The Warren invocation isn't really an issue about which "reasonable people can disagree"

[jpgray]

It simply isn't. This is an abomination. This is toadying up to rich, powerful entrenched interests under a shameful, misdirecting guise of "pluralism" and "accommodation." Groups which vigorously defend hateful beliefs supported by the ignorance and bigotry of their followers should not receive freely any additional power, prominence or privilege from those who ostensibly disagree with those beliefs. There's simply no way the potential benefits outweigh the damage. It's just a prayer? It's just pageantry? Of course, but that shit matters. It provides Warren with a wider audience and greater "respectability," when he deserves neither of these things.

Can a dialogue be struck up with prominent people who hold hateful beliefs? Sure. You can't limit yourself entirely to people who agree fully with you on everything if you wish to get things done. While one can work with such disagreeable people on discrete issues, one should not by choice increase the potential impact of anyone who represents and supports hateful views. Women as lesser beings? Attempting to destroy the extant gay marriages in CA? Work with this guy on getting evangelicals to care about the environment, sure, but make him a fundamental symbol of your administration's beginning? Provide him with free press, free honors, free cultural impact? No. There is no way that the few infinitesimal inroads into the religious conservative movement such a "reaching out" represents are worth promoting this shithead to such a degree.

If you do disagree, I have a few questions. What do we (or Obama's policies) potentially gain by the choice of Warren? Do you see him as deserving of being part of the inauguration? Do the potential benefits outweigh the insult to those who believe in human rights and equality, in your view? Do you think it's generally a good idea to accommodate and reach out to the already rich, prominent and powerful who hold hateful views, or might there be others more deserving of a little push to prominence?

It's not a question of asking for Warren to be publicly derided by all at every opportunity. I don't expect that. What I condemn is Warren being publicly -promoted- at any significant event by any ostensible progressive. There's no good reason for it.

[flvegan]

1. nom nom

:popcorn:

[marylanddem]

2. Absolutely right.

[skooooo]

3. I don't like the fact that Obama picked him to speak.

But I don't think it's a sign that Warren will affect policy.

[mitchtv]

22. te policy is already in effect

since Donnie McClukin (kick a Gay for Christ)

[Skittles]

43. you truly are naive

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. K&R

[leftstreet]

5. Obama is a Rock Star. Warren is getting an endorsement from a Rock Star

This sucks.

[Captain Hilts]

23. This is the biggest TV event since JPII's funeral, and we're giving him the stage...nt

[HEyHEY]

6. Exactly, this could be the begining of the democratic party being co-opted by the fundies

The way they did in the republican party. And DUers who give a fuck should not tolerate it, no matter how much money they make from donations.

[The Magistrate]

7. For What It Is Worth, Sir, That Is Not The View Expressed Here

In case you have not seen this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4689492&mesg_id=4689492

[HEyHEY]

11. I respectfully disagree

[The Magistrate]

14. Nothing To Argue With Me About, Sir

Merely endeavoring to be sure people are acquainted with the policy that is guiding enforcement of the rules where this matter is concerned.

[HEyHEY]

25. You wanna take this outside, scumbag!?

;-)

I know, I know, you guys must be swamped in the mod forum right now.

[The Magistrate]

29. Feeling Frisky, Are You, Sir?

Know you deal with a Master of Tou Bai For....

[madmadmad]

28. UNFORTUNATELY, HUNDREDS OF POSTS ARE EXPRESSING EXACTLY THAT VIEW.

THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE SUPPORTING A BIGOT TO BE GIVEN A NATIONAL FORUM IS ASTOUNDING. WHY DO WE WANT HATE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEXT 4 YEARS? WHY WOULD WE GIVE THE FUNDIE NUTS A PLATFORM IN FRONT OF MILLIONS? BECAUSE BY THIS CHOICE, *HATRED* IS BEING SUPPORTED. AND I AM NOT.

[jpgray]

33. That's reasonable enough, but I still disagree

Even if you see this as a "reaching out" and a noble attempt to heal divides, to start a dialogue about our disagreements, this is exactly the wrong way to do it. Why? Because Rick Warren already -has- power, influence, and represents the establishment point of view. If you want to promote "dialogue," why promote the ascendant, conservative viewpoint that everyone is hit over the head with on a daily basis? Being all around us, and upheld by already powerful groups, it needs no extra promotion whatsoever. The majority that voted for prop 8 in CA already understands Warren's position on the issue very well--do they understand the GLBT position equally well? I doubt it. Creating a dialogue and "healing the divides" would require getting that view out there--replacing the ignorance and derision that so often accompanies it with understanding. That's where the prominence and respectability of the inauguration could promote a true dialogue about our disagreements, rather than raising the already ascendant view to an even higher level of currency and respectability.

Giving higher stature to Warren in any way makes no sense to me. He doesn't need the help getting his views out there. GLBT folks, women and others persecuted by religious beliefs need all the help they can get.

[KG]

8. quite so.

[kenny blankenship]

9. You speak truth to moral cowardice, and I thank you for it.

[Kermitt Gribble]

10. Rec'd. Well said! n/t

[pnorman]

12. I CAN'T WAIT TILL JANUARY 21th ROLLS AROUND!

n/t

pnorman

[ulysses]

13. well put, my friend.

Well put.

[liberalmuse]

15. What can I say? Beauty. K&R! n/t

[Marrah_G]

16. Absolutely right on the money

Obama could have chosen anyone. He chose to legitimize a hate monger.

I will not be watching the inauguration.

He took what should have been a joy-filled historic day and turned it into something entirely different.

Hope and change? really? I don't think so.

I see yet another politician who is fine with pandering to hate leaders as long as he isn't part of the group they hate.

If this were a racist hate leader you bet your ass he wouldn't be given a position of honor on that stage.

[jpgray]

37. You know what I think it is? People don't really hold strong beliefs on human rights

They say they do. They like the sound of the words, right? But really what happens when it comes down to a controversy like this is that they go around looking for someone, anyone, to show them how far to go in respecting human rights. So on a case by case basis you will get very different reactions, depending on where the establishment's at. Gay marriage is therefore "uncomfortable," although there is no valid reason for it to be any more "uncomfortable" than straight marriage if you believe in human rights. Yet you will see so many people who blithely express both their discomfort with gay marriage and their strong support for equal rights, often in the same fucking sentence.

[makinguphumans]

17. Warren does NOT deserve this national honor and Obama was wrong to pick him. It

is a slap in the face to all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. It was a slap in the face and a very divisive move on Obama's part.

[Bucky]

19. I know several reasonable people who I disagree with on this issue.

see post below this

[jpgray]

35. But I don't hear any reasoning. I hear excuses. Rationalizations.

There is no reason to promote the already ascendant, conservative, establishment viewpoint. It already reaches too many people, it already is backed by too much money, it already has too much prominence. Why give it more? What are the benefits? How do they outweigh the monumental insult to human rights?

[stray cat]

20. Like Bush always says- you are either for us or for the terrorists

:sarcasm:

[jpgray]

34. Would you answer my questions? I'd like to understand your view on this better

If not that's fine--no "answer my questions or I'm right and you're wrong!" internet debate tactic here. Just really curious. I don't see any plus side to this at all. It is wholly bad. That it is less bad than if it were a -more- prominent promotion of Warren seems mostly a rhetorical quibble to me.

[Bucky]

21. Disagreeing over the Warren invocation is an issue reasonable people can disagree about

I cannot agree with the statement that people cannot disagree over this topic. I'm not trying to sound like I'm playing word games here. But you sure are trying to sound like a dictator.

[jpgray]

36. It's only my opinion, but there is no good reason to give Warren this platform. None.

What are the good reasons, in your view?

[PerpetuallyDazed]

45. Maybe my pragmatism is showing...

but the fundies who follow this guy are likely already homophobic and don't believe in gay marriage. However, (and I think this has been lost in the debate) it's not ALL about the gay marriage to them... Warren speaks to Obama's other causes that involve charity work & environmental awareness. Not all religious folk are one dimensional, you know?

For everyone else: Warren's that pastor who hosted that religious forum and has a book, right?

[tomp]

40. people can disagree, but one side is not reasonable. nt

[enigmatic]

24. I agree

Completely.

[JVS]

26. The level of reaction is certainly an issue about which "reasonable people can disagree"

I think Waren is a terrible choice, but the I believe the vitriolic denunciations of Obama and the party that some are posting here are over the top.

[tomp]

41. you can think that and say that...

...but you're wrong (and therefore, not reasonable.)

[madmadmad]

27. THANK YOU! VERY WELL PUT.

[mmonk]

30. You are correct. No good reason for it IMO though I know what he was

trying to do and it wasn't for malice.

[Toasterlad]

31. I Agree With You In Theory.

However, my real beef with the Warren issue isn't that some people think the pick is okay. It's that some people feel compelled to poo-poo MY (read: gay people's) outrage as ridiculous and/or excessive.

That said, I personally don't know how you could reconcile being okay with Warren with being a decent, empathetic human being.

[AntiFascist]

32. Obama wants the people to rise up...

we can start by loudly protesting what Warren stands for, which I agree is a fake version of Christianity designed to ingratiate the powerful. Certainly, we can and should reach out to Evangelicals because they are the primary victims of this type of slime.

[ColbertWatcher]

38. If Obama is trying to inspire the targets of Warren's hate ...

... this is very different from how he has treated people before.

Having Warren deliver a prayer at a state function is unconstitutional, for one. And, given Warren's hatred toward women, gays and American law, it would seem to me that Obama inviting him is also disrespectful to women, gays and American law.

I've never seen Obama be disrespectful.

[AntiFascist]

39. Obama is probably delighted by the outrage...

because it makes him look all that much better in the eyes of the Warren evangelicals.

[Skittles]

42. damn straight

pardon the pun

[1776Forever]

44. Yes - This is not "just" about gay issues - Many more deeper issues with this man ...

Just posted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4694671&mesg_id=4695121

[kath]

46. Warren is a theocrat - if he and his Dominionist ilk had their way, our Constitution would be

abandoned and biblical law put in place. We're supposed to be "reasonable" and show "tolerance" of THAT belief system, which is antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for??

I. Don't. Think. So.

Want to see the return of stoning? A punishment for which GLBTs would be at the top of the list?

Invitation to a Stoning
Getting cozy with Theocrats http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

"The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics." Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law--the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get "scary." American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the "dispensationalist" view, as it's called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown.

So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians."

See this recent article about Warren, by someone who is a survivor of a coercive Dominionist group and knows a whole lot about them. Their tentacles are everywhere:
Rick Warren's Dirty Dominionist Secrets http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/18/2226748-rick-warrens-dirty-dominionist-secrets