The beautiful thing about Obama choosing Warren

[Toucano]

I reject the majority of Rev. Warren's ideas, from his distorted concept of God to his ridiculous ideas about human sexuality.

But Obama is being consistent by inviting someone he disagrees with to be a part of his presidency, and granting him an honor of speaking at the inauguration.

Only be keeping the dialog open with people we disagree with can we expect to change them. Whether we're talking about Iran, Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea, breaking down the barriers that prevent the free exchange of ideas is an important and worthy goal.

Obama is treating the evangelicals that believe like Warren the same as other "enemies", or people with whom we disagree. Bring them to the table. Invite them to the party. Only then do you have a chance to change their ideas and influence their thinking.

The world cannot advance under this constant polarization of left/right, gay/straight, black/white, red/blue, Christian/Muslim.

Shunning those we disagree with will not bring about any change. Not only am I not insulted by Warren being invited to give the oration, I am rewarded and thrilled by the brilliance of the man we elected President. It is 180 degrees from anything Rove would have ever let Bush do.

I will be so happy when we stop turning people into symbols of an idea and deal with their actual ideas.

Obama can transform the world and that is a beautiful thing!

[Cary]

1. Peel off the less insane rightists and marginalize the profoundly ill ones.

It's perfect. They are already in freefall and since you're either for them or against them, make as many as possible be against them.

The hardcore idiots are pretty pissed at this Warren guy for agreeing to participate. It's a beautiful thing.

[saracat]

2. Delete Dupe

[saracat]

3. Sorry but this is showing "respect" for a person who holds the opinions that some Americans are less

than human and are to be rejected. All opinions are not "equal" and don't deserve "equal" respect. This is a state occasion and unless we support human rights violations, he should NOT be shown "respect" or be able to pray on our behalf.

[Toucano]

10. Actually, he thinks homosexuality is an illness and he's wrong.

A person can be wrong and still be worth listening to. Especially if they represent other people who are also wrong.

[saracat]

13. He equates homosexuality and child molesting. He equates

reproductive rights with the Holocaust. What exactly is worth listening to? And such people do NOT change.And he preaches this thought to others and now the POTUS has dignified his opinion by allowing him to publicly pray on behalf of the US.

[Toucano]

25. People do not change?

You're familiar with Sen. Byrd's former racist views, right?

Did he change?

How about Justice Powell?

"Powell was the swing vote in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), opting to go with the majority ruling which upheld Georgia's sodomy laws. He was reportedly distressed over how to vote. A conservative clerk advised him to uphold the ban, and Powell, who believed he had never met a gay person (not realizing that one of his own clerks was a closeted homosexual), voted to uphold Georgia's law, though Powell in a concurring opinion expressed concern at the length of the prison terms prescribed by the law. <1> The Court, 17 years later, expressly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

In 1990, after his retirement from the Court, he said, "I think I made a mistake in the Hardwick case," marking one of the few times a justice expressed regret for one of his previous votes. <2>"


Powell's clerk revealed after the decision that he himself was gay, prompting the regretted decision. Dialog changes people's minds.

[Heidi]

33. Do you understand that our GLBT brothers and sisters have NO REASON to trust

that anything's gonna really change? Do you understand that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that Rick Warren has changed his heart and mind?

If you're gonna throw out a bone, at least make it a bone with some meat on it. Otherwise, it's just more non-nourishing crap to gnaw on. The hunger for equality doesn't go away.

[Toucano]

40. Are you trying to say that no one has ever had their opinion influenced or changed

through dialogue and discussion?

If that were true, we should pull the plug on democracy and be done with it.

[Heidi]

42. Evidence. That's what I asked you for. You didn't provide any. (nt)

[Toucano]

85. Pardon the evasion.

It wasn't intentional. I didn't realize you were being literal.

There is no evidence Warren has changed his mind, but that´s not what I am talking about.

I am talking about the POTENTIAL to influence his thinking and change his mind by inclusion rather than by shunning him.

The analogy I made was that it strikes me as the same as the POTENTIAL to change "rogue nations" by engaging them in dialog rather than sanctioning them.

[saracat]

43. No I am not. But the lilihood of such person changing is next to nil and even Obama admits that.

There is still no reason to "respect" the man , or the opinion of a man who equates GBTL with child molesting or reproductive rights with the Holocause. Why would anyone respect such a person? Andlegitimize him by allowing him a presence at a state occasion and the ability to "pray" in the name of this nation?

Anyone can disciss anything they want but his views should not be "respected" in the name of this nation.

[Toucano]

83. Every journey starts with one small step.

If the likelihood of changing people by discussing an issue with them is nil, then what is the likelihood of changing them by shunning them.

I never suggested Warren's views should be respected. They are crazy and should be talked about as though they are.

[saracat]

35. Byrd was very young when he was racist and he was no minister preaching "hate".

These kind of folks do not change. They are in a class by themselves. There is no "reaching out" to them.It is like reaching out to Hitler.

[Heidi]

21. I'll listen to an original "idea" many times, even if wrong, but Warren's spiel is hate speech

posing as ideas, and not one damn bit of it is original.

[Cary]

15. He can be wrong about some things and right about others.

I have yet to meet a perfect human being. Have you ever met one?

[saracat]

19. No. But this is basic human rights. You don't get to be wrong on that and get respect.

Is he entitled to respect if he supports slavery?Would it be a matter of "opinion"?

[Cary]

30. I support the right to gay marriage, no matter what you call it.

But I'm not willing at this point to condemn people who don't support it, just because they don't support it.

Does this make me a bad person entitled to no respect?

[saracat]

59. Certainly not . But you aren't "passionate" about human rights. OTOH

You are many degrees removed from Warren and his ilk., but I would disgaree with your cutting any of these folks any slack.

[Cary]

60. So regardless how I feel about every other human rights issue,

I can't be passionate about human rights if I don't condemn people who don't believe in gay marriage.

I see.

[saracat]

61. I wouldn't say you are "passionate" , no. But I just mean it is likely it isn't a

huge priority for you. Perhaps other issues inspire you more. I wouldn't say you have no interest in human rights.But that is just my "opinion".

[Cary]

67. Friend, it takes all kinds.

I know it is not your intent but it is probably not in your best interests to alienate allies. It's much better to find commonalities, if you're "passionate".

If you don't believe me look at what the "conservatives" are doing to each other.

[tinrobot]

50. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves

He was wrong on that. He deserves no respect?

FDR put Japanese people in prison. He gets no respect from me for that, but I give him a lot of respect for the New Deal and many other acts.

Rick Warren is wrong on this issue. I don't respect him for that. Doesn't mean he can't change his mind or soften his stance. Doesn't mean he has other issues on which we can agree and respect each other.

[saracat]

57. He isn't accorded "respect" for his issues with that And if he contunued to

he would rightfully be "shunned".

[Warren Stupidity]

4. another POS OP defending the indefensible.

Warren is not being 'brought to the table' for negotiations, he is being honored and his homophobic hate agenda is being elevated as normal and acceptable.

Your OP is a disgrace to this board.

[Lex]

5. I just don't know understand why he didn't invite David Duke to speak too.

Maybe then we can learn to be less polarized in this country with white supremacists.

[Toucano]

16. Does David Duke represent the 4th largest church in the country?

That's news to me.

23,000 people attend weekly services with Warren, and 16 million Southern Baptists in other churches.

Maybe if David Duke were more popular, he's be worth chatting to.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Why Should I Care About That?

Asking a serious question. Why should i care whether or not Warren's church is big, and why should i care how many Southern Baptists there are?

Why should either of those matter to me?
GAC

[Toucano]

28. Because a leader of a large group of people

has a lot of power to influence the opinions of that group of people.

Extending an olive branch to the leader of a large group of people is a wise gesture that can open them to change.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Really?

Where's the evidence? Clinton extended olive branches. Those same people screamed "outrage" and supported the Gingrich witchhunt.

The recent evidence seems to contradict your premise.
GAC

[Toucano]

34. Evidence of what?

That dialog has the power to change people's minds?

[ProfessorGAC]

71. OK, Pollyanna

Hope the weather is nice on the farm.
GAC

[saracat]

38. They would have you care because this isn't about making change but developing a

"voting block" for reelection. This isn't about anything but getting "elected" doesn't matter what you do when you are elected, just that you be elected according to some. ( and they think that voting block is bigger and more important than women and GBTL) That is why they are "reaching out" For votes. The ends justify the means , you know.:grr:

[tinrobot]

54. If Obama breaks the GOPs lock on the evengelicals with this...

Then it's worth it.

Obama won't speak to all of the evangelicals, but if he peels off some of the more reasonable ones, then the uglier evangelicals will no longer wield power, because they'll be spilt. The GOP will lose a voting block they've had since Reagan. Good for us.

[saracat]

56. THen if it is worth it, I hope they come and take all your rights away too! And Rick Warren is

considered "reasonable" while he equates women and GBTL as less than human. Fine. Lets give "respect" to those folks and be free to negotoate away the rights of fellow citizens in order to get their vote. Its all worth it you say? What about if it was YOUR rights?

This reasoning is exactly the source of the anger of these communities. Guess what, if it doesn't benefit ALL of the citizens if Democrats gets elected, why should we care if they do?

[ProfessorGAC]

70. Same Question

Why would i, as me the person, care about that? Answer: I don't. And there is no good reason for me to care about the voting block that just got done disagreeing with us.
GAC

[treestar]

65. Because David Duke's position is far more marginalized

and extreme - much progress has been made. We even have a black PE.

Did MLK condemn Johnson for including people who likely were against equality at the time? Expect Johnson to fire them all? No, he approached the situation effectively and got things to change.

Good thing there was no DU in that day!

[Lex]

66. More marginalized? Then let's be even more inclusive of them.

Wouldn't the white supremacists need even more embracing if they are more marginalized?

[derby378]

6. Shall we also bring neo-conservatives and neo-fascists to the table?

Hell, let's keep a few seats open for the PNAC, Stormfront, and those "War on Christmas" goons.

Some ideas have come and gone, like the notion that our world is flat.

[phantom power]

7. I have a feeling the next four years are going to disappoint you.

[BR_Parkway]

8. Until he publically reaches out to the racists, this is BS

He didn't reach out to Warren because they disagree too much, neither of them think GLBT should have equal marriage rights because of their personal religious convictions - which is not the same world wide, even though it seems to be a majority - there are religious people on our side of this as well.

But hey, if he truly wants to show how he's reaching out - put the KKK up there on the platform. Let the world see how far he's willing to go for unity.

[Toucano]

11. The KKK and neo nazis advocate something completely different than Warren.

It really isn't an appropriate comparison, although I respect the fact that you see it as such.

[BR_Parkway]

45. No they don't - they just dress it up better, a little more refined in their

hate. And the refinement is a way of keeping the money rolling in and getting access to power.

These groups have used religion to advocate stoning me, shipping me off to camps for re-education, fostered violence against glbt folks and even folks they suspected as being glbt (the two brothers the other week?)

There is no difference between Rick Warren, James Dobson or Fred Phelps except the window dressing - Phelps I actually have more respect for since he's willing to put his hatred out there so viscerally for all the world to see.

But Rev Thom Robb (KKK Leader) and Rev Warren both hold the same Bible in their hands and use it to foster the same hatred - it's mostly their target that's different.

That doesn't mean I won't continue to support his efforts in other things for the good of this entire nation (and planet) nor does it mean that I think Rev Warren is wrong on every idea.

And until BO is going to "be inclusive" to the guy who hates him as much as he is willing to include the guy who hates me and mine, that's where it stands.

[Marrah_G]

74. Why, because he just hates gays and that isn't the same?

:puke:

[Toasterlad]

75. Of Course! That's At the Core of Every Single Warren-Obama Apologist Post:

"It's only the gays."

[Toucano]

82. You have missed the core entirely.

I am not apologizing for anyone.

The core of my idea is that by listening to people we disagree with, we have the potential to influence them and show them the error of their thinking.

[scarletwoman]

9. Fine. Then he should have invited the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran to give the invocation.

There's a big difference between opening up a dialog with someone who holds opposing views and affording them a place of honor at an historical event.

sw

[Toucano]

12. The Supreme Ayatollah suffers from chronic air sickness I am told, and he is unable to make the trip

It is an olive branch being offered to evangelicals.

Dialog can follow.

[Orsino]

14. There's no beauty in it unless it buys us something great.

And it had better be gold-fucking-plated to be worth the human dignity sacrificed to get it.

[Karenina]

17. BINGO!

[Toucano]

20. Sacrificed human dignity?

That's a bit oversold, don't you think?

It isn't as if we haven't had to listen to religious nuts insult us for the last two thousand years.


Listening to people we disagree with is important for so many reasons.

[Orsino]

26. I won't try to tell people how they should feel about it.

I think you see either the grave insult, or you don't.

[Toucano]

32. I haven't TOLD any one how they should feel about it.

I have simply presented an alternative way of looking at the situation that mitigates the power of the insult.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your permission" Eleanor Roosevelt

[Orsino]

37. No, you've only questioned that any human dignity was sacrificed.

Mitigating factors don't make that sacrifice disappear.

[Toucano]

41. Not at all.

I acknowledged that it's a "sacrifice" that we are very accustomed to making. So much so that calling it a sacrifice seems oversold.

Has there ever been an inaugural oration by someone who supports gay marriage?

Why get our panties in a bind over this if we don't have to?

[Orsino]

62. You sadden me. n/t

[Mari333]

18. nope. the whole debacle is only feeding their bigotry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4682771

[Deja Q]

22. Symbols vs substance. Everybody loves symbols but shun when the substance becomes inconvenient.

[johnaries]

24. I would like to add that you can't change someone's mind

unless you talk to them.

The best way to persuade someone is to first find areas of agreement and work together on those. And there are a lot of issues in which Warren can be a great assest.

And after you gain someone's trust and respect, then and only then can will they be willing to listen to you and actually change their minds. Then and only then can he be convinced that homosexuality is not a "choice" or a "sickness", but the way God intended some people to be.

[Bravehammer]

27. Glenn Greenwald says it best

The one question I always return to when I hear this -- and we've been hearing it a lot to explain the Warren selection -- is this: in what conceivable sense is this approach "new"? Even for those who are convinced this will work, isn't this exactly the same thing Democrats have been doing for the last two decades: namely, accommodating and compromising with the Right in the name of bipartisan harmony and a desire to avoid partisan and cultural conflicts? This harmonious approach may be many things, but the one thing it seems not to be is "new."

.......
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/19/obama/

In 1996, Clinton signed into law the single most pernicious piece of anti-gay federal legislation ever passed -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- with overwhelming Democratic support in the Congress. Scorning the "Far Left," especially on social issues, was a Clinton favorite. He is the inventor, after all, of the Sister Souljah technique. Bill Clinton was the ultimate non-ideological pragmatist. He was driven by the overriding desire to win over his opponents.

What did all of those post-partisan, cultural outreach efforts generate? Hatred so undiluted that it led to endless investigations, accusations whose ugliness was boundless, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and ultimate impeachment over a sex scandal. Bill Clinton was anything but a cultural or partisan warrior. He was the opposite. And that was what he had to show for it.

Then there were the Democrats of the Bush era. From 9/11 onward, they were probably the single most cooperative, compliant, and accommodating "opposition party" ever to exist. There wasn't a partisan or ideological bone in their body. To the contrary, they were compromise and accommodation finding its purest and most submissive expression. Their eagerness to accommodate was so severe that, at the end of 2007, it actually led The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin to observe: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed."

Did any of that dilute the Right's anger and resentments towards Democrats? Democrats spent 2002 giving George Bush everything he wanted -- including authorization to attack Iraq -- and the Right then promptly attacked them as Saddam-allied, Osama-loving subversives.



edit to add link

[Truth Teller]

31. Let David Duke having a role, then

Same logic.

[Toucano]

36. Not relevent.

We've already established that Duke represents no one and has no power or influence.

[saracat]

39. So why are hate crimes on the rise then?

[Toucano]

44. Must be because David Duke's last book sold 6 copies.

Yeah, that's it.

David Duke is leading a silent revolution by writing books people don't read.


There are a variety of factors in increase in crimes, none of which is tied to David Duke.

[saracat]

49. And as you are deeply infiltrated in the white Supremist Movement

you know this for a fact? :sarcasm: There are many others beside David Duke who are only visible to their followers. And it doesn't mean Duke and other have no influence.But whatever. The real reason is after all the size of the "voting blocK" If Duke could display voting numbers that were impressive I am sure he would be as welcome as Warren. Winning is everything , after all.

[Mimosa]

68. Hate crimes increase when the economy is bad

Hate crimes rise when people are inchoately angry. See "American South, lynchings, 1930s."

Toucano, you are a wise person. :D

[stillcool]

46. absolutely..he must have at least..

as many, if not more people that believes as he does. They're just not as overt.

[tinrobot]

48. Not logical at all.

Comparing Warren to David Duke... isn't that logic similar to Rick Warren comparing gay people to pedophiles?

Rick Warren is not David Duke. Gay people are not pedophiles. Both are untrue statements, both are illogical, and both wrongly compare individuals to other individuals or groups.

[Toasterlad]

77. Please Explain the Difference Between Hating Gays and Hating Black People

:popcorn:

[Spryboy]

47. There is nothing 'beautiful' about this

He is honoring a virulent homophobic bigot.

He would never THINK to do so to someone who as virulently anti-semetic or racist, now would he?

Apparently he (and YOU) think that anti-gay bigotry isn't REAL bigotry. You're both wrong.

And to kick gay people in the teeth like this right after Prop-8 is a real insult.

This is a lose-lose choice for Obama. He won't win over any evangelicals, and he's losing tons of support from his base over this.

There are any number of people he could have chosen. Instead, he chose a divisive, polarizing bigot. How is that fostering "unity"?

Take off your rose-colored glasses and wake up to the realization of just how insulting this choice is. Just how offensive it is.

Unless he's going to have a grand dragon of the KKK up there for "balance" and to foster "diversity" and "unity", you're just talking through your hat, at the expense of gay people everywhere.

[readmoreoften]

51. So the fact that I'm not a child molester is only "my opinion" as well then. How "beautiful."

When the Klan, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah are on stage with Obama, you let me know.

[readmoreoften]

52. Your ideas are sickening and offensive. This offensive bullshit is what's polarizing.

Having the abuser on stage is not "ending polarization" against straight and gay people. If you didn't notice: GAY PEOPLE AREN'T THE ONES CALLING STRAIGHT PEOPLE PEDOPHILES.

[David Zephyr]

53. When Obama invites David Duke to his Inauguration to speak, then your argument might be valid.

Your argument is as insulting as Obama's choice of this anti-gay bigot.

[deaniac21]

55. Yes, his is the Messiah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha5HEc-vOJs

[MadHound]

58. Inviting them to the table is one thing,

Kicking a good and loyal friend in the teeth so that you can give this person a place of prominence at the table is an entirely different matter. That's what Obama has done.

[treestar]

63. Amen! People do not change their minds by being excluded

Or we would have changed our minds and gone along with Chimpy's ideas!

[DonEBrook]

64. Bullshit. Iran is not an intrinsic enemy...Warren and his ilk absolutely are.

:grr:

[Toucano]

78. I don't think I agree with you.

Intrinsic enemy?

Couldn't it be that he's just a stupid person who is wrong about some important things?

Does that make someone an intrinsic enemy?

[Pastiche423]

69. Disgraceful and disgusting OP

It is so sad to read this on a supposedly progressive board.

[kevinbgoode]

72. Fine..so when is he going to invite the millions of GLBT citizens

to the table, since he's just gone out of his way to make them disgusted with his leadership? Or are we gonna just be allowed to. . .ya know....just serve the dinner? Or maybe have the band in to entertain the heterosupremacist party about MY rights?

[Marrah_G]

73. Unfucking believable

It's okay because they are just gays right? Because you sure as fuck wouldn't come here with that bullshit if it was a rabid racist or anti-semite going up on that stage.

[depakid]

76. "I will be so happy when we stop turning people into symbols"

You'll be waiting a very long time- as that's a basic component of human nature and cognitive functions.

[Toucano]

84. That is only partly true.

Cognitive function does employ the use of symbols to represent things both real and abstract, but logic and reason can separate the symbol from the representation and actually evaluate the real and abstract.

The mass media is increasingly causing us to rely on the symbolic representation of things as a kind of lazy short hand to avoid the complexity of an issue.

[leftofthedial]

79. change Warren and his fundie corporate mega mall "church" zealots?

yeah, right, uh huh.

Engaging them on the issues is not the same as ensuring that hate will be the first value expressed at the inauguration.

[HEyHEY]

80. Do you actually believe that this Obama will convince this Asshole he's wrong?

Cause that won't happen. What WILL happen is Warren will become better known and more people will hear his hate and bullshit, the weak ones will be sucked in and he will be a greater force.

[Toucano]

81. It isn't likely to change his mind overnight, no.

But it is a step.

Changing people's understanding takes effort from all of us.

His ideas are wrong, whether one person hears them or one billion people hear them. His ideas about human sexuality run contrary to what the majority of people know about their brothers and sisters, coworkers, neighbors, and friends.

I am not afraid of his ideas. Let him express them and then demonstrate how wrong they are.

[AntiFascist]

86. Dialog is fine!

Few people would disagree that we should have a dialog. The Courage Campaign is circulating a petition to have Rick Warren debate with another Christian leader - this is a great idea.

The problem with the invocation is that this is a way of honoring Warren and everything he stands for. Obviously Obama is impressed by Warren's efforts in battling AIDS. Not only is this giving Warren validation, it is also providing him with opportunities for public airtime, and, in a sense, it is a way for Obama to kowtow to the existing religious power structure and let them know, with a wink and a nod, that they are an important part of his team, a way for him to say symbolically "yes we can have change, but only with your blessing".