At the risk of being totally flamed re: Warren

[Nancy Waterman]

I have really been struggling with this one. Up to now, I have been quite accepting of Obama's choices and statements. But the choice of Warren infuriated me and threatened to really harm my trust of Obama for the first time. As much as I disagree with people who oppose abortion, I can understand they have a point of view based on their belief that birth begins at conception, etc. I have a much harder time with people who shun gays and want to make them straight. I can bend a bit for those who oppose gay marriage but will agree to civil unions. I tend to feel marriage should be a church-related issue and separated from the state and, hence, I see the the equality promised by civil unions as more appropriate as a government policy than imposing rules on marriage (though I do support gay marriage in principle). I felt I could deal with someone participating in the Inaugural who opposed gay marriage and abortion, in the spirit of coming together, IF they weren't a hate-filled homophobe but just had a different belief system than I. (i.e., a "moderate" fundamentalist). Warren's dreadful comments comparing gays to pedophiles and incestuous miscreants made him, in my mind, unfit for this celebrated event. This is where I drew the line: disagreement about beliefs was ok, but inflammatory hate-filled rhetoric was not.

Then I very grudgingly came to an understanding (and this is where I will probably be flamed) that if one truly believes that homosexuality is contrary to their view of God's law and even a "perversion" of such (which I decidedly, absolutely do not), then stating that it is similar to other "perversions" such as pedophilia and incest is actually an extension of a this belief system rather than hate speech. The same would be true regarding Warren's statements about abortion: if one truly believes that a human life begins the moment of conception and that we have only one chance at life here on earth, then I suppose one could actually believe that abortions represented some kind of "holocaust". Again, I strongly disagree with this analogy and the underlying belief system. But I am willing to allow others into my world with whom I disagree as ling as they are not just into hate speech and vicious aggression.

Thus, I have, in the last few hours, managed to see Warren as someone with whom I intensively disagree. However, I can understand, albeit reluctantly, why Obama could bring him to the Inaugural platform. Unfortunately, the timing is particularly unfortunate and makes things much more volatile due to the passing of Proposition 8 which was a devastating blow especially coming from California. But I am holding onto the belief that this Warren choice is more about bringing in those with whom we disagree than it is about throwing gays under the bus, and policies that are progressive rather than future betrayals are still likely in the Obama administration. My heart is still heavy and sore over this whole thing but I am a bit more willing to be flexible.

[cwydro]

1. A good post.

But good luck with it.

Don your suit.

[SeaLyons]

2. I strongly disagree....choosing Warren was a MISTAKE

I agree with Kathryn Kolbert's comments wholeheartedly:

>snip>

There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good. Rev. Joseph Lowery, who has been selected to give the benediction, is a lifelong advocate for justice. There are others like him, and in our increasingly diverse nation, they aren't all Christian.

Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances and has every right to promote his religious views. But he doesn't need or deserve a position of honor at the inauguration of a president who has given hope to so many Americans by rejecting the politics of division and emphasizing his commitment to constitutional values.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/kolbert.warren/index.html

[glitch]

20. And it is actually ok and even better to admit his mistakes.

Both he and we should be able to do that without attempting to justify the mistake with convoluted logic. It's ok, we can realize Obama made a mistake and still like and respect him.

edit (this to the OP) And sorry, but all hate speech is a result of some kind of belief system. Being the result of a differing belief system does not excuse offensive behavior.

[katandmoon]

3. I doubt an egomaniac like Warren even for an instant gives a fuck about gay marriage

It's just an issue he uses to rope paying customers in with. He's a big fat phony. He doesn't give a shit about anything except lining his pockets and so many believers are suckers for a smooth talking TV minister.

That's one of the reasons I have lost so much respect for Obama over this issue -- that he either can't SEE the very obvious fact that Warren is a raging hypocrite, or that he just doesn't care that Warren is a stinking bigot, because Warren is letting Obama use him the same way Warren is using Obama.

[LibDemAlways]

29. If Warren hadn't struck it rich with his megachurch and

book deal, he'd be selling cars at Irvine Ford. He has that smarmy, snake oil salesman look about him. It never ceases to amaze how many people fall for that pious religious persona when their man of God is living in a mansion and flying first class. Obama should know better.

[sharp_stick]

4. You make some good points but I'm curious as to why people really care

Personally I couldn't care less who Obama brings onto the stage. I'm going to look at his policies and performance as an executive and then form an opinion. The fact that he feels the need to bring some religious nut onto the stage to bow and chant to some invisible sky wizard is bizarre but it doesn't say anything about policy. I find this countries weird attachment to religion kind of bizarre in the whole.

I'm surprised at the fact that Obama said over and over again during the campaign that he was going to include everybody and that he's actually seeming to be doing that. It looks like a lot of people on the left took to heart that bogus National Journal article that said Obama was the most liberal senator when it was a simple hit piece for the RW to use as a hammer during the election. Obama has always been/is now/ and probably always will be a pretty centrist leader.

I despise the religious right where I'm only curious about the more moderately faithful. I am finding the constant bandwagon jumpers around here kind of annoying but they can be ignored.

[Jamastiene]

47. Disgusting

[JimGinPA]

5. I Agree This Is A Good Post, However...

Having Warren give an Invocation at Obama's inauguration didn't bother as much. Many (if not most) of the posters who have been the loudest about this here were never supporters of Obama in the first place, as I was flamed for suggesting yesterday. So I wouldn't expect a whole lot of rational response to your thoughtful post.

[cwydro]

16. You're right there.

I was a Hillary supporter first, but have never looked back.

I see a lot of Obama-hate here, apparently coming from Hillary supporters who can never look forward.

[Maven]

18. I see a lot of bigotry enablers who never supported equality in the first place.

And don't even try to tell me that you're not. If you actually think this piece of trash is a good post, you are not my friend. I don't care who the fuck you supported in the primaries.

And P.S., most of the people who keep bringing up the primaries are not ex-Hillary supporters. Why don't you get past all that and see this is about PEOPLE, not any particular politician. It's fucking pathetic.

[cwydro]

23. OK.

Good luck with that.

[phleshdef]

6. As a non-religious person that grew up in a VERY Christian family, I understand how Warren got his..

...head messed up. Most people that are raised up under typical, American Christianity are going to consider homosexuality a sin and abortion murder. Its pounded into you from birth.

As Liberals, we often are obsessed with "root cause" when it comes to criminals and such. But many of us ignore the idea of "root cause" when it pertains to someone we simply don't like. Its hypocrisy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Here is my view, basically. I'm white and straight, and I believe in rights for blacks and gays

I don't think any Democratic president-elect at all should be asking for the blessing of a racist or homophobe on inauguration day.

Of course, I also think that a Democrat whose base campaigned for him because they are aware of how dangerous and monstrous it has been to have decades of Republicans in positions of importance, would pick Democrats of excellence for the positions, rather than Republicans again for MORE OF THE SAME.

[Starry Messenger]

8. The issue, for me, is that Prop 8

was a piece of legislation that amended the State Constitution by a popular vote. The rights existed and were taken away. Today the issue is gay marriage...

What is next?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. What if I find Jews to be an abomination? Or Chinese people?

Religion was used to justify slavery and to justify miscegenation laws until 1967 when the USSC rightly decided in Loving v Virginia that laws against interracial marriage violated the 14th amendment's enhancement of the 5th's due process clause. We are all equal and must all be treated equally. Your religious beliefs do not and cannot trump this basic principle.

Supporting the conviction of Loving:

On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that
“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. ”

And then the USSC stepped in:

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”
Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforced, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[jberryhill]

25. If you found Jews or Chinese people to be an abomination....

And if I had any influence with you, I would try to get you to spend more time with Jews and Chinese people.

Arguing with you is not going to change your mind. Engagement with the reality that Jews and Chinese people are not as awful as you believed, is likely to have more of an effect on you.

The other thing I would do is to find something else you cared about, say helping the unemployed, and I would try to maneuver you into a situation where you are helping unemployed Jews or Chinese to get jobs. That would also create a conflict that would put your beliefs on a collision course, where you're going to have a decision to make.

[bunnies]

10. Its not about what marriage 'should be'. Its about what it currently IS.

I can go to the courthouse, get a license, and have a JP perform a "marriage" ceremony. And upon completion, I would be "married". Where, exactly, does the church fit into this equation? Nowhere. So lets not buy the fundie 'we own marriage' argument. Ok?

There is absolutely NO reason that I and another female should be excluded from entering the SAME contract that I and a male could enter.

The churches will always be free to discriminate. No one need worry about them.

[bullwinkle428]

35. I cannot believe how many people around here are

stupid enough to just buy into, lock, stock, & barrel, the wingnut argument that, "OH NOES, THIS WILL FORCE MY CHURCH TO HAVE TO MARRY SOME OF TEH QUEERZ!" :banghead:

[bunnies]

39. That makes two of us.

That bullshit gets right under my skin. Its just another lie perpetuated by religion to control their peoples thoughts. Fuckin aye.

Its like saying that atheists shouldnt be allowed to get married. Why the hell dont people get it? :banghead: :banghead:

[Maven]

11. Well, you can justify almost anything can't you?

That's how atrocities happen.

If you just give an inch here, and an inch there, and grant people who want to destroy others the benefit of the doubt--because there's no way they might just be bad people who benefit from hurting others, could they?--then before you know it, nothing seems like hate. In fact, it might even be justified.

If you start with the premise that somepeople believe "homosexuality is an abomination," and just accept that premise without recognizing that the premise itself is based on fear and HATE, then it's just a short jump to all the other atrocious things those people say about gay people, isn't it?

Thanks for your absolutely worthless post. See also: Good Germans.

Now let me break it down for you: comparing gay people to pedophiles and criminals is not a worldview, it is hate speech, and you have just laid out a road map to enabling hate.

[Maven]

12. Oh, and 4 recs for this POS post. Let's send "gays=pedophiles isn't hate speech" to the greatest!

What the fuck site am I on again?

[JohnnieGordon]

17. The entitled nerve of pampered straights can be quite breathtaking, can't it?

Great thread to gather names for my ignore list, at least.

[Maven]

19. Everyone who recommended this, and supported it, should be ashamed of themselves.

[last1standing]

13. I'm finding a lot of straight DUers are willing "to be flexible" when it comes to GLBT civil rights.

I mean its not you that's getting fired, is it? It's not you being told you can't have the fundamental right to the legal protections of marriage. It's not you who has to worry a little bit every time you leave a bar for fear of being beaten by some ignorant thug. Yeah, I guess it wouldn't be too very difficult to feel badly but be flexible under those circumstances.

I really don't like being mean about this but our lives are at state here, not just our tax bracket. We lose our livelihoods, our homes and, sometimes, our lives because of hate mongers like Warren and when someone like Obama validates him and his beliefs more people begin to think its alright to hate us, discriminate against us, and even physically abuse us.

We just can't afford to be quite as flexible about this as you can.

[crispini]

15. WORD!

What you said.

[glitch]

24. But not most of us!! But I know, at least here at DU we should all be standing together on this. nt

:cry: :hug:

[JohnnieGordon]

34. Sorry, but you'd hardly know that from this thread nt

[mmonk]

14. Do you believe marriage is only related to religion, that it is the determiner.

arbiter, creator, and sole authority? Some people get their belief from this and thus have no qualms about it being denied others.

[tomp]

21. flame. always wrong, again. nt

[Maven]

22. 7 recs now for enabling hate.

[Clio the Leo]

26. How about 8 endorsing a rational OP? NT

[Maven]

28. There is nothing rational about accepting the "thinking" of religious bigots

And if you accept that "homosexuality is an abomination" is a reasonable premise to accept, that it does not reflect HATE, and that saying gay people are akin to pedophiles is not hate speech but a valid viewpoint, then you are a bigot.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

27. And Obama succeeds in bringing people to the table to work it out

I agree with your logic

[Solon]

31. How the FUCK is comparing homosexuality to pedophilia not hate speech?

:wtf:

[Starry Messenger]

32. I hope everyone who rec'd this thread will read and rec this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8006603

[Froward69]

33. Your articulation Nancy

is far better than I could achieve...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8003240

Recommended highly

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

36. Well, I believe that women are inferior because not only is god a man

he made women out of a man's rib, not the other way around. See I'm not an ignorant hateful asshole that shouldn't be taken seriously by 5 people let alone 100s of 1000s it's just what I believe. It's an extension if you will.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

38. what a vile post.

:puke:

[Hellataz]

41. I agree with your post, well said.

I agree that it's less about hate and more about ignorance and what he and others like him were raised to believe. It's nowhere close to correct, but I think it's too easy to label something hate speech just because it is unpleasant, when actually it's more just misinformed and irresponsible speech.

If we expect others to change their views or become more tolerant then we need to accept that people are like this not because they hate but because they don't know any better, and if we come to that realization, then we can be in a position to change their views.

Sometimes protesting and anger works to make a point and express your passion on a topic, but there's a time and a place for it, as is the same for embracing your enemy and helping them see they are mistaken in their opinions and values. I think Obama is taking the more civil route because in the end he knows this issue will not be won if you alienate the majority of americans who believe these bigoted opinions.

I'm sure it's hard to imagine trying to embrace homophobs or racists, as it tends to be human nature to need instant gratification in resolution of problems, but some issues, some discriminations require a long term plan, they need time for the seeds of wisdoms to be planted and the vessels of those seeds to be nurtured into accepting growth and change.

Wow that last part sounds very zen like, but i hope you get my point, which is to try and be patient, Obama has a plan to reduce intolerance in america, even if it is one person at a time.

[Asgaya Dihi]

42. You've got a lot of anger so far.

I won't add to that, instead I'll try to explain a point or two.

I'm not gay myself but I have worked for years in civil rights related areas so am familiar with the types of arguments involved. Drug war mostly, but others as well. There are a couple of major areas where I'd disagree with your take on the issue.

First is the idea of civil unions as an acceptable alternative. They tried that with blacks at one point too, look up the history of "separate but equal". As far as I'm aware the idea has never worked. Not with race, religion, with anything that tries to at the same time tell people they are the "same" yet somehow different by law. Either we've all got the same rights or we don't. It doesn't get a bit more complicated than that. It's an attractive idea to those who don't want real integration but have run out of legitimate excuses to deprive people of rights, a last gasp effort to keep a line drawn between them and the "others", but it doesn't work and given the way and reasons that we tend to come to that "solution" I don't believe it ever will.

Second point is the idea of hate speech. It does not matter if they think it's hate or not, if they believe it or not, or if in their own minds they are well meaning or not. Most people behind bars today had their excuses, and most of them believe in it and think to at least a large extent they were justified by their circumstances. Most racists are actually afraid and believe in what they say, it's not an act. Most people of any belief system are in the same boat. Just because they believe it that doesn't make it any less "hate speech". It's the effect, not the intent, that defines the speech. Bad guys of any persuasion rarely see themselves as bad guys. That's a judgment society as a whole bestows upon them rather than anything they tend to grant.

Gays deserve rights for the same reason that blacks, hispanics, women, and everyone else does. Because that's the right thing to do, because that's the way they were born and it's wrong to judge or punish them for being who they are, and because that's how we'd want to be treated if we were them. Those who stand in the way of that right deserve to be treated the same as those who stood in the way of those other rights. Well meaning, perhaps. But wrong, and preaching hate to justify their positions? Yes. Their motivation doesn't change the effect of their actions. It's hate speech same as it was when the other groups were targeted.

There's nothing wrong with talking to the other side. But we damned well don't need to honor them or offer them platforms to build their reputations and help them to spread their message. In this case Obama was wrong. This is a major feather in the cap of a hate monger who doesn't deserve it and it will improve his reputation among some who we also need to reach.

[Maven]

43. 15 RECS FOR HATE

[libnnc]

44. My God tells me that your sexuality is an abomination

akin to buggering children.


Shameful, nasty woman.

[enigmatic]

45. equating GLBT relationships to incest and pedophilia is sickening

I'll never give a pass to those who try to make that claim, ever.

That's hate speech. And that anyone on this board who wouldn't see it that way sickens me.

[Solon]

46. WTF?

Seriously. :wtf:

[loyalsister]

48. Well said

I'm glad you were able to articulate what I have wanted to say so well.
One thing that accompanies this is that Warren's presense may be intended to advance an agenda that is important to other people who allegedly matter to Democrats. Disabled, poor people, and those who have recently lost health care, may benefit if he can help bring in people whose support we need for a health care bill and making sure unemployment and food stamps, etc are funded.

People who have disabilities or who have been seriously injured have no housing because of it. HUD needs $$. Other states are having huge problems right now. Tornado season is coming. We have got to get a health care bill passed!

The health care crisis theatens us all economically. It will eventually lead to the total collapse of our health care system if we are not careful. Hospitals are having to write off more and more indigent care, and states are not always having the $$ to bail them out.
The country needs to hear more of that "brothers keeper" talk. An unexpected source will be most effective.
Should the people who are hurting because of those dire circumstances be held hostage by another agenda? Should have to continue with that monumental risk?