So what's the difference...

[Fearless]

What's the difference between Obama asking Warren to speak at the inauguration and Obama promising to sit down with foreign leaders without preconditions?

:shrug:




---------

EDIT: A clarification of my meaning....


Is there a difference between two situations, one which we (apparently) support as a group and one which we (apparently) do not support as a group.

The first is sitting down with foreign leaders without preconditions. We are willing to do this, to talk to foreign leaders who do not have our best interests at heart, to open dialog and perhaps change their minds.

The second is allowing someone to speak at the inauguration who is anti-GLBTQ rights. We are not willing to do this, because "we shouldn't bargain with civil rights" and "he's a bigot who shouldn't be given a voice". Apply this logic to the first statement and we have the Bush doctrine, one where we have no dialog and no chance of changing their minds.

[Fearless]

1. Thought so.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

3. Seven minutes?

And you "thought so"?

So there was a hidden agenda inside that alleged question.

Cryptic sometimes works. It failed here.

Good luck.

[Fearless]

5. I've explained myself. Comment if you'd like.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. What's the question, really?

There's a statement inside your question that I'm not sure I understand.

But, on the face, I'd say Obama's Warren move and his statement that he'd meet foreign leaders without preconditions are just examples of what he promised during his campaign.

if, that is, I'm reading correctly what you wrote.

[Fearless]

4. What I am saying...

Is there a difference between two situations, one which we (apparently) support as a group and one which we (apparently) do not support as a group.

The first is sitting down with foreign leaders without preconditions. We are willing to do this, to talk to foreign leaders who do not have our best interests at heart, to open dialog and perhaps change their minds.

The second is allowing someone to speak at the inauguration who is anti-GLBTQ rights. We are not willing to do this, because "we shouldn't bargain with civil rights" and "he's a bigot who shouldn't be given a voice". Apply this logic to the first statement and we have the Bush doctrine, one where we have no dialog and no chance of changing their minds.

I hope I was clearer. :)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. Thanks

That cleared it up perfectly, and, yes, I did glean what you were driving at.

In the 80s parlance, I say "Let Obama be Obama." I'm willing to trust his smarts, his instincts, and his vision.

After what we've been through, we need to give this man every benefit of the doubt.

Again, thank you. You conceptualized exactly what we need to avoid.

[Fearless]

8. ..

:hi:

[rufus dog]

10. you said it

First off you are correct Nothingtofear, not much of a difference.

As for "Let Obama be Obama" that is what needs to happen. He is going to screw up and piss everyone off sometime over the next 8 years. He will always reach out, when he gets bit he needs to send out the pit bulls.

[Fearless]

6. So, I've given it enough time right?

The answer is... There is no difference. You can't have it both ways.

[Hannah Bell]

20. one's a negotiation, the other a ceremony. see how easy?

why not have bin laden give the inaugural invocation, if we're willing to negotiate with him?

see, i can ask self-evident questions too.

[Fearless]

23. That's not the question.

But it does pose an interesting conundrum. Of course, excluding the (apparent) fact that Bin Laden has committed atrocities upon which he should be tried in the Hague, there is no fundamental difference. If Bin Laden would give the invocation, and be it civil and uniting, I would want, nay NEED, him to give that speech. Who could better bring this nation back together than one who has (apparently) set it asunder?

No doubt that will never happen. But, I think it would be enlightening. Would this nation continue to hate the man if he were to give a completely honest and heartfelt apology and then taken his prison sentence without question? What right would there be for us to continue to hate him if in this nation, who's policy is that once a debt is paid to society that one is free, he were to follow through expeditiously?

He killed over a thousand people (albeit by proxy, but apparently did so nonetheless). At what point does civilized society stop acting with their guts and start acting with their heads. If he pays for his crimes and spends the rest of his life in jail, donates all of his fortune to eradicating poverty in the third world, and publicly and heartfeltedly apologizes, do we still have justification (if only in our minds) to hate him? Or is there a point after which we can no longer forgive?

[Hannah Bell]

28. it doesn't pose any interesting questions. neither does warren's invitation,

which is an obscenity because of his support of dominionism & thus his fundamental opposition to the very idea of democracy.

[Fearless]

31. No, the time is not to place blame, the time is to forgive and to come together.

Have the lessons of the 1960's and 70's been lost on you? Love thy neighbor and love thyself. The time of the stubborn stick in the mud mentality has passed. We cannot hold onto past grudges or they will consume us. How can we expect others to follow the path of peace if we ourselves are not willing to do so? How can we expect to be loved and accepted by all our brothers and sisters if we still hate and shun them? It won't work. If we the world to change, we must change the world. That change begins with ourselves and our outlook. Democracy will shine through in a place where greed and self-interest remain at loggerheads with acceptance and understanding.

Feel free to continue to hate and continue to shun our fellow man if you will. But know this, we will as a nation learn to love one another. It can happen. But it won't until we realize that hate does not beget love.

[Hannah Bell]

34. i have no desire to come together with folks who want to install theocracy,

& your tack is foolish. very, very much so. you'll change the world by giving creedence to the warrens of the world, all right. but not in the way you desire. the fact that obama is giving this man prominence at this ceremony speaks volumes, that he chose this particular pastor to "reach out" to.

it's not a random choice; the interest group he's bending the knee to isn't the deluded ordinary christians who buy warren's books, but the big money/big power boys funding warren.

perhaps you're not aware that elements of the "christian" right wing are funded by some very big money, for very non-christian ends, & they don't give a damn about your "love".

the question is nothing to do with my individual personality or yours, our "love" or "hate". i think you are young, or very sheltered.

[Fearless]

35. You are not listening.

We are to actively shun their ideas but not them as people. If we shun them as people then they do no listen to us. If they don't listen then we will not get equality.

[Hannah Bell]

37. giving warren a public platform & creedence = shunning their ideas. uh-huh.

if you want to embrace dominionists "as individuals," have at it.

the inauguration isn't a coffee-klatch or a therapy group for "individuals" qua individuals, it's a civic, political, public event, & its agenda has political meaning & political ramifications.

[Fearless]

38. We aren't letting him sat anything he wants you know. Right?

He will talk about unity and he will help bring this nation together under Obama. That is his only purpose there.

[Hannah Bell]

41. "we"? you in charge of the schedule? you vetting the speech?

i'm sure not.

what is this "we"?

ps: what does your inaugural committee think of his anti-semitic cartoon books for the kiddies?

his instructions to his young followers to be as dedicated as the hitler youth?

his raking off tax money to preach "faith-based" abstinence in africa?

oh, yes, this dominionist freak, we should fund with tax $ & give a platform to at a "Democratic" inaugural.

[leftstreet]

9. You're comparing Warren to a 'foreign leader?'

There is absolutely no comparison here.

:eyes:

[Fearless]

16. Warren is a leader of people is he not?

Is his ideology not vastly different than our own, and in many ways not that different from some foreign leaders whom the GOP doesn't think we should have talks with without preconditions? I think it is. I believe that the only difference between the two (Warren and a foreign leader) is that one is abroad and one is here in our own country.

I remark to the double standard we've created, and I've elaborated on, because it's foolishness to ignore and shun people simply because we don't agree with them.

[leftstreet]

18. How are Evangelicals being 'ignored' or 'shunned' in the US?

Can they vote?

Are they denied housing?

Are they allowed to marry?

:shrug:

[Fearless]

21. The shun is different.

They are in the majority, they can shun us in ways that we could not possible shun them. Yet we do nonetheless shun them. And we do, I believe, hate them as well.

How do I know this? Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity... How do you feel about them? Not about what they do. That disgust is justified. But how do you feel about them personally. If Rush is impotent? How do you feel about him? If Ann is afraid of sexual closeness? How do you feel about her? Is there a difference between how one feels about someone who rapes another gleefully and someone who rapes another but has tried with every ounce of their being to stop?

I am not trying to be high and mighty, but as much as their beliefs or actions disgust me, I do not hate them. I pity them. I pity that they cannot see as I see, for instance, the love between myself and another man or between any two people. I pity them for being so blinded by their belief that they cannot comprehend the ramifications of their actions on the GLBTQ community and other communities.

Do we as a community hate and shun them? Do we hate Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly? That is your answer. That is how we continue the cycle of hate. Hate begets hate. It doesn't matter where hate began. It only matters that only we can end it.


*** Also, there is a difference between Evangelical and fundamentalism. While commonly equal as of late, they are not synonymous. ****

[leftstreet]

22. I..uh...I had never contemplated Rush Limbaugh's impotence

I'm sure you have a point, but I have to go scrub my brain out now.

:D

(You're right, I remember someone telling me that FundaMENTALists are somewhat distinct from Evangelicals.)

[Fearless]

24. Don't forget to dry extra well!

It's cold enough tonight.

:donut:

[The Straight Story]

11. There is somewhat of a difference though

In that one group is a sovereign nation(s) and the other is one within our own walls.

If those same groups were within the confines of our own country and laws sitting down with them would be lending credence to them and their views, whereas with a different country we are not looking to legitimize their view but to use our influence/power to shape an outcome that is partially out of our control.

We can't force a change in laws in their country, but we can here. Giving those with opposite views here only empowers them, while giving time to those in other countries gives us an in to work more peacefully for change.

All that said THOUGH some of the principles can apply here - working closely with those that hate certain groups here can help open a dialogue that could give us leverage into such groups to effect change later - ie, instead of being able to condemn us for not trying to see their POV they end up in a position where we struck first with an open door and they need to 'pay it back' and now listen with an open door to our views.

Reaching out is a double edged sword at times. If played well and right it can be used as a tool of change for the better, but it takes patience.

We have been ruled by the RW for many years but have made progress on liberal fronts, because unlike the right we are willing to let others into our tent. Once in they see a bigger picture (sometimes).

Education is the key - but you cannot educate if no one is willing to hear your message because you cast them out on certain conditions.

Played right, like a game of chess, in the end game you can win but it may require a temporary sacrifice of a piece or more for position (tactical vs strategy).

Right or wrong, that is how the game is often played.

[Fearless]

14. That would be well and true if we were talking to foreign leaders

for specifically reasons based on their own actions within their own countries and not the world as a whole. Generally speaking, I tend to believe that the US, at this point, is more likely to not get involved in situations with any nation unless we are directly affected. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be so, but with Afghanistan and Iraq emptying the nation's coffers, I doubt we'll go into such an endeavor again any times soon.

Education is the key, as you said. And I'd say that the main reason why people won't listen is because of the reciprocating cycle of hate and distrust that flows between us and them. They hate us and we shun them so they hate us and we shun them. It needs to be broken, IMO. They're not going to do it. So we have to break the cycle, even if we don't feel great about it. We have to reach out even if at first it falls on deaf ears. Progress is slow sometimes, sad but true. We don't win in one fell swoop. It takes time and it happens in steps and stages.

The analogy I made, I made to counter the argument made recently around these parts regarding why Obama should not talk to Warren, should not give him a voice, etc. I believe that is faulty for the reasons I've given. In short we need dialog and we need to do it with those who have influence over those we want to see things our way.

[readmoreoften]

12. No one is answering because the answer is too long and completely obvious.

It's like asking what's the difference between developing a miniature golf center using investor money and trying to open a gardening store using money robbed from a bank. Apples and oranges. Both are fruit. Both are sorta round. Neither are blue. But they're not the same.

Now, assuming that you're talking about the leaders of nations who are aggressive against the US on principle--although I can't think of a single nation that dislikes us on principle and not because of some foreign policy blunder or murderous excess that could be amended, I'll take a stab at it.

Meeting with someone like, say, Ahmedinejad, is engaging in hard-nosed discussion intended to lessen the tension between the US and Iran for the benefit of the ENTIRE American people and the Iranian people and, heck, maybe even the moderates and liberals in Israel.

Promoting Rick Warren by honoring him with the augural prayer--making him the most important religious figure in America for a hot minute--cynically exacerbates a CIVIL WAR within the US that does absolutely nothing but insult LGBT people, women, and Jews to the benefit of Rick Warren's church and the corporations who publish his crappy books.

One is diplomacy. The other is privileging the voice of a socially dangerous, psychotic lunatic over a descent moderate religious voice WITHIN a society. If Obama wanted to be a real moderate, he could've chosen the quiet pastor of a presbyterian church in Minnesota that no one has ever heard of, but who 'touched his heart' with a lovely sermon etc.

Everyone knows that Obama is not going to take the side of Ahmedinejad over his own country. But LGBT folks, women, and Jews are not sure that Obama will protect them from people like Warren. In fact, many folks aren't sure what side Obama is on period.

Far as I can tell, Obama really likes Warren and everything he stands for. Lord knows his 'disagreements' with him are trivial in his mind. After all, it ain't the leader of the Klan up there on that podium. But then again, the Klan isn't popular. Maybe he would invite the Klan up there if it helped his fundraising.

[leftstreet]

13. Thank you for taking the time to spell it out

:thumbsup:

Nicely done.

[Fearless]

17. Alrighty I'll bite...

Besides from the generalization that you've made, given no evidence for, and assumed true, that the two are different, I'll bite.

Everyone does know that Obama is not going to take Ahmedinejad's side. Everyone should also know that Obama has said time and time again that he will support full equality for "gays and lesbians" (clearly we're not the whole way yet, but it's a step). He has said it at countless events and speeches, but this community continues to ignore that fact for reasons that baffle me completely. Additionally, just yesterday it has come out that he will remove DADT. I'm confused as to how this sends any kind of mixed message as to what he is going to do in office.

Obama has said that personally he doesn't believe in equal marriage. Okay. But he has also said the whole bunch of other things above. So, that leads me to believe that, in office, he will support full equality under the law as he said, even if he doesn't personally believe it. Okay? Like I said, that's my opinion.

My point, other than pointing out the double standard aforementioned in other posts above, is that he has given us the promise of equality on numerous occasions and has not fallen through on any one of those. Likewise, the Warren example is not an example of failing to follow through with that because there is a pro-GLBTQ minister giving the benediction. I see no malevolence there on his part, merely a politician trying to bring a country together. Neither the pro-GLBTQ minister nor Warren are supposed to make ideological points in their being invited for or against any belief in this nation except for the fact that Obama wishes to bring this nation together. The issue in his picks is unity not pro or anti-GLBTQ rights.

Many in our community are jaded, rightfully so for certain, but jaded nonetheless. And every time something comes up that can even be construed as being negative, we blow it vastly out of proportion, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary. Of course, everything I've said is my opinion and I don't expect anyone to believe me necessarily. Mine is just a point of view, one which I believed to be underrepresented in the past week or two.

Cheers,
NTF
:kick:

[readmoreoften]

33. Now you're just speechifying and apologizing for Obama and rehashing nonsense.

"Everyone should also know that Obama " No. Why "should" everyone--particularly those whose lives are deformed by homophobia-- trust a politician because he mouths a bunch of words?

You give no proof either. The whole OP is just nonsense. It's an illogical question.

[Fearless]

36. I have given proof. I could look for speeches if you'd like.

He has said countless times that he is pro gay and lesbian equality. Period.

[kenny blankenship]

15. Picking Warren to speak on behalf of the nation to God is honoring and elevating Warren

who doesn't deserve it.

Obama PICKS him and says "This man is fit to talk TO GOD on my behalf, BEFORE THE WHOLE WORLD and for 300 million Americans. I choose him out of all the available options."

Obama doesn't pick foreign leaders. (Yes sometimes we do pick them and sometimes we "veto" them" through the efforts of our CIA, but that's not the way the way they explain it in Sunday school.) Foreign leaders are picked by the political processes of their own countries whatever those may be--electoral process or military pecking orders or whatever. It has nothing to do with us. We speak to them because they're THERE and we have to deal with them. In the same way, they have seats in the U.N. whether we, or other countries, like them or not. We are not honoring them or elevating them by simply acknowledging their existence as heads of state. It says nothing special about us or our govt. that we are willing to speak to them. (Except perhaps that we are not willing to hinder our own aims by refusing to acknowledge governments we don't like). The choice of a antigay bigot to ask God's blessing for Obama's term in office however may be fairly interpreted as saying something about Obama. It speaks to what he likes and what he dislikes; what he holds up as exemplary and elevates and embraces; and what he passes over and declines to honor. This is not simply acknowledging Warren's existence. This is inviting him onto the central stage of the nation and giving him a global audience, which we know he wants. The choice says MUCH about the chooser. If you need a legal advocate to speak on your behalf you don't go and get the least effective one, or the one with the sleaziest reputation, or one who doesn't see your case the same way you do. You get one to REPRESENT you. Obama has just picked a terrible representative in Warren who is deeply offensive to a bunch of people, not only gay people, who just worked like mad to get him elected.

If you don't get the difference there then you are an idiot.

[Fearless]

19. You have misunderstood me.

The emphasis you place on the persons themselves is not the emphasized similarity I have used in my analogy. Of course, they are different people. My point was that we trust Obama to do the "right thing" when talking to these foreign leaders, but we don't trust him to do the right thing in cohabiting with Warren. In my last two posts above I've explained further why I believe that Obama is certainly an advocate for equality even if he personally (and admittedly) doesn't believe in equal marriage. I believe that based on his speeches, his background, and his movement to overturn DADT, that he will be a strong advocate for GLBTQ rights even if he personally does not believe in total equality.

Warren's pick was a tandem. It came with the pick of a pro-GLBTQ minister to do the benediction. They were picked to symbolize unity. Obama has mentioned time and time again that he wants to unite the country. This is what I believe he is doing. If he was intentionally slighting GLBTQers then why would he have a pro-GLBTQ minister giving the benediction? It doesn't make sense. In short, I think that people are reading too far into his picks and are losing the forest for the trees.

[EFerrari]

25. The two situations are completely different.

Talking to foreign leaders is about negotiation.

Honoring Warren with this invitation is not.

[Fearless]

26. That is not the allusion I was making...

I was making, as I said, an allusion about trust. We trust that Obama will not "turn" based on meetings without preconditions. But we for some reason, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe that he will betray the GLBQ members of our nation because he will allow Warren to speak (with preconditions I might add, as his speech as to be cleared with them first).

Secondly, maybe Warren's invitation WAS about negotiation. Obama has stated many times that he wants to UNITE this nation. He has brought together people from all backgrounds in this nation, those we may like and those we may not, and he is trying to show them that they can coexist. Frankly, I'd be fine if Warren and whoever continued to believe I was scum personally so long as they respected my rights publicly. That would be a fine compromise to me. I have a thick skin, I can take it. And besides, if we do get equality under the law, in time, they will die off and with them, their beliefs.

[EFerrari]

27. There is still no comparison. Inviting Warren is a betrayal.

It's not some indication that a betrayal might happen in the future. There was no negotiation involved, whether some low level staffer went over the script or not. Warren is anti-women, anti-gay and anti-science. He is a huckster who is promoting the deaths of black Africans with his fake AIDs "work" which discourages the use of condoms. He is a disgusting human being and Obama is honoring him. That is a betrayal of trust because there is no "co-existing" with people who want to take your rights away. That's not "unity", that's complicity.

I don't think Obama understands this and that's a problem. He may well be right in thinking he can peel off some support from Warren's moronic following. What he can't do is pass this choice off as somehow good for America because it isn't.

[Fearless]

29. If he doesn't understand it then how can we say the things that have been said

About how he is against us or how he (Obama) is betraying us? Ignorance, though unfortunate, is not someone's fault inherently, while of course continued ignorance is. I don't know if he misjudged the message that it would send to GLBTQers. Clearly it was mixed at best. I do know that there is no possible way that a smart man such as himself, who has worked for over a decade in public service and politics, could not see Warren for the person he is to women and specifically to the Black community. That takes a pretty big coincidence that he didn't know this. It isn't one I'm willing to make either.

Then it begs the question why bring him then? He had to know about his views regarding Africans right? I can't see how he couldn't, not just because he himself is Black (albeit 1/2 and not from Africa directly) but because I don't believe that he or his staff could do such a sloppy job vetting people. So why then bring him? Unity was the only thought I could find. He picked people from all walks of life to participate, because (following a possible thought process of his) each American is a part of the presidency and of the government and each deserves to be part of the inauguration as well. If we are to make the nation whole, to unite this country, we need dialog and civil discourse.

Simply, for a person who has so brilliantly and deliberately planned out his course, I cannot begin to believe that he made such a glaring "mistake" without good reason.

[EFerrari]

30. Smart people make mistakes all the time.

:)

[Fearless]

32. Let's just hope the ones that Obama makes in the next 4 to 8 years are small ones.

;)

Cheers,
NTF

[rug]

39. He hasn't asked Kim Jong-il to pray at his inauguration.

[Fearless]

40. Kim Jong-Il may be dead from the reports that are trickling out of N. Korea.

Yet that's a whole other ball of yarn.

Likewise, if he did offer to make a speech preaching unity and peace, I think it would be a great example for the rest of the world.

[Hannah Bell]

42. i think he should, though. let's "reach out" to the whole rogue's gallery, why not?

overwhelm them with "l-o-o-v-v-e-e"!

[Fearless]

43. Let's

:hug: