and any other conflicting views) your words,then I guess you are not open to bipartisan debate. Mike you dissmissed any debate as not relavate , unless you agree with it, by that statement.

    December 20, 2008 at 5:40 p.m.

  • Sandwichh
    You made 4 statements and all were wrong.
    1, Rick Warren and Barack Obama does not feel exactly the same on homosexual marriage….Barack Obama would oppose a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage.
    2. Anti-Christianity? Liberals oppose the selection of Rick Warren because (a) his stance on gay marriage (b) overturning Roe V. Wade(c) they thought he should have selected a supporter.
    3. An invocation has nothing to do with non-division (whatever that means)
    4. The fact that both houses will be controlled by the Democrats will make that much tougher; because history shows divided government is what works best.
    Sandwichh, you are the epitome of polarizing politics….. You will be posting Christmas Eve and Christmas Day demonizing Democrats, liberals, and any other conflicting views…lol
    Liberals are just human beings, with the same faults as their counterparts…… We all go to our respective corners and claim the other side is not all that…. I am glad I have a “live and let live” attitude but that does not mean I have any more toleranance than anyone else. I have little tolerance for “holier than thou" attitude and sometimes I go overboard in pointing that out.
    For example I can relate to what Vietnam Vet said about Sarah Palin because she used divisiveness to rile up her supporters with statements like” small-town values” and “good American and bad America” so she left herself open for anyone to take a shot,,,,, I listened to about 15 minutes of the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday, and in that time he made the union workers, believers of global warming, and Barack Obama the the reason for this moral crisis we are in today.
    BTW excuse the spelling and grammar mistakes because I am blogging at this Starbucks in Sugar Land while the wife finishes her Christmas shopping…. I brought my small netbook, so I would have something to do…lol
    I downloaded a couple of free applications to my Blackberry, which came in handy…. One was a Gmail notifier that vibrates my phone.. I followed the link to the blog section and I was quite surprised, I was able to read the comments……. OK, I'm going to get a life but my wife better hurry because she promised we would be home before the “Cowboy –Raven” game.

    December 20, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.

  • V-V is only a little more tolerant than the liberal homosexuals and atheist. Liberals preach tolerance and free speech as long as you are tolerant of and speaking in unison with "their" views.

    December 20, 2008 at 2:52 p.m.

  • I get a feeling that no matter who was picked, be it the pope, JC Himself or Palin's witchdoctor someone would not be happy.  Let's let fat boy yammer, but if he rambles about his beliefs, then he should be "shoed" off the stage.

    December 20, 2008 at 11:01 a.m.

  • Thanks, Boat, I feel better already!

    December 20, 2008 at 10:25 a.m.

  • One of Obama's better decision's.
    Rick Warren's and Nobama's view on gay marriage's is exactly the same.
    The upset one's are just a bunch of anti Christians. I thought this administration was about non division? Well, so it starts as was figured. Like Nancy Pelosi stated, when the Congress is made up of a vast majority of Dems, there will be bipartisianship. Come in Mother Ship.

    December 19, 2008 at 10:29 p.m.

  • Much ado about nothing.

    December 19, 2008 at 9:10 p.m.

  • dohBama
    As to whether Rick Warren’s view on homosexuality is mainstream, I wouldn’t bet on it because he has a program where he thinks he can cure their homosexual tendencies despite genetics.
    Yes it is a short prayer and not cabinet position but those that do not know Rick Warren will certainly know him and his mega-church, after the historical inauguration.
    Think of it this way, this will be the Super Bowl of inaugurations, considering the historical meaning, viewership, and interest. To bestow the honor of giving the invocation to someone that does not support your social views can cause some hurt feelings…. It's like a bride choosing her stepfather to give her away, instead of the biological father…. A bad analogy, maybe, but I am gone for the day since my wife just called and said “suppers ready.”

    December 19, 2008 at 6:02 p.m.

  • These people getting all worked up over this is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He is the president elect and has every right to choose anyone he freakin' wants to give the invocation. It's a short prayer and it will be over. It' s not a cabinet post for goodness sakes. All this ruckus does serve to reveal what a bunch of immature whining wimps these people are. They need to get over it and get over themselves. Those that support homosexual marriage are a tiny-tiny minority. Rick Warren's view of homosexual marriage is not extreme, these people are extreme. Rick Warren's view is main stream.

    December 19, 2008 at 5:40 p.m.

  • I see your point about a "supporter," especially from the political aspect.

    December 19, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.

  • Hello maryann
    As usual I agree with a lot of what you say but (got use that word) I just wish he would have used someone who supported him, “to the victor belong the spoils” not one who will anger the base. Remember, to me it's all about politics.
    He has already shown inclusiveness but the honor of delivering the invocation should have gone to a supporter. No doubt, Rick Warren will use his flock to put pressure on Barack Obama when it comes to the differences on social issues.
    All water under the bridge and I can live with this decision.

    December 19, 2008 at 3:58 p.m.

  • Certainly opinions will differ on Obama's choice, but as a conservative I don't see this as so divisive, Mike.  Now, from a liberal's point of view, I can see where it makes a whole lot of people hopping mad.
    Pretty much anyone that Obama would choose would make some group complain. He chose, and I think it was a wise choice as he is showing that he's willing to be inclusive, at least in some areas.
    He's not even in office yet, and as one of those social conservatives you write of, I'd kind of like to think Obama is reaching across the aisle. At least for now.  I'm trying to be an optomist and try to see the bright side.
    As for some conservatives saying that Warren should have turned down the offer, I think that would be grand mistake, and they should just put a lid on it for now.  It's difficult to change people's hearts and minds if you don't even associate with them.

    December 19, 2008 at 3:36 p.m.

  • This is the reason this issue will not go away in the immediate future.
    ... But there is another group who is likely to view this move with suspicion: Traditional conservatives. (In fact, a quick perusal of the conservatives I'm following on Twitter confirms this.)

    On the surface, one might wonder why conservatives would object to having an evangelical pastor deliver such an important and historic invocation. But for a long time now, conservative opinion has been greatly divided concerning Warren -- and this latest move is merely one more reason for conservatives to be skeptical of his loyalties.

    There are several reasons many conservatives question Rick Warren:1. Many believe him to be a self-promoting opportunist who is seeking to become the 21st century's version of Billy Graham.

    2. As I write this, a debate continues to rage between Michael Gerson style "compassionate conservatives" -- and traditional conservatives who view the term as redundant, and who blame George W. Bush for supporting big government liberal policies. Warren obviously fits into the former camp. And while he is pro-Life, he has sought to "broaden the focus of the evangelical agenda" by focusing more on tailor-made Democratic issues over traditional family issues which favor Republicans.

    3. Some conservatives will also view his presence as a tacit endorsement of Obama's policies. Devout pro-Lifer's will surely object to this, though the counter argument is that it is better to have at least one pro-Life voice whispering in Obama's ear than to surrender this opportunity for influence. Still, many conservatives will view Warren as nothing more than a pawn, meant to cheaply provide "cover" or pacify Christian conservatives (who might now be able to justify their vote for Obama), while the new president will predictably support a socially liberal agenda.

    While this move will surely be applauded by the center, in one fell swoop, Obama and Warren have found a way to anger many on the left and on the right.
    It's more than one group opposing this choice.

    December 19, 2008 at 3:21 p.m.

  • LOL...It's what goes into those coffers....
    Vet ..I wonder what they would have said if the decider would have picked Rev, Al Sharpton to give the invocation... we would still have rioting in the

    December 19, 2008 at 2:52 p.m.

  • Let the guy say his little prayer and he can go back to his mega-church.  How come all these preacher guys look like they're a minute away from a massive cardiac?

    December 19, 2008 at 2:47 p.m.

  • I meant the silently as an afterthought...You seem to give attention just to the so-called rapid vocal crowd,.... the far right is angry at Pastor Warren for accepting the invitation.... it's a form of legitimizing the presidency of  Barack Obama... They have been given the media attention as well.
    Proposition 8 left a sour taste for many, and to pick the the architect of that proposition to give the invocation is indeed a slap in the face to that group..... A peaceful vent and an exercise of their constitutional rights(free speech) should not disturb anyone, since we all have the option of an off/ on switch on our television sets.
    The Liberals and the gay& lesbian community will come to realize that Barack Obama will help their cause much more than the likes of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

    December 19, 2008 at 2:42 p.m.


    December 19, 2008 at 2:27 p.m.

  • I cannot put a percentage on those that silently oppose Obama's choice,perhaps some thought  the president-elect would give that honor to a pastor,priest, or Rabbi who supported him.
    Those that are natural opponents of this choice will be given the media attention as expected...It's a two way street.
    This will pass  and in five years ,no one will remember who gave the invocation January 20,2009 .

    December 19, 2008 at 1:59 p.m.

  • MIKE: WHAT PERCENTAGE of Americans is making the fuss? Of course the irresponsible press will stir up all the bull manure they can.  The lens they see an unnecessasry opportunity through can make a gnat look like a hummingbird. Talk about a group who should be censored. Being what minute (my-noot)  part of the media Rusty is, he's always tried to present the facts not  BS, er.. sensationalism. He might not research some items well enough but he's working on that.

    December 19, 2008 at 1:52 p.m.