Pandering is courage? One-sided debate is dialogue? Honoring those who divide us will bring unity?

[jpgray]

These are fundamentally odious conceptions, and why anyone is surprised that they arouse a great deal of anger is a complete mystery to me. Defend Obama all you wish, but I think this much at least should be clear:

Braving the risk of a persecuted minority's anger by currying favor with their wealthy, established, powerful oppressors is not courage.

This should be self-evident to any progressive. Where's the risk in upsetting a minority that the majority and the law treat as second-class citizens? A minority that is treated with apathy, ignorance, or hatred by the establishment? A minority that is wholly abandoned by one of two parties and treated with selfish indifference by the other? Unfortunately, there isn't much risk there. Just as there isn't must danger in honoring "America's Pastor" with the invocation of your inauguration. The real risk is in taking on the prevailing view--all its might, money and influence as an entrenched bastion of acceptable bigotry--by reaching out to the persecuted, misunderstood and oppressed. Don't call Obama's behavior cowardice if you don't wish to, but don't call it courage either.

Providing prominence and exposure to only one side of a debate, one that is dominating and suppressing its opponents and already glutted with power and influence, does not generate a dialogue.

It generates the opposite--it provides more favor and exclusivity to already favored and ubiquitous voices. One side of a debate is powerful and established, holding all the cards and having all the advantages for promoting their views. The other is misunderstood, derided, and freely hated by prominent figures--this side has great trouble in getting a fair hearing for their views. Which side needs more prominence and promotion? Which side deserves more? How does amplifying the voice that already drowns out its opponent generate "dialogue?" It doesn't. And that's been a problem for us on every major controversial issue in the Bush presidency.

Honoring bigots who seek to divide us does not unite us, and is not necessary or helpful in combating the ignorance of their followers.

Talking is fine. Wheeling and dealing is great. Debates are nice, summits are dandy, and hoedowns are sublime. Please note, however, that none of these require piling singular honors atop a bigot who is too much honored already. What's the impact of such honors?

The bane of many a progressive policy has been the ignorance present in the majority concerning the issue. Many of this majority see themselves as devout supporters of progressive ideals, such as essential human rights. However, they are often timid and vacillating--they don't take the positions their ideals would argue for on their own authority, they look around for prominent people to show them how far to go in supporting their ideals. Thus the side which obtains the most prominent and influential support has a massive advantage. And what are the prominent positions on equal rights for gays, for example? Glutted with money, powerful friends, and exposure, they represent either unvarnished bigotry or slightly softened bigotry: outright rejection of a minority's status as human on one hand, and an anemic "compromise" that satisfies neither the persecuted minority nor its enemies on the other. The "compromise" view doesn't see itself as a step on the road to full equality, it sees its "compromise" as the -end- of the road.

You'll notice one side of the debate is often absent from prominence--that which unapologetically supports the full rights of the minority. Supporting civil unions and denying marriage is as close as the most prominent public figures get to supporting equal rights, and this has its impact: when the apathetic folks look around to see how far they should support human rights, they don't see the whole debate--they see the established, conservative side on one hand and its slight softening on the other. Full support for equal rights is notably absent, while the weak middle and strong opposition are everywhere one looks. Which side needs help, if we are to remove this ignorance, do you think? Which side needs the honors?

[KittyWampus]

1. delete. I promised myself I wouldn't post in the circular firing squad

[truedelphi]

45. Hey there, crying shame, I jes ordered some flame proof vests.

For you, I'll make a deal...

[NJmaverick]

2. No surpries, the politics of outrage infect our nation like a bad case of athlete's foot

I am hoping that after a few years of Obama's moral leadership though, it will be just a distant and painful memory.

[polichick]

7. Choosing a bigot for Day One of an admin. is hardly "moral leadership."

[NJmaverick]

56. What exactly is meant by choosing?

Does one wrong view or position make one a bigot? If so does that biogtry mean that person is incapable of any good?

[EFerrari]

63. Which one are you counting? His views on women? On Jews? On gays?

[NJmaverick]

72. Well I think the concept of the United States was a grand one

yet our nation was created by a bunch of white men that didn't believe women should be included in the political process and many owned slaves. So the idea that flawed thinking in some areas indicates that the person is worthless and incapable of a good thought or idea, seems to a mistaken one.

[EFerrari]

78. Your question was what makes a person a bigot, wasn't it?

[NJmaverick]

83. No it was questioning if people should be totally written off once someone slaps the "bigot" label

on them.

[EFerrari]

111. Okay. And how is that pertinent to this thread?

[NJmaverick]

139. The issue goes to the heart of the often heard phrase of "honoring a bigot"

[EFerrari]

143. No, it really doesn't. Warren is a bigot by any measure.

What you want to make of him beyond that is your philosophical interest.

It is an honor to share the stage with our new president. That's not hyperbole either.

[Miss Chybil]

167. I've always been curious about the logistics of being bigoted against bigots.

It seems a bit contortionistic.

[polichick]

68. In Warren's case, his disdain for gays and women makes him a bigot...

He disses well over half of the population and certainly doesn't belong in a place of honor on such a special day.

imo Obama's insensitivity and indifference (so far) calls his "moral leadership" into question. (Not that I would ever look to a politician or a minister for moral leadership.)

[NJmaverick]

82. How exactly does he "disdain" women?

Still getting back to the other points, the world is not a simple place. Ethical issues are constantly in conflict with one another. Difficult choices and sacrifices are the rule, rather than the exception.

This issue is a classic case of difficult choices.

Obama's choices were to include the other side of the political/religious spectrum for the sake of national unity, which has the negative affect of hurting the feelings of the LBGT community

OR

Obama chooses only liberals to pray (remember there is already one liberal minster involved) and perpetuates the us vs them and the government is only for the winners mentality that was a major flaw of the Bush regime. This choice would have spared any hurt feelings (at least on this issue, with the politics of outrage it's likely something else could or would do the same thing).

[EFerrari]

129. He disdains women by disallowing them from positions of leadership

in his organization. That's not very complicated.

[NJmaverick]

140. How many "positions of leadership" are there?

Is this a written or verbalized policy?

[EFerrari]

144. It's immaterial how many such positions there are. And if you search

womens submission Rick Warren, you'll get a bunch of material.

[NJmaverick]

145. It does matter to me, because I try to base my positions and opinions on the facts

[EFerrari]

146. Fair enough. The leadership roster should be posted to Warren's site, no?

You might look there.

edit: lol! even Warren probably doesn't have a leadership "rooster". :)

[NJmaverick]

153. You never know, he might have a few fowl in there

I looked over the website and the only leader I could find was him.

[EFerrari]

156. I can't find one either. I do find a page "for the pastor's wife", though:

http://www.saddlebackresources.com/en-US/Pastors/PastorsWife/ForthePastorsWife.htm

Welcome to 1955!

lol

[PeaceNikki]

161. He's anti-choice and anti-contraception.

And, as most organized religious leaders, he preaches that women in general are taught to be subservient to men.

[mondo joe]

75. Does capacity for good mean someone is not bigoted? Is that it now?

Who has no capacity to do good?

[NJmaverick]

84. The suggestion of many an argument, put forth on DU,

is that bigots are incapablle of good or reform.

[mondo joe]

87. I haven't seen such posts. But if that's the definition, since everyone has the

capacity (if not the proclivity) to do good, there would be no bigots at all.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

91. You know losing the labels, just might be a good and healthy thing

perhaps it would force people to address issues in a more honest fashion.

[EFerrari]

147. I have to disagree with that. Warren frames his bigotry as religious

and as conservatism. That's dishonest and naming the destructive bigotry he uses as a cash cow helps people to rethink the propaganda they are fed.

[polichick]

3. K&R - Sucking up to bullies and mean girls is always boneheaded...

But many here won't want to hear it.

[FrenchieCat]

4. You are so wrong in your analysis....

You state....Providing prominence and exposure to only one side of a debate, one that is dominating and suppressing its opponents and already glutted with power and influence, does not generate a dialogue.

an Invocation is not exposing the side of any debate...in fact, the debate has being had in the media and here at DU for the past week, and it is certainly not one sided, and if it is, it ain't the Warren side that's getting the most airplay. If anything, Warren has been put on the defensive, and dialogue is exactly what is coming of this, whether you like it or not.

I understand being victimized, but overplaying one's hand ain't gonna get you what you want.

[jpgray]

12. Warren hasn't received any exposure from this? Do you honestly believe it?

And if we must honor one side to upset the other in order to generate dialogue, why promote the bigoted side (which doesn't deserve or need promotion) to anger those who support equal rights (who need all the promotion they can get)? If we're going to stir up controversy by honoring an unapologetic leader from one side of the debate, why honor the bigot?

[FrenchieCat]

31. The points that you make are yours and not the absolute truth.....

Who is being honored is arguable. From your side you only see the other side.
Problem is the other side sees it in quite the opposite,
while other still see more than one way.

The dialogue being generated is not promoting the bigoted side more, as evidenced here
and even in the mass media.

You've already concluded that the move was done for the purpose of angering those who support equal rights....when in fact, it is those on the side of equal rights who have been promoted for the last few days.

Controversy stirred is not necessarily a negative from my view, as public dialogue is better than silence on any issue...especially if it isn't skewed toward the bigots....and to date, it hasn't been. In fact, this is a rare case when the Gay community has not been demonized in a story regarding their rights.

Anyways, that's my observation....as I want to make no claim of knowing the absolute truth,

[Balderdash]

42. Then why do so many want us to shut up?

If this were a black issue, say a radio personality said something racist on air, every progressive would be out in force demanding heads or jobs. If it were just silence that we are dealing with from some in our own party, that would be one thing but being told to sit down and shut up, something is really wrong with that picture.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Who has told you to sit down and Shut up......?

I'm still waiting to hear for a plan of action that goes beyond damning one man for his choice,
and how it hurts.

I'm waiting to hear what constructive steps are being planned to bring greater attention to the cause of equal rights for all, without exception.

[Balderdash]

58. Watch the news, we're all over it.

And exception? As long as any minority has less than, we all do.

[AntiFascist]

155. One very sad point is that YOU ARE NOT PROMOTING DIALOG...

you are telling us to remain silent, cheer Obama on, and let him do the talking from his already confessed biased point of view.

[merh]

5. Your OP is inaccurate.

Providing prominence and exposure to only one side of a debate, one that is dominating and suppressing its opponents and already glutted with power and influence, does not generate a dialogue.

You fail to take into account that Rev. Lowery shares the stage with Warren.

And you fail to realize that Warren praying for an Obama administration is Warren honoring Obama, not vice-a-versa. Obama is against the Marriage Amendments proposed by the likes of Warren. Lowery has spoken out against Warren's positions. Seems as though the stage is diverse and opposing views will be exposed.

[jpgray]

6. Lowery supports civil unions. In other words, the "compromise" position

So where is the inaccuracy? As I said above, we have one voice on the hateful bigot side of things, and on the other we have a softened bigotry. Nowhere to be found is unapologetic support for equal rights.

[merh]

14. I disagree.

From a religious man's standpoint, Lowery favors civil unions. He also supports civil rights for all. I believe he does make the distinction. Even though he supports civil unions, he does not support laws that discriminate and that deny the rights guaranteed by our constitution.

"When you talk about the law discriminating—the law granting a privilege here, and denying it there—that’s a civil rights issue. And I can’t take it away from anybody."

What you have done is co-mingle religion with legal views which is exactly why I have issues with prayers at national events such as this.

[FrenchieCat]

16. For some, it is better to keep it narrow and absolute......

because taking a broader view might injure the case being made
and disturb the intensity of the outrage which can be fueled up
by ignoring proportion and context or other slants.
At some point maintaining the outrage becomes the goal,
rather than coming up with strategies and approaches to solve the bigger issues raised
via meaningful action and tactics.

[jpgray]

19. Show me the gray area on human rights, if you would

Which protections under the law should I be able to freely deny you by a majority vote?

[FrenchieCat]

33. As my statement had nothing to do with your current question,

my only answer can only be that there is no gray area.....and I haven't mentioned any. That we all have to be protected under the law, and I have never believed otherwise.

In otherwords, you are putting point in my mouth that I did not make.

[jpgray]

36. Your statement has everything to do with it. "Narrow and absolute," you said

Human rights are exactly that. There is either equal protection, or there is not.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Human Rights should be broadened, not narrowed

in my view....

and in my mentioning those speaking in absolute, I was referring to how you have chosen to interpret
your observations as gospel without room for alternative takes.....
I was not using "absolute" as a question to whether there should be absolutely equal rights for all, because there is no question that absolutely there should be equal rights for all.

Twisting the words of others in order to make a point is not a worthy goal.
I must ask that you please not engage in it using my words.

[bettyellen]

69. but you just said they should compromise on human rights... you make zero sense here.

none.

[merh]

22. I have yet to see any call for action.

If there was an effort made to formally protest Warren, the majority of DU would be behind it but there has been no "organization" that I have seen or read about.

Heck, providing the address to the transition office and the names of the members of the transition team that are GLBT advocates would be helpful. Encouraging a snail mail campaign or post card campaign with Warren's name crossed through, like a no-smoking sign.

Something positive, some steps to take rather than falsely accusing others that they don't care about civil rights.

[bettyellen]

65. i have seen plenty.... but go ahead and call teh gays too lazy to deal with their shit.

lovely attitude... if only they weren;t so loud- or so lazy- then you'd support them!! fucking hilarious.

[merh]

74. I am not calling them lazy, I am asking what calls have been made.

Do you have a link to the threads?

It would appear that it is you with the attitude as reflected by your post. You have attacked me and tried to put words in my post that are not there when I merely posted an observation, my own observation (though others have voiced similar concerns). It also appears that you are not reading what I wrote, I am encouraging the loudness and I am encouraging real protests, formal organized efforts.

In other words, it is you that is "fucking hilarious".

[bettyellen]

102. you want to vet people's efforts and tell them how to behave- that much is crystal clear.

and it is still patronising bullshit.

[EFerrari]

77. I don't have the link but people were asked to mail the transition team

and also, the congressional committee that arranges the inaugural. The Democrats on that committee are Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Boehner, Hoyer and Bob Bennett. They don't have an email addy to mail the Committee directly (that I can find, anyway).

Also,another action is to donate to a gay rights group on Inaugural Day itself.

grantcart had a thread here yesterday asking for more ideas because a lot of us can't donate right now.

[merh]

86. Oh please.

Have you forgotten what can be done when DU puts their mind to it. We raised thousands for dying friend because you took the lead and you kept the efforts alive.

Hell, we raised money to send flowers to those who support the liberal messages.

What you have referenced are meek efforts, there is no call to do, no structured activism. You cannot find the threads? Guess there was no effort at keeping them kicked and alive.

Hell, last Sunday a whole 15 people showed up to protest Warren's church (thank you Kitchen Witch).

Load the transition office up with postcards with an image of Warren's name stricken from the lineup.

Send shoes to the transition office with the name "warren" written all over them.

You had people send phone books out for pete's sake.

Giving on inauguration day, that's good but what does it say publicly? Who will know but the organizations that are the benefactors of the funds? How about organizing the inauguration events to include everyone opposed to Warren standing up and turning their back on him.

I'm not asking you to lead, you have done your part. I'm asking that instead of lecturing others on civil rights there needs to be a call for organized action. Begin it at DU and spread it across the web to all progressive sites.

I resent like hell being told that I don't care about the rights of others because I dare to challenge the absolutes of a few and I know others do to.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

109. I think that's a good idea. I'm sure we'd all like to be working on something like that

more than on bickering with each other. lol

[merh]

114. It appears it is just easier to attack on a message board

than to actually organize.

Andy would be organizing. I do miss him.

[bettyellen]

118. Andy wouldn;t listen to people telling him to shut up unless they did XY and Z.

no one is here to fulfill your expectations,not everyone here runs to brag post about what they do ... you (and dozens of other DUers) need to get the fuck over that notion.

[merh]

126. I haven't told anyone to shut up

I haven't called anyone lazy.

You continue to try to put words in my posts that are not there and you think it clever.

It isn't.

Now I will tell someone to shut up, I will tell you to shut up because your attacks on me are wrong and misdirected. Go take your anger about Warren out on Warren and Obama. Do something besides mouth off here.

And now, in addition to telling you to shut up, I will put you on ignore, thus I don't have to read your nonsense any more. Rant and cuss away - be free in your rage and anger - who am I to take that from you.

[bettyellen]

133. you have no clue what anyone here does outside the threads but insist if they post...

they mustn't be doing anything else. not all of us are as clueless as you claim to be when it comes to actually finding opportunities to make a difference or doing something on their own. i gather you think everyone should come here to brag about their efforts and THEN according to YOU they earn the right to speak. Patronising clueless bullshit yet again.

[EFerrari]

124. Me, too.

:hug:

I didn't want to suggest anything I can't take on myself, but we could also be raising money for Planned Parenthood - they're always getting attacked by the nutcases and Warren sure is awful on women and choice, too.

[merh]

131. Like I said, I don't expect you to take on anything. You have

done so much, you have put in your time and gone through the hell - it is time for others to step up and put their words into action. It is time for others that are so damned concerned about this to do more than cuss and rant and scream. If they have that much energy, they can rant, cuss and scream and organize.

If an effort is formed, I will participate, will keep the threads kicked and will - I think an avalanche of snail mail to the transition office would garner some attention.

There needs to be one message - "civil rights for all" with maybe warren's photo with the red slash through it or his name crossed off the inauguration list.

No my friend, you have done your share and you need to take time for you - if you don't think you can do it then you shouldn't. People don't realize all that is involved, all the effort it takes. Or, maybe they do and that is why they settle for raging on a message board.

take good care - here's hoping Andy sends some inspiration to someone. :hug:

[EFerrari]

135. It's time to get off of the couch again.

And, consider yourself drafted!

lol

:party:

:grouphug:

[merh]

138. Why draft me

I'm a fucking patronizing bigot.

You do have my permission to wipe your feet on me, it's the least I can do given my daring to question anyone about anything.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

136. LOL!! "to do more than cuss and rant and scream. " what makes you think they are not?

what a fucked up assumption. maybe you don't do jack shit unless you can do it for an audience.. but speak for yourself .. please- get over this sitting in judgement, shushing people like an old biddy. really now.

[EFerrari]

141. It wouldn't be a bad thing if one result of this thread was an action

DU could share instead of just building up more acrimony.

[bettyellen]

148. but this "shut up and do something" is just more STFU with a new excuse attached

for saying it. i'm calling bullshit- who the hell is she to give you a pass and point fingers at everyone else? what a load of crap, sorry sfexpat, it;s just window dressing on STFU.

[EFerrari]

150. I think you're misreading merh.

She's saying, let's get to work, not "go away". And, I agree with that.

[bettyellen]

151. no, she's asking people to put up or shut up and you know what?

it's not for anyone to prove anything to her. that's just more patronising bullshit.
i know you passed her smell test, but really who the hell does she think she is? no one has anything to prove to her, no hoops to jump through in order to post here.

[ruggerson]

128. I'm on board

[EFerrari]

132. Good. Whaddabout, I work on an OP to post after dinner, about 7 PST?

I'll provide donation info for Planned Parenthood and say, HRC. If there's anyone who'd like to suggest a different org, they can PM me. Imho, though, we should keep it to only two for impact even though there are many orgs that need and deserve help.

?

:hi:

[bettyellen]

164. i see teh gays aren't all organized and on the ball immediately this xmas week...

so they shouldn;t lecture or call the need for civil rights an absolute.
interesting peek into your mindset, right there.

[Balderdash]

60. Here's an example of telling us to shut up. nt

[bettyellen]

123. in a very condesnding manner to boot. did she use the word "hysterical: this time?

[EFerrari]

67. Being flexible with the rights of others is not generosity, Frenchie Cat.

What is the correct proportion of discrimination people should be willing to endure, in your opinion? Hmmm?

[bettyellen]

73. she seems to be in favor or broad but shallow human rights....

the kind that straight people can feel good about "bestowing" on others.

[FrenchieCat]

89. You have taken the liberty to "interpret" my words, i.e., twist them

something that could be considered as harmful in discourse as telling someone to STFU and sit down.

Skinner like me thought that there were reasonable views that didn't have to be totally exactly similar in every way, without folks questioning the integrity of others on the subject of equal rights. Guess we were totally wrong and you were absolutely right.

I'm gonna sit down and shut up now, since my view is not exactly 100% the same as yours in every single way there is on this.

[bettyellen]

100. good because you didn't have much a point there with that "broad" nonsense

[FrenchieCat]

104. You are my master, and I am your servant......

O' mighty righteous one!

[bettyellen]

108. i'd say JP's the master , but thanks!

sorry, but your posts on this subject have made very little sense- your arguments ae totally contorted and all over the map.... A ain't following your B.

[bettyellen]

nope, it's Obama chossing to give hate filled Warren ANOTHER stage.

Warren is winning influence with this one...maybe he will feel endebtted maybe not. but he;s getting an honor he doesn;t deserve.

[merh]

93. It is the GLBT community that has give Warren the mic`

long before he has even taken the stage.

Instead of championing Lowery as a civil rights advocate, instead of focusing on his participation, this is all about Warren.

Can you tell me what the events are for inauguration day?

And while you google that, can you tell me who gave the invocation at Carter's or Clinton's inauguration? How about Kennedy's, Nixon's, Johnson's and the Bushs'?

What impact did they have, what mood did they set - how was policy affected?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[LostinVA]

134. I cannot fucking believe you just blamed the GLBT community and their advocates for this

[bettyellen]

137. well yeah these ranting and raving hysterics aren;t real activists!

i think there;s a bit of projecting going on here. someone can;t belive you can actually do both.

[merh]

142. They share responsibility.

You have made him more than he is.

Seriously, Billy Graham was against gays, I'm pretty sure he gave the prayer for Clinton at both inaugurations - he was against pro-choice and a host of other progressive goals. (hell, I don't know, I don't pay heed to the stupid invocations at any event)

Did you rage against him? Do you even know what he had to say, what anyone had to say during the invocations?

Warren is known, he was known before Obama named him. Shining the light on him, making the inauguration about him, just gave the MSM cause to invite him to address the uproar. You put the mic in his hand long before he took the stage.

Now what are you going to do about it? Continue to be outraged by pixels on a screen?

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[Captain Hilts]

101. It's a big stage Obama's giving this hate monger. nt

[bettyellen]

121. and it;s perfectly right to be angered or upset by that.

[cali]

8. Yep. Inviting Warren was wrong.

No matter what the result is, the act of inviting Warren to give the invocation was wrong.

[BeFree]

9. Take me to your leader.

Good thoughts, jp.

So, who is the leader that we can all get behind? It is the way the system works: follow the leader.

Now, Obama did say "Make me do it". So, if we can make him, he will lead.
I have my doubts that we can coalesce and become a large enough unified
voice to make him do it, but it is damn well worth a try.

[mondo joe]

10. Follow the principle. Not the leader. NT

[BeFree]

23. No leader?

Well, then the way the system works, you will be crushed. Because without unity there is no successful movement. That's the way it is.

MLK was the leader for Black civil rights.
That is a pretty fine example, eh?

[mondo joe]

29. The leader has to follow the principle too. Leaders are human, and humans are

flawed. Stick to the principle.

MLK, incidentally was A leader, not THE leader. Don't forget Malcolm.

[BeFree]

59. Good advice

Now if the GLBT movement could follow that: Stick to the principle and love everyone and anyone, and find in their hearts an acceptable tolerance for everyone, I predict it will be very successful.

[mondo joe]

64. I don't know why you think love is the principle.

It's not mine.

Love is personal.

Equal rights for all is the principle.

But if you want to tolerate bigotry, be my guest - there's a bunch of NeoNazis and KKK members you can start with.

[BeFree]

79. To have it

One must give it. Love and rights.

It seems you are blaming me for your lack of rights. This may be news to you: I think you should have all the same rights.

So why attack me?

Are you so perfect that you have NO bigotry? Not one shred of bigotry? If you do have any bigotry, then you should be attacking yourself, for you are tolerating bigotry in your own heart.

[mondo joe]

80. Love is a personal matter, not a legislative one.

The principle I stand behind is equal rights for all. Your love is your own business.

[BeFree]

81. Have you no Bigotry?

[mondo joe]

85. If you have some you'd like to discuss, please do.

[BeFree]

92. That's a copout

You rail against bigotry, but you know, like everyone else does, you hold bigotry close.
And you are having a hard time admitting you have some bigotry.

Is that a principle of yours?

[mondo joe]

94. Are you saying everyone is a bigot?

If so, then we are all bigots.

Now what?

[BeFree]

99. So, you admit it? You have some bigotry?

I don't care about others right now, just you.

[mondo joe]

103. I don't know. Why don't you help me by pointing it out?

[BeFree]

105. You don't know?

If you don't know, how can you call others out for it?

[mondo joe]

107. I can only address what I know, not what I don't. If you are aware of some bigotry of

mine, please share it so I can address it.

[BeFree]

110. It would be awful for me to

...call you out about something neither I nor you know anything about you.

That would go against my principles.

[mondo joe]

112. It would be awful to help someone improve themselves? How very sad. NT

[BeFree]

113. Some people you can help

Others you can't. I have found that the best help is given to those who first admit they have a problem then ask, sincerely, for help.

Do you have a problem?

[mondo joe]

115. But I've asked you, repeatedly for your help. It's against your principles.

Too bad.

[BeFree]

116. Help you with what?

Ya know, I really am enjoying this little chat.

[mondo joe]

117. With what you believe to be my bigotry. I've asked you to help me see it.

But if it's against your principles, then it's against them.

[BeFree]

119. Well

You did admit that you hold some bigotry, so here's my help.

Try not to blame others for your problems. It really is ugly. People don't like it when others, to use a cliche, call the kettle black.

Besides them, you will feel better in the morning.

[mondo joe]

122. Actually, I didn't admit anything. Nor did I deny it.

You are confused about that.

But if you think I have expressed bigotry, I've asked you to point it out so I can address it.

Thanks anyway.

[BeFree]

125. You are right

You never did confess.

But you can still have my help to better yourself: Here's some help given me a long time ago that has really helped me, glad to pass it on.

All you need is love. Love is all you need.

[mondo joe]

127. Everyone who seeks to disenfrachise others loves. NT

[BeFree]

130. Mele Kalikimaka, mondo

It has been fun, but I've got to be going to help some other folks.

I can get back to you later, maybe. Until then, ponder our little chat and please, don't just piss on my help you asked for.

BeFree. or suffer

[jonnyblitz]

17. not all of us are followers looking for a leader.

I think that is the difference between many of us and those of you Obama supporters who won't budge on this issue. it's about personality not principles to many of you. any principle disagreements (if you even have any principles) you will rationalize and spin away because it's all about shilling for whomever it is you follow, no matter what. your post speaks VOLUMES.

[BeFree]

26. Well

I damn sure wouldn't follow you, jonny, that's fer sure.

"...you Obama supporters"? Like I am supposed to be ashamed of that?

And we aren't budging? Are you reading the same DU as me? I've never seen so much support for Gay rights as I am seeing today. But, I guarantee you, you have nothing to do with that.

[Balderdash]

88. I've not seen a single post of yours that would qualify as

supportive of gays. I'm not calling you a name but you're not being supportive.
Unless supportive actually means something complete;y different on DU than it does
everywhere else.

[BeFree]

96. Well

You haven't been following me around then.

Go ahead, search me out, see if you can find one post that clearly finds me not supporting GLBT rights.

I think there's one in this thread showing support.

And then you can come back here and tell everybody.

[bettyellen]

120. it;s about the pretty package- and the inaugural is like Cinderella's Ball for these people.

i wish he would pop out of a crystal pumpkin, but i'm wise enough to know it ainlt going to happen.

*hug*

[rainy]

11. The thing is, progressives can't get their voices heard when they stand around

and preach righteousness. No one listens or gives them air time. They are dismissed and ridiculed. Year in and year out progressives have tried to be heard but nothing works because of the powerful main stream media and bigots all around us.

Obama knows that by standing tall and preaching he will not be heard. Those who already don't want to hear will not listen. But by bring in a bigot to the flock he can allow that bigot to show us how ugly he really is. That way his ugliness will be rejected. With everyone talking about Warren and his views it is no longer us progressives preaching or Obama trying to convince the bigoted to repent. Now the bigot exposes himself. Did you see that youtube of Warren that Rachel Madow was airing last night?

[jonnyblitz]

18. oh please, you really think Obama chose this guy to expose his

ugliness? that is the craziest spin I have heard yet.

[wryter2000]

13. And let me just add

That portraying fundamentalist Christianity as the prominent religion in this country is not change.

[polichick]

15. True dat!

[truedelphi]

47. Thank you. One of my hopes for the O administration was

That we could reclaim the Flag of our coutnry, and also the god and goddess sphere

How fabulous if he had chosen Carolyn Casey instead!!

[truedelphi]

48. Self deleting my dupe. /nt

[glitch]

20. K & R for an excellent post. Hopefully more people will read it and understand it.

But it seems after 8 years of atrocious people are happy with mediocre. While it is a change for the better it is certainly not promising to be "Great". Not to me.

[ProSense]

21. "Pandering is courage? " "Defend Obama all you wish"

Everyone knew what Obama's position was before this situation arose, before the general election, before the primary. In fact, it was the position of every Democratic candidate, except Kucinich. So it's not new. Warren's choice is a slap in the face to many people on many levels, but it isn't the first time Obama appeared with Warren. In fact, all the Democrats coddled him, Hillary in person, in 2007. Warren wasn't a different person then.

The Saddleback forum during the campaign was also a high-profile appearance. Appearing with Warren isn't a surprise. What I object to is giving him this symbolic platform at this inaurguration. It is becoming clear that Obama is set in his decision.

Hillary is one of the biggest panderers. Yet some of the very people who are claiming that Obama is a coward have never shied away from calling her courageous in the act of pandering.

[jpgray]

24. Every single candidate engaged in some form of similar pandering--this is true

It doesn't, however, make me despise the practice any less.

[ProSense]

35. You can despise it, but again

Obama's position was known and hasn't changed.

[Bjorn Against]

61. And that means we should be happy with it?

Maybe his position hasn't changed but it SHOULD change, and people should hold his feet to the fire and slam him mercilessly on this issue until it does. Just because he has held this position for a long time does not make it any more justifiable.

[saracat]

62. Obama even writes about him in laudatory terms in his book. Hillary makes a campaign appreance and

co consider it an apt comparison to a place of honor at a national event? Jeez. And Hillary wasn't asking him to pray hin our names and that is exactly what Warren will be doing when he gives the invocation.Yeah, I know to you its just a 2 minute prayer and if it truly isn't that big a deal why don't they just uninvite him if it isn't an important honor for a pastor?

[ProSense]

76. Yeah, but you can justify Hillary making an appearance with this horribly evil man. n/t

[saracat]

157. I would agree she shouldn't have and I do NOT justify it. I just said there wasn't a comparison.

She wasn't publicly "honoring him". But that being said none of our folks should have anything to do with him anymore than they should appear at Bob Jones University which some have.

[Jim Sagle]

166. It's dismaying to see those pictures.

Yet my sense is that Clinton wouldn't invite Warren to the inaugural. But since the primaries are over, we'll never know.

[Happyhippychick]

25. Anyone remember when Jesse Jackson referred to NY as "hymietown"?

I do. And I am well aware that Jesse Jackson was the spiritual guide for the Clintons.

And you know what? I'm Jewish, it was offensive because obviously it meant that the spiritual leader for the President is an active anti-semite, and I was still a large fan of the Clintons. I didn't agree with their choice in spiritual leader but when it came down to it, having an anti-semite with the President's ear was not something that I was happy about but it also did not fundamentally affect my life other than to give me an outlet to declare my moral outrage. And Jesse Jackson's prominence in the Clinton administration far outweighs anything that Rick Warren will have with Obama.

You don't have to believe that there are many of us, millions of us, who aren't happy with Obama's choice of Rick Warren but still will not condemn the man based on one choice. And that doesn't mean that we are closet bigots who don't agree with same-sex marriage and who don't have a personal connection to having same-sex marriage become a reality for all. But your refusal to believe it doesn't change the fact that it's true. I will not condemn this great man based on this decision even though I vehemently disagree with it.

[jpgray]

32. This thread isn't intended to represent an eternal condemnation of Obama

It's meant to argue that his selection of Warren was not particularly courageous, noble, or otherwise laudable. Again, people can and will defend the decision, but -praising- it--painting it as just, wise or brave--makes zero sense to me.

[Happyhippychick]

38. I definitely can't disagree with you on that point - I do NOT see it as noble or courageous.

I really think it was a bad choice. I agree that it makes zero sense to see it as heroic.

[LostinVA]

27. k& r -- thank you so much for this

[bridgit]

28. You forgot: Apathy is activism? Welcome to America 2008, where there are no more surprises...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8030918&mesg_id=8031142

[ecstatic]

30. We may not agree with Obama's pick, but to say he is pandering,

being a coward and/or honoring bigots is just wrong. He just sees things differently than we do (when it comes to working with people we disagree with). Why can't we disagree with him without assuming the worst about his motives?

[jpgray]

34. The courageous move would be to honor those he disagrees with who are persecuted

Those who are fighting bigotry and prejudice in order to support equal rights. Instead he honors the side he disagrees with that is established, wealthy and influential. The side that is actively engaging in persecution. If he must reach out to those who disagree with him, why reach out to those who neither need nor deserve such behavior?

[ecstatic]

41. I agree on that end--I can't see one benefit to picking Warren

Not one single benefit as both the left and the right hate the idea, and the middle wouldn't give a damn who was up there giving the invocation.

All I'm saying is that it is wrong to assume the worst about Obama's intentions or motives. I think Obama has been pretty straightforward with us about who he is and what he believes in. Let's take it at face value and not try to insert more to it than it really is--a wrong pick that was done in the spirit of engaging people we disagree with but who we might have common ground with (AIDS, poverty, etc.).

[mondo joe]

43. Just one question: If a political figure you didn't like was being accused of pandering,

would you have a problem with it?

[ecstatic]

44. It depends on if there is a benefit

to the said pandering. If there is no benefit, then I would be less likely to think of it as pandering. Like when Bush attended Coretta Scott King's funeral...was that pandering? He had zero to gain from it. Obama has little or nothing to gain from having Warren give the invocation, and a lot to lose. So that's why I'm reluctant to call it pandering.

[mondo joe]

46. Respectfully, I don't think you answered my question.

I didn't ask if you thought it was pandering - you pretty clearly don't.

I could argue why I think it is beneficial to Obama, but I won't - for the moment anyway.

My question has more to do with what appears to be your stance that critics should not accuse Obama of pandering because you think his motives shouldn't be questioned.

I'm asking is it only his motives that shouldn't be questioned? Or would you say the same of any politician? Even one you didn't like?

[ecstatic]

66. I guess it's human nature to question the motives of people we don't like

But I do like Obama, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think Obama's heart is in the right place, and that he really does think of himself as a fierce advocate for gay rights--he obviously still has a long way to go before his actions match what's in his heart.

[mondo joe]

71. I'm going to take that as saying you wouldn't ask others to not judge the motives of

someone you didn't like.

We agree on your last sentence. :-)

[ecstatic]

90. I suppose that's common ground

In a weird way. lol

[truedelphi]

49. Very well said. Thank you for your wisdom. n/t

[polichick]

39. So we refuse to believe what our eyes are telling us??

[mondo joe]

40. I don't know why I shouldn't say it's pandering, if I truly believe it is.

This is a political discussion board. When has analysis of politics ever been the wrong thing?

[IndianaJones]

37. yes, here, pandering is courage. nt.

[paulk]

51. k&r

well said

[HEyHEY]

53. Pfff.... you and your principles.

[jpgray]

54. If you don't like them... well, I have others

:P

[mondo joe]

55. On DU I've now learned that opposing discrimination is bigotry, that civil rights

are just personal interests, and that us vs them is wrong (except when it's our candidate vs then, and then it's virtuous).

[cali]

95. that's a myopic view.

It's a sad thing when the minority view is inflated to appear greater and more meaningful than it is.

.

[mondo joe]

97. I don't wish to inflate it. But it is surprisingly to see in DU, even to the

degree that it is.

[Teaser]

165. Oh C'mon

this is a very diverse board on the freaking internet. The only thing that distinguishes DU from any other internet discussion board is that the median poster here is on the left and is a Democrat. There is a massive standard deviation of opinion centered around that median poster. You're gonna get every possible opinion on a topic here, eventually, and you're going to stumble across opinions that piss you off very frequently.

Just cause we're left of center, doesn't mean there is some broad consensus here.

[Evergreen Emerald]

57. Exactly.

Best post I have seen on the subject.

[Bjorn Against]

70. Great post jpgray.

You are absolutely right, and history will prove you correct so don't let the detractors get to you. In a few years they will all be denying that they ever took the positions that they are taking right now.

[LWolf]

152. Well said.

I can be courteous to those I don't agree with. I can agree to disagree, and work to find common ground.

That's not the same thing as inviting them to help do the work of the nation, or inviting them to speak for me in any way.

I would be happier if the people invited to the table were the non-judeo-christian, the left, the socialists, the pacifists, the independents and 3rd party members, the working class, the poor, the disenfranchised, the "fringe" who aren't already playing hardball on main street.

[AntiFascist]

154. K&R, very well said !

The fact that the most liberal representation we get can only support "separate but equal" status is but one, major reason why we should not remain silent.

[AlCzervik]

158. Nicely done.

:toast:

[KitchenWitch]

160. Didn't you get the memo - War is Peace

[boppers]

162. "hoedowns are sublime"? I disagree.

Jus' sayin'.

:P

[ThomCat]

163. Yes, Again, I love your post for it's intelligent and thorough understanding.

You clearly know why we're upset, and why we refuse to accept this as "Obama playing chess."

Obama isn't playing some larger game that we can't understand. Or if he is, he's using us only as sacrificial pawns towards electoral gains. He's not playing some deep strategy to help us. Clearly, he doesn't have a well developed understanding of our community, or a well developed strategy or even concern for helping us.