« Ahmadinejad, Bush, and the Presumption of Good | Matthew Stavros's Blog | Ordering a Cappuccino from the driver's seat and other bunk ways to save Detroit »
Building National Unity, One Rick Warren at a Time
Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to do the invocation prayer at his inauguration is a bitter pill that we should try our best to swallow.
Bush's biggest domestic debacle (yes, bigger than Katrina) was his failure to unite a nation bitterly divided along political, religious, and racial lines. This is true in spite of the unique opportunity he was given in the wake of 9/11 by a people resolved, practically begging, to be united.
The reason Bush failed was because he thought unifying people meant convincing opponents that they were wrong and that he was right. On issues as critical as education (evolution vs intelligent design), medicine (genome research), sexuality (gay rights), and war (justifying preemptive war), he simply did not compromise. That stance, of course, only deepened the gulf that divides us and solidified our partisanship. As a result, we are more divided then ever.
Rick Warren's stance toward gays and his views on a whole host of other issues run counter to core progressive principles. Most people reading this blog and probably Obama himself disagree with them. But the fact of the matter is that there are million upon millions who do not. To them, Warren's views are orthodox, they are correct.
By choosing Warren to do the invocation, Obama has decided to say to these very people, nearly 50% of Americans who sit on the other side of the political spectrum, I don't agree with you but I respect you and I'm willing to give you a place at the table. He's keeping his promise to "be their president too." This means more than just giving them tax cuts too. It's a much more profound and ultimately more difficult commitment to represent them and their views.
It's a whole new kind of politics. Obama sees that compromise is perhaps the most effective way to soften peoples' stances and to start a dialogue that might just lead to greater unity. If we really want to be a more perfect union, we need to take the difficult step of accepting that there are profound differences, attempt to tolerate them, and seek ways of finding common ground. Merely opposing them and trying to change the views of others would only be making the same mistake Bush made. And it would bring the same outcome.
But what do you think? Thanks for commenting and recommending.
PS: Incidentally, the web site of Warren's church has already taken down it's statement on gays! See, compromise has already begun to work in our favor.
PPS: And isn't it infinitely more Christian of Obama to tolerate opposing views?
Bush's biggest domestic debacle (yes, bigger than Katrina) was his failure to unite a nation bitterly divided along political, religious, and racial lines. This is true in spite of the unique opportunity he was given in the wake of 9/11 by a people resolved, practically begging, to be united.
The reason Bush failed was because he thought unifying people meant convincing opponents that they were wrong and that he was right. On issues as critical as education (evolution vs intelligent design), medicine (genome research), sexuality (gay rights), and war (justifying preemptive war), he simply did not compromise. That stance, of course, only deepened the gulf that divides us and solidified our partisanship. As a result, we are more divided then ever.
Rick Warren's stance toward gays and his views on a whole host of other issues run counter to core progressive principles. Most people reading this blog and probably Obama himself disagree with them. But the fact of the matter is that there are million upon millions who do not. To them, Warren's views are orthodox, they are correct.
By choosing Warren to do the invocation, Obama has decided to say to these very people, nearly 50% of Americans who sit on the other side of the political spectrum, I don't agree with you but I respect you and I'm willing to give you a place at the table. He's keeping his promise to "be their president too." This means more than just giving them tax cuts too. It's a much more profound and ultimately more difficult commitment to represent them and their views.
It's a whole new kind of politics. Obama sees that compromise is perhaps the most effective way to soften peoples' stances and to start a dialogue that might just lead to greater unity. If we really want to be a more perfect union, we need to take the difficult step of accepting that there are profound differences, attempt to tolerate them, and seek ways of finding common ground. Merely opposing them and trying to change the views of others would only be making the same mistake Bush made. And it would bring the same outcome.
But what do you think? Thanks for commenting and recommending.
PS: Incidentally, the web site of Warren's church has already taken down it's statement on gays! See, compromise has already begun to work in our favor.
PPS: And isn't it infinitely more Christian of Obama to tolerate opposing views?
Advertisement
It is indeed a bitter pill, and, though gagging more than a bit, I am preparing to swallow it. I appreciate your simple and clear way of discussing it. Though I think it is more complex, I find your way of framing it helpful. Your view serves as a kind of anti-inflamatory agent, able to reduce at least a symptom, so that we may see more clearly what really ails us.
December 29, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last line in this article helped me put the Warren controversy in perspective.
David Quigg at the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-quigg/what-would-obama-do-if-ob_b_153794.html
December 29, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28rich.html?em
Sorry, he fucked up. Frank Rich sums it up well.
December 29, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but Frank Rich is hardly a unbiased voice on this one.
He contradicts himself in every other paragraph, seemingly only certain of his disregard for Obama's methods with regards to gay relations, though he was one of Barack's biggest cheerleaders for taking on the racial issue. Another seemingly intractable problem that Rich wasn't quite so pessimistic about.
Not Rich's best work by any stretch.
December 29, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of whether he's an "unbiased voice" (explain?) or whether it's his "best work", he frames the problem of the Warren choice well, and puts it in context appropriately, as to Obama's occasionally manifested hubris. Obama had no reason to self-inflict this one, and his exhortations that we get past it were patronizing and compounded the antagonism.
December 29, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rich is doing what he normally accuses other commentators of - removing all context from the situation. He is usually a little more even handed than this, which indicates to me that he is hardly unbiased with regards to this situation.
December 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, I think he frames the context well: (1) the inaugural invocation is a significant event, and the individual chosen to carry it out has a role of some significance; (2) this does resonate in a particularly objectionable way, given Proposition 8; (3) gays have been thrown under the bus by other opportunists so it stands to reason they'd be wary; (4) getting back to the headline, it is a indicative of a less-than-great Obama tendancy to be a little flippant sometimes. His effort to placate indignation after the announcement of Warren's role only exacerabated things; it was minimizing and condescending. I think these things may be more apparent to those whom it affects (i.e., gay people, who have had a lot at stake in their hopes for Obama's capacity to be unifying). I know, you'll talk about repeal of DADT, etc., and (hopefully) other pro-GLBT actions that might be forthcoming, but the Warren choice was still unnecessarily disrespectful and it will color people's perceptions of Obama - not as someone bigoted, but as someone tone-deaf, opportunistic and sometimes condescending. It certainly has mine.
December 29, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I see it differently.
I heard the same argument all through the election about Obama tossing this or that group under the bus because of some guilt by association or some senate vote that didn't fall in line with the far left wing of the democratic party, yet the man never changed his policies stances one iota nor has he become less a champion of justice.
He think the first step toward attaining all those things the GLBT community has been fighting for all those years is to change the nature of the conversation. If that means giving someone he personally disagrees with a place of honor (which is really honoring his followers and other religious folks, Warren is simply a stand-in for them) I have no problem with it.
I think it is a tactics that will pay huge dividends in the very short term and it shows Barack is willing to do things differently and perhaps achieve different results. I am tired of the same injustices being addressed in the same ham-fisted way and never getting solved. I am willing to trust that Barack has developed a new way of getting progressive changes made to this schizophrenic land.
You (and Rich) disagree and that's OK.
December 29, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also about resonance and context. The stakes are high in GLBT issues, for those to whom they matter. The AIDS epidemic began in 1981, and the community was faced with hostility, indifference and inaction for years. The swiftness with which antiretroviral drugs brought drastic change in the prospects for those with HIV suggests that the seven or so years of deliberate inaction by Reagan and GHW Bush are years during which people unnecessarily died - including every just about every gay guy my age I knew in Manhattan. The toll was all but absolute.
I used to work in federal law enforcement. I attended the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA. The pervasive homophobia was frightening, practically homicidal.
For us, it isn't just a quibble, and giving this bigoted jackass the microphone isn't just something we should settle down about.
Putting it in my own context, gotta say - these symbolic gestures do matter. They change the conversation...or they don't.
BTW, re: your comment about the gay movement starting with Stonewall - couple of millenia off, but whatever...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history
December 29, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
December 29, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the modern GLBT movement in America. The oppressed everywhere have been fighting for their rights since we stumbled out of our caves. Most likely before that.
As far as AIDS and HIV are concerned it wasn't just the neocons who didn't move quickly enough. It was an entire globe and an entire medical industry who filed to act. Reagan and Daddy Bush are certainly culpable with regards to how slowly America reacted at first, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
I don't disagree that religion has been a huge problem in this country with regards to GLBT issues, but we still have a majority who ascribe to that belief. By bringing them to the table, we actually get a chance to change things. Continuing to meet hate and fear with hate and fear doesn't seem to be a smart strategy to me.
I fully understand and appreciate why you disagree. We lived two very different lives, so are naturally going to approach this thing from different directions. If this tactic by Obama turns out to be a wasted effort, I will be right there by your side trying to make a progressive America possible.
Based on what I have already seen this election season from previously staunch advocates of far right positions, I will follow Obama's instincts on this one until he his proved wrong.
December 29, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason to believe that. Every reason to doubt it. Cool thing is... we'll soon have a chance to test it, Deepak.
December 29, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what? Read any of my policy-related blogs and you'll see I advocate very progressive policies. I supported Obama because I see a new way of achieving those goals, but the goals won't change nor will my expectations. I am just a little more patient than some around these parts.
December 30, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a lot of respect for Frank Rich, but he dropped the ball on this one.
December 29, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not that people should not acknowledge the different values of the profiteer preachers and their herds. But for too long they have been at the head of the table and first at the trough and have had far too much face time on TV and radio. It's time for them to take a back seat.
We should not measure our progress by how much profit we make. We should measure it by a decent quality of life made available for ALL our people and that includes civil rights.
Sorry, it's just not a wise or even statesmanlike choice. It's a crass one. No class. And not "cool".
December 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My buddy participated in boot camp down south somewhere before being shipped off to Germany-much cozier than Nam. He was sitting at a camp fire and opining about the inequities of the draft, and a guy from Duck, SC responded:
That, sir, sounded like a communism. Now I'm not sayin your a communism. I'm just sayin you sound like a communism.
Feral, I'm not sayin you're a communism....
just keep it up. Cause I'm in total agreement with you.
December 29, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, I might be a communism? Does that mean I have to turn in my designer shoes for those communism ones? Then, no, I'm not a communism. I won't give up my shoes.
December 29, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can go on referring to the followers of a different faith as "herds," and make no progress toward bringing this country together. I am no fan of the megachurches and don't agree at all with their views regarding homosexuality, but basically you're just saying the same thing as so many on that side do, which is "I'm right, you're wrong. End of discussion." As difficult as it is, I think we have to believe that most of these people are making a sincere effort to do what is right and follow the right path, and one of the measures of our progress is the ability to respect the faith of others, even when we strongly disagree with some of their views.
So while I agree with what you say about how we should measure our progress, we need to find a way to get there without asking anyone to get "in the back seat." We need to find a workable way to have up there in the “front seat” the pro-choice and the pro-life, those for same-sex marriage and those against, those who want more deregulation and those who want more regulation, etc., trying to find and implement some solutions to the serious problems this country faces.
Because in the end, they could start shouting the question "what about the civil rights of the unborn?" and where ever they could on a national, state or local level, tell you and me to get into the back seat.
December 29, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no. One of the measures of progress is recognizing "faith" for what it is. Absence of thought.
December 29, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That belief wouldn't do much in creating a postive foreigh relations throughout the world. I guess you would be against providing any religious materials to prisoners?
But in the end, I would say your belief that you understand the world to such a degree that you know that "faith" is the absence of thought is built upon a faith that what you capable of rendering in your mind is the truth as it is.
December 29, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the 90% of the globe who believe in religion or spirituality of some sort simply don't think. They are all idiots. Cornell West? Idiot. dalai lama? Idiot. Desmond Tutu. Idiot. Brilliant powers of deduction, loki.
December 29, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Nobody said nuthin' about being an idiot. Nice try though.
December 29, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now I hate gays AND I don't think...yep, you've got me figured out, loki.
Good job, Matthew...we've got a big job ahead of us changing hearts and minds on both extremes, but I know we can do it...
December 29, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thanks for admitting it at least! ;^}
December 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, claiming that religious folks display an "absence of thought" isn't the same thing as calling them idiots? That hair is getting a little thin to keep splitting it like this.
December 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This obviously goes to the inane comment above.
December 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
loki, you are impossible, in a, hey you gotta love the jerk, sorta way. No one can possibly be as obtuse as you make yourself out to be, so you must be just having fun stirring the pot. :-)
I look forward to the day when this is a non-issue, when gays have full rights of citizenship, and Christians can believe what they believe w/o ridicule. Chances are that gays will get what they want/deserve 1st.
Unfortunately it will be in spite of your divisive efforts, not because of them.
December 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My devise efforts? Heh. Good one.
December 29, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh... "divisive."
December 29, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Keep each polar opposite in place. No moving toward the middle in "lokiworld."
December 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. The notion of inclusion and tolerance has been the reason I've been voting Democratic all my adult life. But I do make distinctions. I do have a line. I suspect others do as well. Not in the same spot in the sand as mine but I suspect they do have one. To me, Warren is not worth it. Obama feels otherwise. As do you. Cool. In due time we'll see what transpires.
December 29, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the 1st sort of rational thing you've said on the subject...who are you, and how did you get on loki's computer?
December 29, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've not been paying attention then.
December 29, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is our comprehension problem that is in question. Not your inability to communicate.
December 29, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli--weren't you the one that wanted all gays to be registered?
Say, you feelin better? Hope so.
December 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Registered? No idea what you're talking about.
December 29, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is your statement that {faith == absence_of_thought} based upon your own experience practising a faith, or is it instead based only upon your personal observations from the outside looking in, making it an assertion that is itself predicated upon faith? Even if you based the statement on your past experience practising a faith, its absence of thought would still only be a constant local in scope. Go To The Mirror.
Every human has at their foundation, assumptions that are grounded in faith. It is proper to challenge these assumptions, especially when a person's acts and thoughts run contrary to their foundational faiths. Your absolute and universal derogation of all faith is prejudicial stereotyping. Why should a neutral third-party perceive your expressions as being different from Warren's?
December 29, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
(As usual)
December 29, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupidly said actually. But hey, that's "faith" for ya! ;^}
December 29, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying any such thing as "I'm right and you're wrong." I'm saying that I'm skeptical of megachurches and the messages of the preachers who emphasize monetary success. I'm skeptical of a preacher who calls his congregates "Saddleback Sam and Samantha" and who used "targeted evangelism" to find out who the unchurched were and then design a church for them. Warren went out and discovered that these unchurched in Orange County didn't like formal attire so he wore tropical shirts. None of this is saying I'm right about anything. It is how I feel about this kind of approach to building armies. It creeps me out.
And I'm saying that the pastors get plenty of face time. If you want to use the car analogy then fine. It's time that other people with other ideas get to drive for awhile. That doesn't mean that Rick and his flock can't back seat drive or even offer directions or pack the lunch. It means that they can't make all the decisions because they aren't at the wheel.
December 29, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I see someone refer to them as the "profiteer preachers and their herds" there is a implied statement that these churches are led by insincere conmen and women and populated with the deluded and the ignorant (not that one can't find these in just about any branch of faith).
You made the statement of sending them to back seat. It becomes an either we drive or they drive scenario. And I'm simply saying we might have a chance here to try the difficult thing of trying to drive together. We don't have to agree with their views, and we should let those disagreements be heard loud and often.
December 29, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It becomes an either we drive or they drive scenario. And I'm simply saying we might have a chance here to try the difficult thing of trying to drive together.
They want the government to enforce their religious views, and the Constitution has this first amendment thingie you might want to look into. Your proposal makes as much sense as deciding that rather than drive on the left side or the right, we should all drive down the middle.
December 29, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
They already accomplished that goal in case you missed the last 40 years. Obama is trying to get them to see why undoing that damage is in their best interests. There are many Christians in America who are ready to hear that message. This country isn't a car and our problems aren't as black and white as driving on one side or the other or even in the middle.
December 29, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
They already accomplished that goal in case you missed the last 40 years.
They assumed that power, and we've compromised it all to them, which is why compromising and power sharing is a no go.
You don't share a steering wheel with people who define themselves as non-compromising, you kick them to the curb.
This country isn't a car and our problems aren't as black and white as driving on one side or the other or even in the middle.
Thank you Captain Obvious. You might want to research the concept of metaphor, like the one I was extending that had been used by the previous poster.
December 29, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a tired metaphor that is imprecise and inaccurate, so it loses its effectiveness as a literary device. Extending it doesn't make it more effective.
If you think the far left wing of the democratic party is enough to get this country where it needs to go, then kicking everyone who doesn't agree with you to the curb makes a certain amount of sense.
Of course, if liberalism is to be more than a marketing tactic, perhaps something resembling inclusion and acceptance is in keeping with your professed core values. No one is calling for a compromise of direction, only a recognition that progressive change is not attained through regressive methods.
We have seen how well that works these last 40 years. The "liberal" equivalent of the far right's tactics won't deliver your stated goals and is counter to the message espoused by the elected leader of the democratic party.
December 29, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think the far left wing of the democratic party is enough to get this country where it needs to go,
Waitaminute. You think Obama has anything to do with the far left wing of the Democratic party? Last I checked, Eisenhower Republicans would have very little to argue about with today's far left wing of the Democratic party.
December 29, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ike wouldn't demonize his opponents to get something done. He would just do it and give all Americans rooms to take credit. I am quite sure Ike would have huge problems with the way the far left presents those ideas on this forum and others like it.
We don't differ in where we want to take the country, only the manner by which we get there. Since the left have been doing it a certain way for forty plus years, I think it might be time to take a different path.
That is what I see Obama doing.
December 29, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
perhaps something resembling inclusion and acceptance is in keeping with your professed core values.
Inclusion and acceptance? Sure. That doesn't have to mean compromise or rolling over, which seems to be what the Democratic Party excels at. The best thing about Obama is that he's a different creature with an ostensible majority in Congress, with a chance to shake things up when everybody agrees shaking up is necessary, because nothing else is working.
The best I can pull out of this is that Warren gets the GLBT floodlight and comes to Jesus over the issue, Obama having made it Warren's issue with his flock, not Obama's problem with the country. If Obama says yes, I hear you, then repeals DADT and works to prohibit marriage discrimination, then he'll have adopted Reagan's tactic of paying lip-service to anti-choice people, and doing next to nothing to change abortion laws.
December 29, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, we actually agree, since that is exactly what I think Obama will do. I don't think it is exactly like Reagan, because Obama won't be paying lip service to anything. I don't see a democrat being that Machiavellian.
Instead, I think he'll lead a group of people who are mostly there to see the issue differently. This country changes directions very quickly given the right set of circumstances and I see Obama positioned to take advantage of that trait in a way that no democrat since Johnson has enjoyed.
That could mean huge gains for progressives, too long denied a credible champion in Washington. One that has proved capable of moving mountains, else he would have never been elected.
December 29, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This country changes directions very quickly given the right set of circumstances and I see Obama positioned to take advantage of that trait in a way that no democrat since Johnson has enjoyed [...] capable of moving mountains.
Wedge issues, meet lever.
December 29, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The best I can pull out of this is that Warren gets the GLBT floodlight and comes to Jesus over the issue, Obama having made it Warren's issue with his flock, not Obama's problem with the country."
Brilliant!
{If I knew how to highlight this, maybe I would be one step closer to brilliant myself.}
December 29, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
one of the measures of our progress is the ability to respect the faith of others, even when we strongly disagree with some of their views.
That's a horrible measure of progress, unless you prefer progress in the "not" mode. Every American ought to be willing to fight for everybody's right to believe whatever they choose to believe, especially when we strongly disagree with some of their views. When such views are not worthy of respect, I can think of no worse way to show respect for a person than to flop over and pretend their beliefs are worth respecting. If their faith is so fragile that it cannot withstand the assault of reason and moral judgment, how does making it a religion turn it into something that suddenly must be respected?
December 29, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, residualecho! Where did you come from! Your application of logic in the face of alot of waffling and triangulating is a breath of fresh air. Your responses here should be required reading. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
December 29, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! A rational! Nice to see ya.
December 29, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A well-reasoned blog that was probably very hard to write.
It is easy for me to be objective with regards to this particular issue because I made peace with pragmatism back in March, but I certainly understand those to the more liberal side of the progressive scale might see this move as betrayal vice flipping the script to try and deliver better results.
Changing specific tactics without changing strategic goals is new to democrats and change is scary. I'll be back to say I told you so when Barack destraightens the military as one of his first executive orders.
December 29, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh man! Heh-heh-heh!
Hey Deepak Robbins! You really can't help yourself can you? You never fail to tell everyone what a wonderfully changed human being you are ever since you found ... well, whatever it is that some slimey guru gave you to find... Don't you ever tire of it? Doesn't the preaching get dull for you? No wonder you're defending Warren so vigorously! You're becoming him. Ha!
December 29, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how is it that what you write isn't "preaching." Isn't that what we we're all doing when we say "this is how it is regarding issue this or that"?
December 29, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than one use of the word "preach", it's true. And you and he know which is in use here. Don't be obtuse.
December 29, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great way to both quote someone and then get what they were saying completely wrong. Are your ideals so fragile they shatter on the strength of mine? If not, why bother commenting every time I recognize places where my old ideological rigidity kept me from being more nimble in my thinking.
December 29, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: At least I have the mental flexibility to change, unlike many around these parts. I am afraid your poor little brain might break if you challenged it to anything resembling mental calisthenics.
December 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Jason...(knuckle bump)
I started to pass on this round, but decided that letting the big mouthed ones shout us down would be counter productive.
After that Melissa Etheridge piece on HuffPo, I really think we have a chance of doing this with changed hearts instead of force.
December 29, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree.
Melissa Ethridge seems to be one of the few folks with a real stake in the issue who has made a rational decision based on actual information and actual contact with the "enemy" in person.
She seems to have come away with a radically different opinion than many around here. I actually thought it would matter, but apparently she is a sell-out, too.
December 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah... now I see. Obama invites Warren to speak and woosh! Warren no longer feels the way he has felt all his life about homosexuals! He's a changed man. He's even thinking about becoming gay himself! Brilliant that Obama!
This is rank opportunism at it's finest. And that's OK by me. Warren is who he is and will remain so. He will say nice things to gay celebrities like Melissa Etheridge so that she will in turn go out and say nice things publicly about him ("He's not so bad!")and he will ride this train as long as possible. He's got the ear of the next President don't ya know!
I was about to compare Warren to Mel Gibson, but changed my mind. Rick Warren is worse than Mel Gibson. At least Mel was drunk when he said those shitty things about Jews. Warren was all the while stone cold sober when he said shitty, ignorant things about homosexuals and only now--well after being granted this honor on the national stage!--did he start slightly tempering his comments publicly. Yeah, how sincere!
But, nevertheless, for the moment he's trying his damnedest to sound like a normal human being. If he can pull it off for the next four to eight years, good on him. But a snake is a snake is a snake. In due time we will all be saying we told you so. Wait for it.
December 29, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you're saying is that Warren and the others are unable to have a shift in their thinking and their understanding of their faith, those on that side will "remain so" without any possibility of change? Or is only those who are "snakes" that are locked into a specific set of views without hope of modification or epiphanies?
Maybe if Warren spends the next eight years tempering his statements (and it may be because he has a slight shift in his views after reflection and interaction with the issue -- I for one cannot see into the hearts and minds of others), some of the people who listen to him might reflect on the issue and begin to shift towards a more progressive view of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
December 29, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are absolutely capable of change. However, that in no way contradicts what is pretty clear to me what Warren is up to. You prefer to believe he is a changed man. Good for you. The evidence to me suggests something different.
But hey... continue to have "faith" my friend. That'll work.
December 29, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what he has said, he still pretty much believes what he believes, although there has been some slight altering of tone and message. I don't know whether it from real internal change or some manipulative motive.
And from my perspective, we want to get this country to a place where the vast majority of people embrace same-sex marriages rather than a slim majority forcing the rest to accept it becausse it's the law. That is only going to happen if there is an internal shift in a lot of people, that include a lot of different faiths and political persuasions. And that shift is only going to happen if the people they look to help them understand their faith have them reflect in new ways about issues like homosexuality and same-sex marriage. They're not going to listen to you or me.
December 29, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then again, we could have waited until a majority wanted desegregation in the south or we could have done what we did. Pass laws.
December 29, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because that is how desegregation happened - Johnson woke up one day in 1964 and decided to push for the Civil Rights Act.
It didn't start 20 years earlier with Truman desegregating the military. Or ten years after that when Ike said, "No, really this time." It didn't take two decades of sit-ins and marches and "Love thy enemy" in the face of way more vitriol and hate and violence than Rick Warren could ever muster or command. Martin Luther King Jr. spent all his time screaming at the top of his lungs to start lynching white folks until they start doing the right thing.
Your understanding of how change in this country happens is historically inaccurate, to say the least. Though I suspect you know that already and are just trying to spin people up.
December 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man... I wonder who you are responding to sometimes. I have no idea where any of that came from. Who said anything about lynching? Take a breath.
December 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, desegregation was a much more complex and nuanced effort than your simple little "pass some laws" statement would suggest. You are saying that all we need to do to stamp out injustice is wave a magic wand (in this case a presidential pen) and POOF! all the bad people straighten their acts up.
Your inability to understand what you write is truly incredible, though I suppose it explains why you don't really understand most of what I am writing either.
December 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More to your point, though...
Nobody said anything about it being done overnight. Equal rights for homosexuals has been a long and ugly and painful fight. (Check out the movie "Milk.") Not unlike the civil rights struggle at all. It's been a long time coming. Time to move.
But I expect you actually know this and are just struggling to stay on message.
December 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The civil rights struggle for the GLBT community began (roughly) with Stonewall and has continued ever since. About the last 35 years or so.
Civil rights for black Americans began, conservatively, with the end of the Civil War (though one could make the case that the struggle began in the 1600s when they arrived here in chains) and has lasted right up until today, despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Say, 140 years or so. Perhaps as long as 400 plus years.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
If anything, the civil rights movement for the GLBT community has been way faster and much less bloody than any movement before it. The only thing GLBT activists can do at this point is slow the process down by practicing the intolerance they are preaching about.
Ironic.
December 29, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes... please shut up, play nice and we'll give you your rights, um... soon, real soon. Wonderful.
December 29, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't what I wrote. That isn't even close to what I wrote. See this comment for my reply. No need to repeat myself if you are going to keep using the same tactics.
December 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are closed minded Jason. Despite your desperate attempts to tell everyone how wonderful you are since you converted to Deepak Chopraism, or whatever... that you don't try to win conversations, that you're now pragmatic... blah, blah, blah. You're still nothing more than the worst kind of ideologue. To paraphrase...somebody, can't remember exactly who, maybe Jon Stewart. "I can handle stupidity and ignorance. What I can't stand is sanctimonious stupidity and ignorance."
You were once an interesting (though combative) voice around here... now you're looking more like that guy that Stewart castigated.
December 29, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you can't win an argument you devolve into ad hominem attacks.
You accuse others of using the same behavior you are guilty of. You can "insult" me all you want and it won't make me go ballistic or call you names or do any of those things that you do on a regular basis to shout-down everyone who disagrees with you.
Jon Stewart was talking about someone just like you.
December 29, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I am not trying to "win" a conversation with you as that is impossible.
However, I will not simply go away because you disagree with me. If you misrepresent what I am saying by selectively pulling quotes (a favorite tactic of neoconservatives by the way) then I will certainly stand-up for myself.
Just because I have found a new way to conduct myself doesn't mean I am all of a sudden going to go away or wilt in the face of such profound ignorance combined with a rattlesnake demeanor.
December 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not want you to go away. Never have.
December 29, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet having a different opinion is somehow inauthentic? Odd.
December 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
{Sorry, missed this one.}
Don't be simplistic. Having a different opinion does not somehow mean you are inauthentic. You have become "inauthentic" (your word.) all on your own. (Possibly with the help of some self-help guru, not sure.) You are a johnny one note with your compromise, everybody must get along, no criticizing Obama, unity uber alles mindset. In addition you seem to revel in your own newfound ways. You can't help but preach about it. I was lost, but now am found! It is relentless and in my view monumentally tiresome, for various reasons. Hypocrisy being the big one. You've become close-minded and sanctimonious. You've become what you think you are arguing against. You don't see this, of course. Most dogmatic religious nuts have difficulty in this regard. You're appear to be no different.
But as I said above, despite all this, I don't wish you were gone. I think your heart is in the right place. The problem is you KNOW it is in the right place and that colors every post you make... and not in a good way.
December 30, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't been paying attention these last nine months if that is all you take out of the thousands of words I have written here.
December 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sanctimonious, close minded. Unable/unwilling to see. This is what happens when you become dogmatic Jason. Look deeper within yourself.
December 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy crap you are seriously deluded. My entire political philosophy is based on getting rid of dogma. You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
December 30, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, methinks you picked precisely the wrong example here this time, jason. When LBJ decided to move ahead with the Civil Rights Act, he called upon MLK to provide political cover; in effect, he asked MLK to make sufficient noise to "FORCE" him to get this thing passed.
It was a very pragmatic use of the ideologues to accomplish what NEITHER would have been able to get done on their own.
But go ahead. Stand in the middle of the road thinking you can somehow direct traffic in ways wondrously unforeseen before you made the scene. Just don't cry when the fascists (or other extremists, including Communists or others) run you over and you awaken next March in your next transformation as a triangulating Road Scholar cum pavement pizza.
NOTE: Please forgive me if this sounds unduly harsh, which it is. It's just that I was on a roll here and couldn't resist!
And loki? Lighten up a bit. This ain't personal, even if it sometimes seems to each of us - on either side of the issue - that we are being set upon by a confederacy of dunces.
December 29, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MLK and the civil rights movement had been making moves for decades before LBJ got involved. They never demonized the opposition, even when they were beaten and whipped and sprayed with fire hoses. MLK and Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were idealists but far from an ideologues. Of course, you are free to see it differently.
December 29, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but then again I think a pretty good argument can be made that the Black Panthers, the Watts Riots, Detroit, Newark, etc., shifted the political center toward MLK and the SCLC. Suddenly, the white guys started figuring it was better to deal reasonably with these non-violent types than to choose up sides in an outright war between the races.
Now, explain to me just how reasonable an "idealist" was Eldridge Cleaver. Whereas I most certainly do not embrace his rhetoric or his tactics, I nevertheless acknowledge that he and his comrades played a key role in putting a lil' fire under the white man to do what MLK and company had been seeking for far too many years.
December 29, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the ideologues have always been useful in getting the American public to wake the hell up, but I still contend it is the idealistic pragmatists who gave the newly awaken majority someplace to move to.
I don't think we can make lasting change without both. I just hope to come down on the side of the latter, having spent much of the last decade as a member of the former.
I think we are saying (and advocating) the same thing in two different ways.
December 29, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try A. Philip Randolph. FDR told him to go out in the streets and make me pass the legislation you want.
December 30, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the real irony I see in all this Pastor Warren business is that it is easily understood how any gay person would certainly feel insulted by this bigot being asked to perform the innvocation at the Inauguration of OUR (meaning EVERYBODY's!)President.
With that in mind, how do the real Christians who otherwise profess to believe in gay rights and equality nevertheless brush off this gross insult as inconsequential while serving the one who said "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers..."
There's a real disconnect here that cannot be easily bridged.
December 29, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
SJ, I am one of THOSE Christians. My POV is that Rick Warren, love him or hate him, is the hottest thing going in Progressive Christian circles. He has the ears of many, many Christians who are questioning the Christian establishment. If ever their was a Christian leader that could help bridge the divide between Christians and the gay community, it is him.
I did not look at his invitation as a slap in the face of the gay community, any more than I would have looked at the invitation of a Muslim to give the invocation as a slap in the face of the Christian community. It's his party, his choice. i was surprised, but more that Warren accepted than that it was offered. I looked at more as a signal from Warren to the Christian community, that, hey, folks, we can work with this guy...
I'm all about consensus whenever possible. I know that is downright near impossible in a country as polarized as this one is, but...I'm stillidealistic. I think we can find a solution to this that works for everyone. I think this is a bold 1st step. Not a slap at anyone.
December 29, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand fully what you are saying here, stilli. But I can't let you get away with what I see as a pretty insensitive response to the incredibly senseless mistake Obama committed in so unnecessarily sparking this controversy.
I trust you when you say you are sensitive to the rights of gay people. But then please put yourself in the shoes of a gay person and then re-read my previous comment to which you responded. Then, if you will, tell me how the gay person sees this as anything like "a bold first step toward consensus."
Explain to me how a christian can welcome the thought of a gay bashing preacher being given a position of honor in a peoples' celebration of democracy. (And make no mistake, Obama knows as well as anyone that Warren is most recently and most visibly defined as the "gay bashing preacher" relative to the Proposition 8 political campaign.) And tell me how that comports with the dictum that "Whatsoever you do to the least...?"
Wow! 114 comments in this thread and still counting. This is truly pretty silly in the overall context of the problems we confront as a nation. There are much bigger fish to fry than trying to gain agreement that this political "statement" was at least ill-advised, if not downright hypocritical.
But it amazes me the lengths some will go in trying to justify this choice when a simple apology to the gay community would be sufficient, along with a promise to be a little more diligent about being inclusive of ALL Americans in any future exercises in democracy or the celebrations thereof.
It was so simple to do the right thing here. Ecumenism should have been the primary directive for the choice of preacher to make this invocation. This choice of Warren failed that test miserably, and no amount of now trying to find the ends that will justify the means can make that right.
ON ANOTHER NOTE: Wasn't Trent Lott run out of town on a rail for his acknowledgement of a racist as a fine, upstanding American - the kind of leader whom Lott would be proud to share a stage with? (Never mind that the racist in question was a former, duly elected U.S. Senator.) How is this sufficiently different to now warrant a response in this similar situation that says, essentially, "Hey, Queer! Get over it! Can't you see this will hopefully work out for your own good in the long run?"
There's an inconsistent logic here that permeates the entire argument in favor of this choice. I ain't buying it.
December 29, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
SJ...I think I understand what you are saying, but like I said before, I just don't see the insensitivity, given that I think Obama has come out pretty clearly as an advocate for the gay community.
I have contended and continue to contend that Warren is reachable, and if he is, so is a large portion of the Christian community.
And I don't think it is unnecessary controversy...this dialog needs to get started. Don't think this is quite how he wanted to get it going, but at least it's going...
December 29, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because what we are dealing with here is with Warren is an interpretation or understanding of their faith which to you and others is so clearly bigoted or wrong, but to very many in this country is correct. In the same way many feel that a woman who chooses to have an abortion is a murderer, while others don't. Does Obama only include people who are pro-choice to perform in ceremonies? Who's litmus test will get to be the one used?
December 29, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's litmus test will get to be the one used?
In an Obama administration? Obama's, and this Warren litmus test is his most epic fail so far.
December 29, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you are clairvoyant, as well? A man of many talents...tolerance just not one of them.
December 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh.. I really don't think you should be bringing up tolerance girlie. ;^}
December 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
1st....GIRLIE? I just got called GIRLIE on TPM? I may faint...Isn't that right up there w/ (sputter, sputter) BOY???
2nd...when have I ever shown intolerance? My whole self is one big adventure in personal growth and exploration and questioning of beliefs?
December 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are being far too kind, and should have used, "boi", as in shallow and faddish.
December 29, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet, "girlieman."
I'm sure there's no insult in that, right loki?
December 29, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
None at all. Jesus you people are sensitive! Heh-heh-heh.
Hoo-boy. (see, I said "boy." Take offense? Probably so.) Quit crying over stupid shit.
December 29, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You first.
Girlieman.
December 29, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bunch of babies.
December 30, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Loki, cut it out. I know that you represent the god of luck and mischief.
Sometimes you write like there are a group of lefties who wish to register and deport gay people.
Life is not fair and that is why I am on the left and I want some rights reapportioned in this country.
I do not live in Cal anyway but I would not have voted for Prop 8, Stilli would not have voted for Prop 8. Even Jason would not have voted for Prop 8.
There is still a significant percentage of Americans who do not wish to see white people marry black people. And we now have a President who is the product of such a union.
There are Christians in this country that wish to teach our children that the earth is eight thousand years old.
We live in a Democracy and a Democracy dictates the forming of coalitions on an issue by issue basis.
Don't call good people, my friends Girly or Girlie
It pisses me off.
December 29, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I DO live in CA, and I didn't vote for Prop 8. I know we aren't in complete agreement on this subject, but thanks for sticking up for my integrity.
Girlie...I still can't believe it.
December 29, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be a Dick.
December 29, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be a bad-tempered misogynist.
Oops, you ARE a bad-tempered misogynist. (Actually, it explains a lot.)
My bad.
December 29, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So loki, you just blew any and all credibility. "Girlie?" Are you fucking kidding me?
Way to go. Jerk.
December 29, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
ACK, ACK, ACK. Bwak, tell me what you really think.
December 29, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just ruffles my feather. Here is Loki, the great spokesperson for the poor oppressed gays, and to prove it he uses a demeaning term for another group with a long history of oppression? Hello?
That leads me to believe that this isn't about a real issue to loki. It's about stirring the pot, and it doesn't matter who gets splattered in the process.
Loki is not doing the LGBT community much good. At least anyone that might have taken loki seriously will know better, now.
I sure won't be taking loki seriously.
December 29, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I agree Bwak. I agree completely. You know, I was a complete, solid atheist. That is anti-theist and that is not the reality we live in. There are so many good Christians. So many good people of the Hebrew faith. So many really good people who follow the Koran. So many wonderful people who are Hindu in faith.
I would get mad and go for some sort of purity.
Without Black Christians and Northern Christians we never would have had Civil Rights Legislation in this country or the Civil War, for that matter.
I would find myself attacking all people of faith, to no avail.
Females represent more than fifty percent of the country's population. I do things, tongue in cheek and go to far sometimes.
I am sorry that you and Stilli are attacked thus. There is no excuse.
December 29, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just seemed like such a Republican thing to say...not something you'd here on TPM...took me more by surprise than anything. Bad loki! Good chicken! Good Dick!
December 29, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
oooops! That WAY didn't come out right! LOL!!!
Think I'll stick to Arthur!
December 29, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A snake is a snake is a snake."
With that kind of thinking there is no use trying or discussing anything. And if that is so, why are you so invested in discussing this further if it is all to no avail?
December 29, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we can all agree that stable gay relationships are like those of pedophiles and child abusers? I don't think so and you shouldn't even be asking people to agree to disagree about our own self-worth. When was the last time someone called you a pedophile or a child abuser?
He may have changed his website but he hasn't changed his rules. He just took down the "no gays need apply" sign because when people know his rules they don't like him so much. That is not compromise it's called "bait and switch".
And then there is a little item about how the good Pastor feels that assassination is an acceptable diplomatic tool. As long as you feel the foreign leader you intend to assassinate is evil. Then it's OK, in fact it might be your duty.
We won't be building any unity with the good Pastor Warren.
December 29, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal, like it or not...MANY Christians still believe (I am NOT one of them) that "gay" is a lifestyle choice, not a way of being. They are afraid if being gay is normalized, that will be an acceptable option for their kids, and since it is a "sin" according to their religion, they don't want their kids sucked into a sinful lifestyle.
Now, I'm not a Bible scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I've read a few convincing articles that have me questioning the Church's stance on homosexuality. I CERTAINLY question a loving God creating people who are wired differently and condemning them to a life of sin because of it.
However, if you believe (as I do) that gays are hardwired to prefer the same sex, and pedophiles are hardwired to prefer children, it isn't a huge leap to wonder about where that will lead.
It's a frightening subject for a lot of people, a complicated one for many more, yet still I think we can work it out.
December 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me as one of those who think it was a great decision to include Rick Warren.
If we're gonna make social progress (and I think we can), I want the Saddleback Church to have a Front Row seat to the action. I want them to see this country evolve(no pun intended). I want them to understand that our evolution is inevitable. If they have a front row seat, hopefully our progress will be humanized; they can't demonize us if they've been with us every step of the way.
I don't think this is a "Keep your enemies closer" situation, I just think it's harder to call someone the Antichrist when they're your neighbor and their kids play soccer with yours.
December 29, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Fear is what is driving the Christian community, and fear goes away when you get to know the thing or person you are afraid of. Bullying does not not change hearts. Education and familiarity do.
December 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've lived next door to my neighbors for 20 years. We get along fine. We help each other out. We're, well, neighborly. I even kept my big mouth shut when my neighbor kept his McCain sign on the front lawn a full week after the election.
We're friends. We totally disagree on policy. The last thing I'd do given a podium would be to let my neighbor have the bully pulpit.
December 29, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time will tell... time will tell.
December 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep on hearing about this "Time" fella, but he always shows up too late. ;)
I think the "Christian Community" is without much direction right now. GW Bush didn't quite do it for them...and he was chosen by God! Perhaps Obama can be a real world, pragmatic option for the CC's. I don't predict "great success", but I do think it's the Olive branch we need in order to truly say; "We're trying to be a better neighbor." Someone alluded upthread that it's an ironically Christian thing to do.
December 29, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real irony is that there is nothing at all Christian about truly loving thy neighbor.
December 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, unity means appealing to those of us on the left too. Warren doesn't do that. Indeed, he does the opposite.
December 29, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, if this was Obama's only decision then one could say that. But one has to look at all the decisions not just one role in a day long ceremony, one has to look at all the people that Obama has brought to the table, and will bring to the table in the coming months and years.
December 29, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough acamus... but Obama has made other decisions hat I've found alienating and every time he does I'm told to be happy about it because he's "building unity." FISA, Gates, now Warren. He could do better by lefties like me.
December 29, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unity should be more than associations based solely upon similarity. That leads to fragmentation and polarisation. Warren is absolutely wrong about his opposition to same-sex marriages. He has every right to refuse them within his own church, but no right to oppose them in civil society.
I do not know Warren, and knew little about him until very recently. After some observations, which I posted at TPM Cafe, I was left with the impression that Warren has not put a great amount of thought into many of the positions that he holds, but has shown a willingness to adjust his point of view at times. His opposition to homosexuality is not hateful, but is still extremely prejudicial, and as such has no business within the civil sphere. A society cannot be free if liberty does not extend to all equally. Society evolves positively, when it expands its enfranchisement, and devolves atavistically when it disenfranchises anyone.
Warren may come around to the proper understanding that religious beliefs have no business being manifest as law in the civil government. I've never heard him promote the deception that America was founded as a Christian nation. The utter inanity of this argument can be easily exposed with just a simple investigation into how Anabaptists were persecuted for heresy in much of Colonial America. A return to America's religious foundations would result in many of these persons, who claim support for it, placed in stocks in the public square, and for the unrepentant reprobates, roasted slowly at the stake.
Change is coming, and same-sex marriages will become lawful. It is sad that this is still in the future though. It only extends the time, when you draw clear lines in the sand. It would be a much more effective strategy to simply feed the snake its own tail. Heap the coals of fire upon their heads by not counterattacking down on their level, but instead with a proper application of their own faith.
December 29, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, your posts on Warren were pretty awesome and you did convince me that he's not much of a philosopher and that he hasn't given this issue much serious thought but I guess I find it even more offensive that a sloppy thinker is willing to take away rights from others.
December 29, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think, destor, that it is his demonstrated ability to change his viewpoints that is his main attraction to Obama.
An open mind can be changed. I think, (although I have no good reasons other than my impressions) that this is a large reason why Obama picked him.
People who have changed their minds on a subject are better advocates then people who have never "been there." I see evidence that Warren is doing just that.
I could be wrong, but I sure hope I'm not.
December 29, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sloppy thinking and contemporary conservatism dance cheek to cheek at the moral relativists' ball. One problem is that Warren does not believe his opposition is a theft of liberty for all, but instead blocking an unjustified expansion of classes eligible for consideration. It does not help that the right has distorted the meaning for the word "entitlement", and turned it into a Palovian-trigger code word. Entitlement, which means a right, is now perceived to be a societal inequality, caused by a coercive governmental act. Orwellian newspeak can be found along the whole of a linear political scale, and the right is in some ways, even more complicit in this, because they fail to comprehend that newspeak is often exploited to effectuate a subconscious and unreasoned protestation en masse from the whole herd by yanking the chains attached to the rings in their noses.
I've been working on a new angle of argument for advancing civil rights to gays, but haven't formulated it out properly for written expression. It is along the lines of feeding the snake its own tail, as well as expanding existing fractures within the political right. Basically, there is nothing within Real Conservative theory, that can justify intrusive governmental actions, predicated solely on sexual orientation or gender identity. Give me a few days to get something posted. I tend to range widely in thought, and this touches upon several different lines of reasoning, which to me are connected self-evidently, but most would perceive as being dissonant and disparate. It can be difficult for me to describe logic steps that experience causes me to leap over intuitively.
December 29, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humbly suggest you might find some inspiration for your thoughts here:
http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/05/states_rights_a.html
I recall that Paul Velleman did a great one on topic on that group philosopher blog titled "A closet (private) hetereosexual," but I couldn't find that one. There's quite a few good posts on topic there, being that the goal of the whole blog was to get some movement on culture wars issues between left thinkers and right thinkers.
December 29, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks artappraiser, it's good to know I'm not alone within my madness. It is a very propitious time to press upon real conservatives the consequences of their long-term alliances with the new-right and neoconservatism. Presently, even Al Haig is questioning the Reagancomic myth, and willing to give Obama a fair shake.
December 30, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo, I must retract one of my resolutions. It is ok if you decide to quote the Bible.
December 29, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
making new friends at the expense of old ones. showing real character.
December 29, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old friends might attempt to understand that he still values them, but is inviting new ones to the table as well. Old friends do not need to worry that just because he is making new friends, he will cease to value them just as much. This is not a finite thing. He doesn't have 5 lbs. of friendship that needs to get divided up by the the number of people he chooses as friends. He has 5 lbs. of friend