MyDD :: So Much For Tolerance, Respect And Inclusion, I Guess

So Much For Tolerance, Respect And Inclusion, I Guess

by Todd Beeton, Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:03:03 PM EST

Yesterday Barack Obama responded to the controversy surrounding his choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration:

Obama replied, "let me start by talking about my own views. I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I contend -- intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about; that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we -- where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

"So Rick Warren has been invited to speak. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues, is also speaking. During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about. That's part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated. And so, you know, that's the spirit in which, you know, we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration. And that's, hopefully, going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration."

While he took the opportunity to make a strong statement of support for the LGBT community, Barack was clearly scolding the left, calling on us to be as inclusive and accepting of those whose views differ from our own as he is being.

Too bad he doesn't hold Rick Warren to the same standard.

John Aravosis finds this little tidbit from the Saddleback Church's website:

Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church, we hope they do! God's Word has the power to change our lives.

I'm sorry, why is Rick Warren accepted as anything but a hatemonger again?

Tags: rick warren, barack obama, saddleback church (all tags)

Permalink :: 104 Comments :: Post a Comment

Oh for crying out loud (2.00 / 4)

Obama doesn't really have any pull with Warren to scold him for not being inclusive. They are ideological opponents.

Conversely, Obama does have pull with us, and he's right that we have to start by being better than them, or we'll just slip into right vs. left gridlock again.

Here's how it works: We kill the right with kindness, they start having a harder and harder time justifying their teaching that gays are somehow sub-human, they continue to lose support until they start treating the opposition with respect. Once mutual respect is earned, progress can be made.

Does it suck that it falls to our side to be the catalyst for this? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that it needs to happen, and that if we don't do it, we're no better than them, because we didn't take an opportunity that could eventually achieve reconcilation (and resolution).

The false equivilency on this issue by our side is mind boggling.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST

I find that a naive approach (2.00 / 3)

Trying to kill your enemies with kindness is a great expenditure of energy that can be better spent cultivating people who are agnostic on an issue. That is where real change occurs. I would argue that the civil rights movement received attention because agnostic white Americans started to see images of hoses turned on people, lynchings, church bombings, etc. and were horrified. They created the popular groundswell in favor of civil rights. (Of course, it was the people on the front lines who are the real heroes, as they were the movement.) The people shooting, lynching, terrorizing black people in the country did not have their opinions changed. They were not receptive to that kind of change. The same is true with regard to gay rights. I don't know how old you are or what your experience has been, but I have encountered enough people in my life who hated me for being gay and with whom I tried to engage (during my youth) to know it is a waste of time.

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One does not preclude the other. (2.00 / 2)

You don't deal with the same people all the time. You can cultivate the "agnostic" while still treating your opponents with respect. That's what the Civil Rights movement was, or rather it's what the greatest heroes of the movement did.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One does not preclude the other. (2.00 / 4)

What would be disrespectful in not having invited Pastor Hatemonger in the first place? There are thousands of ministers who weren't invited. The disingenuous is all on the other side in defending this move, at least from my little ghetto anyway.

by Demo Dan in Dayton on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is why Obama won (2.00 / 2)

He understands that there are some allies you want, even if you don't agree with them on everything. Warren is nowhere near the "Pastor Hatemonger" that people are making him out to be this week; he's nowhere near the venom-spewer that, say, Falwell was.

Warren is a valuable ally in issues relating to poverty, AIDS fighting, and several other areas. He has influence with the politicians whose first instinct is to try and block anything that Obama does.

You may see it as Obama selling his soul. I see it as Obama saving our ass.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a difference (2.00 / 2)

between Obama involving Warren on those issues because they share common views and given him this very prominent, honorary position in the inauguration. I'm all for the former- build those bridges to make the country better, but am hurt and disappointed by the latter- especially after what just happened in California.

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're changing your tune (2.00 / 1)

You argued that the left should "kill the right with kindness" and put the onus on the left to change the views of right wing Christians. That goes far beyond treating people with respect. I treat all people with basic respect regardless of their views. You are asking for much more. I'd like you to show me how this principle of "killing with kindness" was implemented during the civil rights movement- in any meaningful way. From what I've read of the civil rights movement (and from my experience during the period as a child), I don't think there was any killing the KKK with kindness. Do you have other information?

I have no idea what your comment that you don't deal with the same people all of the time means. If you are saying you can't always limit yourself to those who are most susceptible to joining your cause or at least not standing in your way, I would disagree. There are always enough people who fall into this category to keep a movement busy. And once enough of them are won over, you don't need the bigots. I simply think you're being naive- although I am open to persuasion, if you can provide concrete examples of how and when your "killing with kindness" approach has worked.

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are going to read it however you choose (none / 0)

You have a different idea of resepct than I do, and that's fine, but I'm not seeing the need to explain again something you could easily understand if you had any desire to.

The meaning of my words is pretty clear, from what I've heard from other commenters. Feel free to mull them over. I think it's good that you're seeking answers.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently you cannot cite examples (none / 0)

You can only offer an (unproven) belief that we can win over our enemies with kindness. Heh

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apparently you cannot cite examples (2.00 / 1)

this is why I feel like this is really a debate between rightwingers and the left. They are argument unproven assertions and when asked to prove it, they change the subject, or their arguments and most of the time in nonsensical ways. Good luck getting a real link with factual proof from any of them.

by bruh3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're changing your tune (none / 0)

The KKK was killed through kindness. The leaders were never changed, and they were never targeted. But they lost because they were being the most irrationally hateful. Nobody is suggesting that you just have to be nice and hope everyone comes along for the ride, they're saying you have to be niceR than they are. You have to stop shoving the issue in people's faces and make them LIKE you.

I don't know if you noticed, but the civil rights issues took decades to reach the point they're at now, which still aren't all that great. Perhaps using that as a model isn't the best idea.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're changing your tune (2.00 / 1)

You don't dissolve a group like the anti-gay community, you unravel the haters thread by thread. It's slow, but necessary.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're changing your tune (none / 0)

You are devoid of history. Please link to something besides your self to prove your arguments. If you can't then make you should question whether factually whaty ou say is in actually the case. by the way, historically I can link to things proving my argument.

by bruh3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What do you mean by "shoving the issue (2.00 / 2)

in people's faces"? How does the LGBT community do that? Also, I don't believe you should ever strive to have the majority LIKE you. That's not what I fight for. I fight for my unalienable right to be treated equally. As far timing goes, gays and lesbians have been fighting for their rights for decades already, most openly for the past forty years. Finally, the KKK was not killed through kindness. It's still out there, as are other hate groups. They do not hold as much sway because societal views towards issues of race have changed dramatically over the past forty years. And they changed because rightminded people stopped putting up with racial bigotry. That is a position that Obama has declined to take with the selection of Warren.

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What do you mean by "shoving the issue (2.00 / 2)

They mean that they are uncomfortable with gay people.

Read between the lines of what people are saying here. When they say flaunting, they mean existing at all.

When they say pushing our issues, they mean gays did not just accept things like Prop 8 or other acts of discrimination against us.

These words are all Orwellian. They don't mean what they are suppose to mean. It's rationalization. We are the haters because we want to be left alone in our lives to live as we see fit without threat of bodily harm, to have the relationships with our partners we want, etc. The trick is to realize that the game is rationalization.

Seriously, reading some of the peopl ehre I don't believe they are what they say they are. They will say anything to try to spin the subject.

by bruh3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:07:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree wholeheartedly (none / 0)

I am really dismayed by the number of supposed progressives who rationalize this deicsion and, more disappointingly, anti-gay bigotry. They think we should shut up and wait and some day we will be treated equally. That status quo attitude is the antithesis of progressive ideals.

by orestes on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're changing your tune (2.00 / 1)

The KKK was killed through kindness. The leaders were never changed, and they were never targeted.

Well I suspect Morris Dees would beg to differ. His Southern Poverty Law Center has not been "kind" to white supremecist leaders. It has targeted them: sued them, put them out of business.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're changing your tune (none / 0)

But they were assisted by the KKK losing its credibility. That was not done through legislation or a supreme court case, it was done by making people understand their cause.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 01:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find that a naive approach (2.00 / 3)

"The people shooting, lynching, terrorizing black people in the country did not have their opinions changed."

They didn't?

Orval Fabus comes to mind, George Wallace too. You think Shirley Chilsohm was wrong for visiting Wallace in the hospital after he was shot?

There's a reason why people like Martin Luther King made progress in civil rights and Al Sharpton has not. It's their approaches.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find that a naive approach (2.00 / 1)

I'm not quite sure why those two race baiters would come to mind. Their conversions were highly overrated and highly political in nature. That being said, many of their constituents believed that they truly repented and forgave them. Those folks are certainly of higher moral fiber than me, I didn't and don't forgive them.

by Demo Dan in Dayton on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those conversions occurred (none / 0)

after the issue of equal rights for AAs was resolved by the government. The civil rights movement was not progressed (forgive the poor grammar) by their conversions. The poster stated his/her belief that gays will get equal rights by killing their opponents with kindness. That is not how the civil rights movement was successful. Furthermore, although King is a great icon of the movement, he did not exist on his own. The Black Panthers, Malcolm X, and radical groups added pressure through the threat of violence.

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those conversions occurred (none / 0)

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that the threat of violence was an asset for the civil rights movement.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm saying it had an impact (none / 0)

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A positive one? (none / 0)

I don't think it was a positive impact.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those conversions occurred (2.00 / 1)

"That is not how the civil rights movement was successful."

Yeah, it kinda was. It was that the other side responded with violence which brought the population to the side of the African-americans.

They presented themselves as human beings seeking to live in peace with their fellow man no matter what their opinions were. It was the racists who responded with anger and violence which made them look bad.

Most Americans are not on either side with it comes to LGBT rights. Many of Warren's followers are people who are on the fence. These are people we can win over from him. We won't do it trying to sideline a man they feel positively about DESPITE his social conservatism.

I made the comparison to Joel Osteen, who also believes homosexuality is a sin and has such as much, but that's not the core of his message.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please explain (none / 0)

The civil rights movement was successful because AAs stopped putting up with the violence, threats, mistreatment directed at them by society (particularly in the south). They did not "kill with kindness," they said they were not going to put up with it anymore. That is not killing with kindness. That is demanding to be treated equally. If you don't see that you either have little knowledge of the civil rights movement (I recommend the Taylor Branch books as a start) or have a need to try to romanticize the movement. Change does not come from killing your oppressors with kindness, it comes from demanding what is rightfully yours. America saw the face of segregation only because black Americans wouldn't leave the lunch counter, sit on the back of the bus, be denied the right to vote. Their actions exposed the bigotry of those who opposed them. The same should be done with the likes of Warren.

You make a number of sweeping statements- can you back them up? For example, how do you know many of Warren's followers are on the fence re LGBT rights? And if "most Americans are not on either side" re LGBT rights, why would Obama pick someone who is clearly opposed? I get the sense that LGBT rights issues are not important to you. That's your prerogative, but don't try to pass off your disinterest as the proper political course for gays and lesbians to take.

by orestes on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find that a naive approach (none / 0)

The agnostic are on the other side of the issue right now, hence why you have to reach out to them.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was my point (none / 0)

Warren is not agnostic. I read Dracomicron's comment to advocate killing the likes of Warren (ie, anti-gay bigots) with kindness. That I do not endorse as it's a waste of time. By all means, we should try to win over the agnostic, uncommitted, but not waste our time validating the bigots.

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To win them over (2.00 / 1)

you first have to acknowledge their existence and allow them into your realm of consciousness.

Obama is doing that by giving him a few seconds at his inaguaration. He did not ask Warren to share his opinions, he asked him to say a prayer. That's it.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoa (none / 0)

so now you're saying that Obama is doing us a favor by choosing Warren because he's making us aware that thei bigot exists? That is the most tortured logic I have heard in a long time. I know anti-gay bigots exist. Do you need Obama/Warren to tell you that? Furthermore, Warren is not speaking for a "few seconds." Your attempt to minimize the amount of time is silly. The problem is that Obama has bestowed an honorary position on an anti-gay bigot. Do you understand? Does it have to be spelled out further for you?

by orestes on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Much For Tolerance, Respect And Inclusion, (none / 0)

I don't really the conclusions of this post have much merit honestly. With any church there is a clear distinction between those who attend and the membership. To become a recognized member of a church just as with any other organization requires alignment with the churches goals and beliefs. In the next paragraph Saddleback declares that i enforces the same policy for same sex individuals having intimate relations out of wedlock. This policy does not necessarily equal hate or hatemongering. When a church goes further to declare the taking away of civil or state granted rights for LGBT individuals, we are entering into the real of hatred but this certainly is an innocent statement at worst.

by symphonyofdissent on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:18:27 PM EST

You are 100% right (2.00 / 1)

Todd - I totally agree with you. C'mon - there are thousands of pastors Obama could have chosen to speak. Rick Warren may not be as bad as, oh let's say, Pat Robertson. But why not choose a pastor or minister from a more "welcoming" church or ministry?

Why does Obama expect the left, or gay community to be the accepting ones? HELLOOOOOOO - WE are the minorities, we are the ones who have had OUR rights stripped away. And those rights were stripped away by the likes of Rick Warren.

This is Obama's opportunity to HELP and SUPPORT the gay community and show his supporters (that voted in favor of Prop 8)that he stands with us.

What's wrong with a tolerant preacher from a forward thinking all-inclusive church?

by nikkid on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST

you mean like (2.00 / 1)

Rev. Lowrey?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He did, goofball. (none / 0)

But why not choose a pastor or minister from a more "welcoming" church or ministry?

You mean Joseph Lowery?

Way to not even read Todd's diary.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He did, goofball. (2.00 / 2)

What is this, equal time no matter the merits of your views.

Lowery does not, by his inclusion in the ceremony, undo the harm / slight / insult / whatever / of the inclusion of Warren.

Warren's views = BAD / non progressive / non inclusive / intolerant

You can't change that fact by "balancing" him with someone who is a real progressive.

by sarany on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What? (2.00 / 1)

Do you mean, if I invited a creationist to teach biology at my local school, and also invited an evolutionist, they do not cancel each other out and create a more balanced education for the students? You're talking crazy talk! ;-)

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even that's sorta erroneous (2.00 / 1)

Neither Warren nor Lowrey are making a speech on homosexuality. They're saying a prayer.

This would be similar to banning a creationist from reading a poem at your school's graduation because you disagree with his or her views.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even that's sorta erroneous (2.00 / 1)

Good point. OK, how about inviting a neo-nazi holocaust denier and a jew to each read a poem (not about the holocaust!) at your school graduation. Would that be ok? balanced?

I am exaggerating a bit of course - Rick Warren is not as bad as a holocaust denier by a long, long way. I am just trying to point out the falsity of "balancing" Warren with Lowrey. There is no reason that Obama could not have a bigot-free sampling of clergy at his inauguration. He didn't pick Lowrey to "balance" Warren, any more than he picked Warren to "balance" Lowrey. The two invitations are separate, and Obama's defenders are only linking them to deflect criticism for his choosing Warren.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 12:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry (2.00 / 1)

but if being a progressive means silencing and isolating people because of their opinions (remember Warren is not giving a speech on homosexuality, he's saying a prayer), then I will gladly hand in my progressive credentials. I want no part of that.

If we sidelined everyone we disagree with, no one would be at the4 damn inaguaration.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hand them in (none / 0)

You don't appear to understand progressive values or human behavior. Those of us who oppose this choice are not silencing or isolating Warren. He has a huge church with a pulpit from which he can espouse his views every day of the week. And progressives would defend his right to do that. See, no bad behavior by progressives there. What we oppose is Obama giving this bigot an honorary position in his inauguration because he does not espouse the views of inclusiveness and equality for all Americans (some more progressive values for you). If you believe we should never make any judgments on human behavior, then I don't know where your moral compass is (or if you have one). How do you decide for yourself what is right and wrong or moral and immoral?

If you think it is not progressive to oppose this choice because even bigots have rights, then you really do not understand the progressive movement and I entreat you to get out of the way of those of us who are committed to it. Progressivism is not about having no values or taking the view that all things are always equal (bigots=Mother Theresa). Progressives believe that all people should be treated fairly and equally and that we all are responsible for our fellow citizens.

by orestes on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Much For Tolerance (none / 0)

I think I know why Obama did this - as a means of obtaining the conservative evangelical right's blessing on his presidency/administration via the symbolism of Rick Warren swearing him into office. I'm not offering this up as an excuse or rationalization, but rather just what my intuition senses is really at the bottom of it.

by phoenixdreamz on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST

Warren's not "Swearing him in" (2.00 / 2)

watch the wording because it came across as if he's going to be the one holding the bible.

My cousin told me Rachel Maddow teased her show today as "Anti-Gay Inaguaration"

That's disingenious in my opinion because it implies his inaguaration will revolve around an anti-gay message and that's not true.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maddow is NOT rational on this. (2.00 / 1)

I think she's awesome, but she is taking this way too personally.

Frankly, I don't blame her; she has a bigger stake in this than I do... but that doesn't change the fact that she's being knee-jerk reactionary on an issue where it's not helpful and frankly makes us just as bad as the other side.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just as bad as the other side (2.00 / 1)

to stand up for (and demand) human rights as opposed to taking away/denying human rights? That's absurd. Just because the right wing used political and media pressure, boycotts, etc. to achieve their repressive ends does not make those methods suspect. We should be just like them- they fight for what they believe in and we should do the same. For me, there is no soft pedaling when it comes to human rights.

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We should be just like them? (2.00 / 1)

No, I'm sorry, I don't want to be just like them. I have a soul.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Either you misunderstood my comment (none / 0)

or you have no understanding of how to achieve political change. You don't think boycotts, protests, issue campaigns are acceptable methods for change? So, your sole method for change is for gay people to just be nice so that people wouldn't be able to hate them (how can you hate those nice gay people)?

Oh, and the sanctimony (I have a soul) is rich.

by orestes on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warren's not "Swearing him in" (none / 0)

Ok, sorry, thank you. That's the 2nd time today I've been called out for my wording. I'll have to watch that :)

by phoenixdreamz on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Much For the LesBiGays at the table (none / 0)

Every day I get a bit more furious over this -

Rick Warren is a plain old homophobe who believes that homosexuality equals pedophilia. If you think that this guy is just some garden variety reiglious wacko please spend a few minutes looking at this blog and a few others. He's an extreme nutcase.

For Obama to give him this platform and then lecture us about inclusion is beyond disgusting. So the question needs to be asked now that he's got his homophobe on stage where is the racist? Where is the antisemite? Where is the member of the KKK? He wants to deal with real America doesn't he? Lets give 'em all a platform to spread hate.

Its clear that Gays and Lesbians are just the first folks to get pitched under the bus others folks/promises will follow.

What we need to do is figure out how to respond. Since he has clearly dis-invited the LesBiGay community from the table we and anybody who believes in human rights and dignity should get up and leave. Let him and the bigots and the homophobes have a good old time together.

We need to throw a party to celebrate GW's departure and mourn what could have been had Obama not decided to turn his back on us.

by mwfolsom on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:43:22 PM EST

Re: So Much For the LesBiGays at the table (2.00 / 2)

he has clearly dis-invited the LesBiGay community from the table

This is a bit of a rhetorical overreaction. He has not, in fact, disinvited the LGBT community from the table. Not one of his positions on LGBT concerns has changed as a result of his inviting Warren to deliver the invocation. It's a bad choice, and I strongly disagree with it, but there is no indication of any kind that his positions on DADT, DOMA, etc. have at all changed.

To say that Obama has "turned his back" on LGBT individuals and allies is inaccurate. He made a bad move, a tonedeaf move, and I think it was the wrong decision. But Warren's delivering a prayer, not running a Cabinet department or sitting in on policy negotiations. This is a stupid decision, but it signals nothing about Barack Obama's position on LGBT concerns or about his commitment to them. Obama has reiterated several times his disagreement with Warren on LGBT concerns.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THIS is how you voice disagreement on this (2.00 / 1)

Thanks mistersite; I'm glad to read someone disagreeing with the choice but understanding the context and that it's not indicative of any under-bus-throwing.

You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can understand (none / 0)

that for gays and lesbians this action presently speaks louder than his words, no?

by orestes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (none / 0)

Does it speak louder than his previous actions? In his career as a legislator, whenever he was presented with an LGBT equality vote, he voted the right way. ENDA, adding sexual orientation as a protected class in Illinois, expansion of hate crime laws... he's right on all those things, and has voted thus as a State and U.S. Senator.

If this was someone whose record was in doubt, I would understand reactions like the one above a bit more. But his record isn't in doubt; the only LGBT concern he's less than good on is his support of civil unions instead of equal marriage rights. Throughout his career, when presented with an opportunity to vote the right way on LGBT rights, he's taken it.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:27:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (none / 0)

he's on the big stage now and decisions like this matter much much more.

by sarany on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (none / 0)

I agree. That's why I oppose this choice. I think it's boneheaded and stupid, and have been nothing but open in saying so. That bigot does not deserve a platform, even for the mouthing of uncontroversial spiritual platitudes that is all but certain to be his prayer. (I'll be surprised if he even says "in Jesus' name" at the end.)

However, I don't think it's a statement of any kind that President-Elect Obama's positions on LGBT equality have changed, and I don't think it's an attempt to throw LGBT citizens under the bus. He has throughout this storm maintained that he is for equality (with the exception of his position on marriage, which also remains unchanged), and he has the record to back up that claim.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand - NO I CAN'T (2.00 / 1)

You said:

He has throughout this storm maintained that he is for equality

No he's not! He's never been for REAL equality. He's for separate but equal whatever that means - I can't marry who I choose but I can have a domestic partner whatever that is. He's always maintained that I as a gay man am not worthy of marriage - that's something reserved for straight people. Its the new polite, socially accepted form of homophobia.

Clinton threw us under the bus with DOMA when it was handy and now that its handy for him Obama is using us as a way to show that there's a new master in town and he knows what's best for the faggots.

by mwfolsom on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's exactly the problem I have (2.00 / 0)

with our community.

"Obama is using us as a way to show that there's a new master in town and he knows what's best for the faggots."

WTF is that supposed to mean? There's a small part of me that feels I don't want someone like you fighting my fights because if I wasn't agreeing with you, I'd probably just be turned off by that comment. Why did you have to use that word?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's exactly the problem I have (none / 0)

It means just about what I said - the LGBT community has been relegated to the back of HIS bus and HE knows how best to help us. In retrospect my only change would be to replace the last "the" with "his" hence the last part of the quote would have read "what's best for his faggots."

I appropriated/choose "faggots" because it is a power word and fairly well expresses my feelings right now.

You may think that "our community" should sit quietly and take what it is given. I'm not in the mood to do that anymore.

by mwfolsom on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand - NO I CAN'T (none / 0)

Not a big reader, are you?

I specifically noted that the exception in Obama's position is marriage equality. You would have had to stop reading at the end of the phrase you quoted in order to not see that.

Given your reaction to my comment as well as to President-Elect Obama's choices, it would seem that you're hearing what you want to hear, not what people are actually saying. I would advise a little more engagement with people's statements, and a little less creative exegesis.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand - NO I CAN'T (none / 0)

Actually I'm a big reader however we simply differ on the importance of "marriage equality" you seem to think its trivial I think its pivotal.

Obama supports equal rights EXCEPT.........

Its one of those differences that you could drive a truck through. Ultimately there is very little difference between Bush's position of Les/Bi/Gay rights and Obama's. He may support hate crime laws and be more open to civil unions and not hate US like the fundies do but that's about it.

By-the-by, how much did Obama do to fight Prop 8? When it came down to the wire and everyone KNEW he was gonna win the election - the only question was just a matter of how much - how many rallies did he hold in CA to oppose Prop 8? I think you will find the number is ZERO! Certainly that shows us that he isn't gonna take a political risk on something fundamental that would have helped the Les/Bi/Gay community.

Ultimately, there is no equality without marriage rights. So please don't tell me how wonderful he is on "Gay" rights because his position doesn't vary greatly from the norm except the he invited an out and out homophobe to do the invocation at his Inauguration.

I worked for that man, I gave him my money, my time, and my efforts and in return he has fucked us over at his first opportunity.

Yes, I am mad - I am furious.

by mwfolsom on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (2.00 / 1)

The man is saying a prayer at the inauguration, not joining Obama's cabinet. Does anyone remember who said the prayer at the last inauguration we had? I sure don't.
The decision to include Warren (as much of an intolerant bigot as he is) is a reach out to evangelicals in America, not a swipe at gays.
Obama has always been about reaching out to the other side, and people who are surprised at this move didn't bother to look at his history.
What is more important to me is his voting record, and his public statements, both of which show he strongly supports most GLBT issues.
I understand the anger of some of my friends, especially after the loss in California and then this Warren thing comes right on top of it.
The one thing good that is coming from this anger is that the issue is on the national stage, and Obama made a statement to the press (showing me he isn't tone deaf about the Warren controversy) publically stating he supports GLBT issues.
When was the last time we had a president elect say that?

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (none / 0)

Please - Warren thinks we are as bad as pedophiles! He doesn't allow gays in his church unless they are "fixed". He's a filthy homophobe short and simple and I'm suppose to sit back and be civil when Obama asks him to do the invocation to his swearing in? Obama - the same person that I and lots of other gays/lesbians/trans folks gave money to and knocked on doors for.

Why don't you just ask us to go back into the closet and shut up?

by mwfolsom on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (none / 0)

First of all, I never said to shut up about it, so don't pull that crap on me. I think the anger against Warren is justified, and can be used (in the right way) to start a public discourse about equal rights.
Learn to read before responding next time.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (none / 0)

I can read quite well - thank you.

We disagree - Obama talks about inclusion and his partial support for gay rights. He infers that gays & lesbians should tolerate a homophobe on the stage for the sake of inclusion. Why not put David Duke up there for the sake of inclusion? How about a member of the KKK for the sake of inclusion?

He has taken the Inauguration away from me and other gays and lesbians and I deeply resent it.

by mwfolsom on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can understand (none / 0)

Well your resentment and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, maybe. Knowing of Obama's record of supporting issues important to the GLBTs, I'm more interested in what happens after the inauguration.

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I cannot understand (2.00 / 1)

sorry, this is an overreaction and I think it speaks to the problem in the LGBT community. We want to be better than those who oppose us, don't we? Or do we want to be just like them?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I cannot understand (2.00 / 1)

So, you want to play nice with someone who says homosexuality EQUALS pedophilia?

Lovely -

by mwfolsom on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fighting with them doesn't work (none / 0)

Look if Shirley Chilsolm could walk into a hospital and show respect to a man who thought she should be treated like an animal. I am certainly willing to let someone like him say a freakin prayer at a friend's inaguaration.

Even my own father thinks that, I'm not going to disown him because he has those views.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Much For the LesBiGays at the table (2.00 / 1)

This is a stupid decision, but it signals nothing about Barack Obama's position on LGBT concerns or about his commitment to them.

Well "LGBT concerns" include matters like lending such a platform to such a preacher. But you mean specific policies like DOMA and DADT. The proof will be in the pudding. It would be nice to think that perhaps because this poor decision has caused many to doubt Obama's commitment, he might therefore feel some impetus to follow through even more quickly on his stated positions.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Much For the LesBiGays at the table (none / 0)

Actually all those bases are covered since most of the Republican Senators will be in attendance. Thus we will have plenty of racists and anti-semites on hand.

by Demo Dan in Dayton on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not a whole lot different than the Catholic Church (none / 0)

With their purges of gay seminarians...and gay members who do not confess their sin cannot receive the sacraments

by SaveElmer on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:59:06 PM EST

Re: So Much For Tolerance, Respect And Inclusion, (none / 0)

Thank you Todd. Warren has a long list of fundy views that make him the wrong pastor for Obama to confer this honor upon -- got that everyone? Obama has conferred a signal honor by putting Warren in this particular spotlight -- and now this choice little tidbit from the Saddleback Terms of Fitness For Attendance at Their Inclusive and Welcoming Church.

Us homos need not ask to ride this particular bus.

Nice move President Elect Obama.

by sarany on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM EST

Re: So Much For Tolerance, (2.00 / 1)

Gays and lesbians need to be inclusive of those who are activly trying to take away their rights. It might be easier to build bridges with Rick Warren if wasn't actively organizing to pass laws that make other Americans' lives harder. Wow great advice Obama.

by alexmhogan on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:15:49 PM EST

Your title is wrong IMO (2.00 / 1)

You're complaining that Obama doing this isn't showing tolerance, repsect and inclusion?

It seems to me the message here, not only here, but all over the blogsphere is the message of tolerance, respect and inclusion means only tolerating, respecting and including those who agree with us and are on our side.

See that's not what Obama stands for...if you don't like, you voted for the wrong guy.

For the record, that's exactly what I voted for. And in this situation, I've been out there fighting for LGBT rights...calling all those who have questions about gay marriage and misunderstandings about gay culture hateful bigots hasn't helped...I'm willing to give inclusion a try.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:45:17 PM EST

Re: Your title is wrong IMO (1.00 / 0)

Your post is nonsensical: to show tolerance obama choose someone who is intollerant. Even on the front of those ministers who do not support marriage, he could have choosen people who do not equate gays to pedophile as Warren has done. I really believe you are a troll the more you post. I know some pretty conservative gay men. Some of them Republicans. Some libertarians. None of them would say half the crap I have read you write here. If you are gay, it's pretty mucy o the self hate kind.

by bruh3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all (none / 0)

you have no right to judge me.

In giving a two minute prayer at the beginning of an inaguaration, what he says outside is irrelevant. I really don't care what he says about gays, I don't. He's not going to be making any decision and I'm not worried he's going to influence Obama to change his mind and I'm not afraid of him spreading hate, so the guy doesn't concern me.

I am not a troll. I've been at this site since before the Presidential campaign even started.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all (none / 0)

Yes I have the right to judge what you say here.

by bruh3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 11:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's OK to be intolerant of bigots (2.00 / 2)

Morally, Obama's defense is extremely weak. It is full of false equivalences and Fox-News-like reasoning. I think Obama's moral sense is at least as evolved as the next person's so I submit that the moral arguments are just a thin veneer over the political message.

Politically, this is Obama's "Sister Souljah" moment for the GLBT community. He is not abandoning the GLBT agenda, or throwing them under the bus. He is serving notice that they will not be driving the bus, but will be shuffled toward the back, behind economic stimulus, tax changes, reregulation of the securities markets, (hopefully) healthcare reform, Iraq withdrawal, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.

Prop 8 has rightly energized the GLBT community, and they want to see some action on several fronts sooner, rather than later. Obama is not telling them he doesn't care about their issues, or that he's forming an alliance with the religeous right wingers. He is sending a message that he is not prepared to spend political capital on GLBT issues early in his term. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 06:51:15 PM EST

I don't why (none / 0)

anyone thought he, or any other Democrat, would. He never said he was going to spend political capital on LGBT issues, especially the controversial stuff like gay marriage. No one ever did.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't why (none / 0)

You know over the last few days I hve tried to give your ignorance the benefit ot he doubt. But now you are lying. He never promised to address gay issues? I mean serious- you know that's a lie. Regardless of gay marriage- which is a manipulative ploy by you to focus just on gay marriage- he made is pretty clear gay rights were a very important issue to him. The reason I am starting to not just disagree with you, but not trust you is that your arguments change depending on to whomyou respond. When they did bring in facts, you get more and more silly with your internpretation without any backup beyond its what you believe. Are you sure you aren't a troll? Because from where I sit when people change their arguments to manipulate the conversation- that question mark forms.

by bruh3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

but it was never a center of his campaign, you know that, and just because he invited Warren to give a two minute prayer does not mean he is renegging on campaign promises. LGBT rights were one of those "If they give me a bill, I'll sign it" type of thing to him.

He NEVER promises to shut out bigots from his life. He NEVER said he wouldn't talk to them or converse with them.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's OK to be intolerant of bigots (none / 0)

When exactly did gays ask him to make us his center ? This is another one of those lies that is being thrown out there as more rationalization. if you can pin point which groups required Obama to take up gay issues right away please then post that link. Please dont bother to reply by without doing so because I won't believe you.

by bruh3 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's OK to be intolerant of bigots (2.00 / 1)

Oh, so now you want me to bring facts with me when I post? Next, you will be demanding logic or something. Be reasonable bruh!

I guess I should have made clear that I am just speculating. I am not a mind reader, nor am I plugged into Obama's inner circle.

If you will notice, I am not defending his invitation of Warren, but just trying to figure out why he might have done it. I don't think he is a secret homophobe, and he must have known the kind of reaction it would engender, so the question is, how could Obama benefit from offending gays?

Bill Clinton did not criticize Sister Souljah because he is a racist. He did it to distance himself politically from Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition. He needed to build some credit with centrist voters that he was not in the pocket of the radical left, and he took a calculated risk of offending blacks to accomplish that end. He hoped to win blacks back later, and he succeeded to a large extent.

The Warren invitation certainly seems to me to have the same dynamic. Maybe it's all coincidental, but the effect of it is to deliver a relatively short term insult to his LGBT backers, while reassuring centrist Democratic and Republican Congress critters that he is not in the pockets of "TEH GAY". The question I do not have a guess for is how Obama plans to win back LGBT support in the long run. It's a risky play.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 01:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Much For Tolerance, Respect And Inclusion, (none / 0)

Obama replied, "let me start by talking about my own views. I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I contend -- intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

Can someone please tell me WHAT he has done for the LGBT community? An interview on logo doesn't really cut it for me....

by nikkid on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 11:08:01 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

So Mr President-elect, in the interests of being inclusive can i suggest you invite some racist pastors, some anti-catholic pastors, some anti-immigrant pastors....

Being inclusive should have limits, and one of those limits should stop a rabid homophobe like Warren being involved in the inauguration.

by liberalj on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:39:20 AM EST

Re: Warren is a bigot, period. (2.00 / 1)

The democratic party should have zero tolerance for him or anoyone else who thinks it's OK to treat Americans like second class citizens. Including him in the inauguration legitimizes his offensive, regressive views.

by half nelson on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM EST

This choice is Obama's shot across GLBT's bow (none / 0)

Warren will be one of the first people to speak to the national audience on 1/20.

Obama agrees with him on gay marriage & he's letting one of his most loyal and devoted constituencies know that he will act contrary to their interests when it advances his political purpose.

Obama is too smart to know that Warren saying a prayer will open any hearts or minds on the conservative bigot wing of the political spectrum.

Warren justifies his bigotry with gross distortions of history. Lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage has not been the norm for 5,000 years. It's hardly been the norm for 700 years in Europe.

But the visual sanction of the national podium will do far more to endorse Warren's intolerance than Obama's words will accomplish in distancing him from Warren's ignorance and bigotry.

by martinlomasney on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:33:41 PM EST

omfg did you just satire yourself? (1.00 / 1)

omfg i can't stand it, Jesus CHRIST Todd.

You contradicted yourself in your own post, you have so latched on to simple irrational blabbering hatred.

Jesus freaking CHRIST.

In the SAME post where you say Obama isn't holding 'us' to the same standard as he holds Warren, you say Warren is a Hatemonger. Fine, so what if he is? Did he call us hate mongers? No! So why the fricking hell would he call Warren one?

How about this? How about that he's having people from all different perspectives and beliefs, who represent the BROAD SET OF BELEIFS in america speak at his inaugural?

In WHAT FREAKING WAY is that not inclusive? Isn't that the definition of inclusive?

have you learned NOTHING from the Bush Years?

Is that ALL you want us to be? Freaking BUSH CLONES?!

I voted for CHANGE. I voted for freaking Change, what did you vote for, a revolution? Did you vote to shut up everyone who disagrees with us? Did you vote for a liberal bush?

What the hell, dude? Jesus. ARGH!

Grow up, front-pagers. Start acting like what you claimed to be, instead of disappointing people like me, far more than Obama has ever disappointed you.

by mrrar on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:53:49 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.