A Gay Man in the Navy?! [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

Kraaze

12-18-2008, 01:00 PM

Obama definately seems to be playing both sides of the field, which is understandable during the election process, but more than likely he will have to pick a side and stay there sometime during the early part of his presidential career. Many people expect him to go the more liberal route, because....he's Obama.... he has to support gay rights right?

Not necessarily. Gay rights tend to be thrown out the window as soon as other concerns are threatened. If some conservatives hope to hold Obama's other endeavors ransom in return for the gay rights issue. Well, we went through that with Clinton.

Just the fact that Obama got elected is pretty progressive though, so there is always hope.

I think Obama's point is that he doesn't have to pick sides. We are all this together and conflicting viewpoints are only to be expected, but a good president can work with people he doesn't agree with on every little thing.

I find that a rather refreshing perspective, and I hope he's sincere about it.

Midnight Son

12-18-2008, 01:03 PM

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

:)

Andrew Mayer

12-18-2008, 01:04 PM

I think Obama's point is that he doesn't have to pick sides. We are all this together and conflicting viewpoints are only to be expected, but a good president can work with people he doesn't agree with on every little thing.

I find that a rather refreshing perspective, and I hope he's sincere about it.

Some folks are wondering when he's going to get the racists on-board to help "balance things out".

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 01:08 PM

Some folks are wondering when he's going to get the racists on-board to help "balance things out".

I think he'll look to his SecNavy to advise him on, y'know Naval warfare and such, and continue to pretty much view all things religious as an annoying but necessary inconvenience.

Does anyone think his invocation speaker will set policy?

Skipper

12-18-2008, 01:15 PM

I personally think an "uproar" over an invocation speaker is ridiculous anyway. Like Blue states, it's not like the guy is on Obamas cabinet. He speaks for like what, 5 or 10 minutes?

jerri blank

12-18-2008, 01:22 PM

I personally think an "uproar" over an invocation speaker is ridiculous anyway. Like Blue states, it's not like the guy is on Obamas cabinet. He speaks for like what, 5 or 10 minutes?

True. And in the interest of equal time, I'm sure the Christian Identity movement has an ordained minister they can send to speak for five minutes or so as well. Because if we're trying to make this administration a big tent, why not accommodate all points of view, like with Warren?

Midnight Son

12-18-2008, 01:24 PM

Do we have to include the evil people?

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 01:34 PM

True. And in the interest of equal time, I'm sure the Christian Identity movement has an ordained minister they can send to speak for five minutes or so as well. Because if we're trying to make this administration a big tent, why not accommodate all points of view, like with Warren?

Yes, lets take this incredibly small and insignificant thing and build it into a giant strawman that we can lose ourselves in with the thrashing and the gnashing of teeth. Gullump gallee!

Do we have to include the evil people?

Yes we do.

Baron Mordo will be speaking in favor of evil this year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/BaronM.png

jerri blank

12-18-2008, 01:40 PM

small and insignificant

It's not small and insignificant to me.

Aeon221

12-18-2008, 01:47 PM

It's not small and insignificant to me.

I bet you say that to all the guys!

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 01:49 PM

It's not small and insignificant to me.

The goober who gives a little prayer that nobody pays attention to?

Quick, name the last invocation speaker (no fair if it was Billy Graham, its always Billy Graham).

I get that the guy's view is yucky. But so was Wright's and I gave Obama a pass and the benefit of the doubt. Let wait till we hear his (Obama's) actually policy.

Jason McCullough

12-18-2008, 01:59 PM

On cynical terms, Obama's giving worthless symbolism to the hatas here, and apparently that's all they're going to get.

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 02:21 PM

On cynical terms, Obama's giving worthless symbolism to the hatas here, and apparently that's all they're going to get.

Nominating an openly gay man to a post that oversees an arm of the Military, is a pretty sharp stick to the eye to homophobes everywhere.

NatCox

12-18-2008, 02:32 PM

Ah, for the days of rum, sodomy and the lash.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51B%2BtSLZXmL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

ydejin

12-18-2008, 02:33 PM

Nominating an openly gay man to a post that oversees an arm of the Military, is a pretty sharp stick to the eye to homophobes everywhere.
I don't think that's a done deal. As far as I can tell there's been no announcement or even leaks that an actual decision has been made on Secretary of the Navy. Seems like mention of William White as a possible Secretary is either a trial balloon or it may even just be some people trying to push their own agenda without any official sanction.

JeffL

12-18-2008, 03:09 PM

Apparently Obama has spent time with Rick Warren and likes him, even though he disagrees with him on some social issues. Rick Warren, from what I have read, does indeed think that homosexuality is wrong but welcomes gays into his church. FWIW.

Sarkus

12-18-2008, 03:09 PM

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 03:55 PM

I get that the guy's view is yucky. But so was Wright's and I gave Obama a pass and the benefit of the doubt. Let wait till we hear his (Obama's) actually policy.
Rick Warren compares abortion to the holocaust and was a vocal supporter of prop. 8.
Would he pick Wright to do this invocation? No, because Wright is considered anathema because what some people think of him and his political views. Apparently the concerns of some of the strongest Obama supporters are not as important.

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 04:11 PM

Rick Warren compares abortion to the holocaust and was a vocal supporter of prop. 8.

He also believes in a spook in the sky who watches everything we do, including poop, hates when we touch ourselves, and loves us so much he will send us to hell to burn and burn and burn. Fuck his atavistic views. Unfortunately somebody has to say a prayer or we get back on the Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim Train. So this guy says a few meaningless words that nobody cares about. Big whoop.

Would he pick Wright to do this invocation? No, because Wright is considered anathema because what some people think of him and his political views.

And because Wright was a necessary political prop, who he could drop as soon as he was inconvenient? Like Warren?

Apparently the concerns of some of the strongest Obama supporters are not as important.

Apparently the concerns of some of the strongest Obama supporters are misplaced. Let the morons have their symbolic victories. Concentrate on actual policy.

And btw Obama at least says he is an opponent of same sex marriage, but I doubt he actually believes that, or will do anything, and I mean aaaaannnnyyyyyythinnnng to actually follow-up on that pandering stance.

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 04:21 PM

He also believes in a spook in the sky who watches everything we do, including poop, hates when we touch ourselves, and loves us so much he will send us to hell to burn and burn and burn. Fuck his atavistic views. Unfortunately somebody has to say a prayer or we get back on the Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim Train. So this guy says a few meaningless words that nobody cares about. Big whoop.
And you think it's difficult to find a priest or a preacher of a large mainstream who is at least nominally in line with your political views to legitimize by giving them the pulpit in front of the entire nation? Someone whose message is inclusive and not downright insulting to the downtrodden?
Apparently the concerns of some of the strongest Obama supporters are misplaced. Let the morons have their symbolic victories. Concentrate on actual policy.
I don't think being silent on one issue means you get listened to more on another, it's not a zero sum game, and I think people won't really expend their energy voicing their disapproval over this divisive pick.
Symbolic victories are not meaningless, as you suggest, a lot of people got energized and active in a great campaign because of Obama and what he symbolized in terms of hope and change. If you disregard that, then people will (probably) still vote for you, but the question is if they'll work for you.

Tyjenks

12-18-2008, 04:29 PM

Pogue Mahone

12-18-2008, 04:38 PM

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51B%2BtSLZXmL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Great album.

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 04:40 PM

Obama believes in God and is against same-sex marriage. If he posted on this board in threads about those two issues, he would be branded a right-winger and then madkevin could tell Obama how he is more intelligent than him. That would be fun.

I suspect he pretends he believes in those two things. He certainly doesn't do anything other than give lip service (and now let Warren speak) to them.

I hate the cowardly stance against same-sex marriage, but at this point its much more important to be wrong and elected than right and watching the McCain inauguration.

Obama is a politician, not a moral compass. He has shown repeatedly he will do what it takes to get elected. Even if it dims his halo.

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 04:43 PM

Obama believes in God and is against same-sex marriage. If he posted on this board in threads about those two issues, he would be branded a right-winger and then madkevin could tell Obama how he is more intelligent than him. That would be fun.
I think everyone who is for gay marriage realises that. They also realise that he was against prop. 8, is very pro-choice, and doesn't really believe that women should be subservient to their husbands, all unlike Rick Warren, which was part of the reason they were happy to see him get the presidency, replacing the people who works actively to take away the rights of women and gays.

JeffL

12-18-2008, 04:48 PM

From everything he has written and said throughout his life, Obama does indeed believe in God. There's no reason to believe otherwise other than those who are atheist hating anyone who believes in God and thinking them idiots.

Warren is anti-abortion, and has the same stance on same sex marriage as Obama (which is contrary to my view also,) but he has also been a strong supporter of the church going back to spending significant time and effort helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and basically doing those things that a Christian church that was truly Christian would do. You can hate him because of his religious views, but he's done far more to walk the talk of helping others than most high profile religious leaders.

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 04:59 PM

Warren is anti-abortion, and has the same stance on same sex marriage as Obama
Unlike Obama, he did support prop. 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0&eurl=http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/2499), which I would say is a rather significant difference.
You can hate him because of his religious views, but he's done far more to walk the talk of helping others than most high profile religious leaders.
I'm pretty sure it's his political views that's the problem, just as someone with outrageous views would be for a graduation speech, for example.

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 05:12 PM

From everything he has written and said throughout his life, Obama does indeed believe in God. There's no reason to believe otherwise other than those who are atheist hating anyone who believes in God and thinking them idiots.

I will readily concede the point. Mostly because I do not care, as Obama is clearly able to seperate his faith from policy making (unlike a certain current POTUS).

Warren is anti-abortion, and has the same stance on same sex marriage as Obama (which is contrary to my view also,) but he has also been a strong supporter of the church going back to spending significant time and effort helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and basically doing those things that a Christian church that was truly Christian would do. You can hate him because of his religious views, but he's done far more to walk the talk of helping others than most high profile religious leaders.

Good point, I doubt Warren is going to spend his invocation time running down the gays and railing against the abortion mills. Probably be more along the lines of asking God to help and bless us all.

More to the specifics of the Obama "Change" mantra. "Change" to Obama, is not the triumph of liberalism over conservativism, "change" is about making government work. And to make it work we have to hurdle the binary Yes No Right Left paradigm that we tend to fall into. At least I hope so.

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 05:19 PM

More to the specifics of the Obama "Change" mantra. "Change" to Obama, is not the triumph of liberalism over conservativism, "change" is about making government work. And to make it work we have to hurdle the binary Yes No Right Left paradigm that we tend to fall into. At least I hope so.
So you're actually saying that it's not hollow symbolism?

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 06:02 PM

So you're actually saying that it's not hollow symbolism?

What? The Change thing? I hope not.

Or having Warren do the invocation? I think that probably is, but if you look at it from Jeff's position maybe not. Should Obama exclude Warren because Obama doesn't agree with him on this one thing (and, other than actually supporting Prop 8 they would seem to be in agreement on gay marriage) even if Warren could help him on ten other things? Ten other things that could help a lot of people? Then it isn't.

I don't agree with Obama on gay marriage, does that mean I should have voted Nader?

Tyjenks

12-18-2008, 06:16 PM

I suspect he pretends he believes in those two things. He certainly doesn't do anything other than give lip service (and now let Warren speak) to them.
So which of his "things" am I to believe he really does believe in?

bago

12-18-2008, 06:37 PM

You can still have teh buttsecks, it's just that you need to look at the beard^H^H^H^H^Hvan-dyke for a minute beforehand.

Lum

12-18-2008, 07:13 PM

I suspect he pretends he believes in those two things

I suspect you haven't actually read his book.

I like how Rick Warren is considered to have "extreme" "atavistic" views by some here, given that (a) he is literally as mainstream as Oprah - his book only sold about 20 million or so copies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purpose_Driven_Life). I guess those were to stupid people or something, though. And also (b) he's probably the most left-leaning evangelical leader in America, politically, his position on Prop. 8 and gay marraige aside. But clearly, because of that, he is politically unclean, and all the good works he's done goes straight to the memory hole. Good thing you guys are so tolerant, unlike those horrible Christians!

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 07:14 PM

So which of his "things" am I to believe he really does believe in?

Well, I don't know the man's heart. I'll take him at his word that he loves the Baby Jesus*.

But I would wager he doesn't care if Kyle marries Keith, and during the course of his administration will do nothing to prevent them from doing so.

How's that?

*when he aint bowin' to Alla that is.

BlueJackalope

12-18-2008, 07:30 PM

I suspect you haven't actually read his book.

I suspect you are correct, but then I know me. I've seen me not reading. But let me make a few guesses, he believes in the standing up for the poor and champion of the downtrodden Jesus and not so much in the angry vengefull narrowminded God the right would have us embrace. And if I remember, he had to reconcile the idea that his mother, who was not Christian would go to Hell because of that, and he rejected it. Probably a more thought out and nuanced spirituality than most bible thumpers who actually care about that sort of thing would be comfortable with.

I like how Rick Warren is considered to have "extreme" "atavistic" views by some here, given that (a) he is literally as mainstream as Oprah - his book only sold about 20 million or so copies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purpose_Driven_Life). I guess those were to stupid people or something, though. And also (b) he's probably the most left-leaning evangelical leader in America, politically, his position on Prop. 8 and gay marraige aside. But clearly, because of that, he is politically unclean, and all the good works he's done goes straight to the memory hole. Good thing you guys are so tolerant, unlike those horrible Christians!

Being in the majority doesn't make your asshole belief that your god demands that you fuck with the love life of fellow, free, adult Americans any less atavistic.
Other than that I'm sure he's a great guy.

Flowers

12-18-2008, 07:37 PM

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Rick Warren is being included because he advocates for the poor and the downtrodden, and his contrary views on same sex marriage and abortion benefit the left on this occasion. He is being included at the ceremony to send the message that people who consider themselves Christian need to care not just about the genitalia of a poor person, but the entire poor person.

It is not to make right wingers feel included, it is to make people who think that they are right wingers reevaluate their location on the political landscape. We cannot win against the Catholic Church, their old guard is stubbornly refusing to admit that there are issues that trump abortion in importance, but each Evangelical church is free to set its own agenda.

I am thinking that our language doesn't need capital letters as much as we think it does. I don't think this is a firmly held belief, I think it's a result of my new keyboard with its oddly placed shift key. This is troubling, because already arguments against the capitalization of organized religions and associated concepts are swimming through my head. So seductive is convenience. I shudder to think what other of mankind's unassailable conventions had similarly frivolous birthings.

ydejin

12-18-2008, 07:48 PM

Whether he is gay or not seems irrelevant to me, kind of like Obama's race was a non-factor in my decision to vote for him. Instead, I'd like to see a better explanation of why White would be a good choice for the actual job since involvement in veterans affairs and fundraising doesn't seem the most obvious qualifications for Secretary of the Navy.
I was wondering the same thing myself. I had trouble finding information about him, until I managed to track down his official bio (http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/About-Us/About-The-Museum/Museum-Executives/President-s-Bio.aspx) on the Intrepid Museum website.

He seems to have lot of management experience of relatively small organizations and a strong history of supporting men and women in uniform. If nothing else, I would presume as the head of a naval history museum he has a good background on naval strategy and the role the navy has historically played. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have any actual military service -- does anyone know if that's unusual for the civilian head of one of the military branches?

He seems like a good guy, but I'm still not seeing a lot of qualifications for Secretary of the Navy. He seems pretty light weight for the post. On the other hand, I haven't paid too much attention to what a typical bio for the Secretary of the Navy/Army/Air Force looks like.

jerri blank

12-18-2008, 08:50 PM

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 09:00 PM

Or having Warren do the invocation? I think that probably is, but if you look at it from Jeff's position maybe not. Should Obama exclude Warren because Obama doesn't agree with him on this one thing (and, other than actually supporting Prop 8 they would seem to be in agreement on gay marriage) even if Warren could help him on ten other things? Ten other things that could help a lot of people? Then it isn't.
Actually, prop. 8 is more indicative, a symbol, if you will, of the fact that Rick Warren is ready and willing to work against the rights of parts of Obama's constituency. In fact, he's willing and has indeed worked against the rights of a majority of Obama's constituency.

The reason I'm asking is because if this is "only" a symbolic gesture and the Christian right will get nothing more, that's another discussion than if it's symbolic of the future compromises he'll make while in office. And to paraphrase several people on this topic, then the question is what value there is with compromising with groups that disagree with rights that you consider unalienable.
I don't agree with Obama on gay marriage, does that mean I should have voted Nader?
I think you'll find that most of the people who disagree with Obama on this pick are actually Obama voters, who knew full well he was against gay marriage, as well as countless other things that one may disagree with a moderate Democrat on.

Flowers

12-18-2008, 09:21 PM

Well, I'm gonna go out on a different limb and say that Warren is being invited because he's the celebrity pastor of a huge-ass church. It's a political calculation, period.

But of the celebrity pastors, he's the one with the message that they can co-opt the best. And yes, it is a brazen political calculation. I'm sorry if you didn't come away with the impression from reading my post, but I assumed that it was a given. They are making a major play for a substantial and underserved portion of the Republican base. Convincing the religious Republican voters that charity is of greater importance to morality than sexuality would be a coup. Democrats have made no secret of their desire to court and control the moral vote based on the fact that they currently represent the greater weight of the teachings of Jesus Christ. And honestly, there is no better time to make the play, given that the Republicans are absolutely pustulent with sex scandals.

Hugin

12-18-2008, 09:24 PM

I was wondering the same thing myself. I had trouble finding information about him, until I managed to track down his official bio (http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/About-Us/About-The-Museum/Museum-Executives/President-s-Bio.aspx) on the Intrepid Museum website.

He seems to have lot of management experience of relatively small organizations and a strong history of supporting men and women in uniform. If nothing else, I would presume as the head of a naval history museum he has a good background on naval strategy and the role the navy has historically played. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have any actual military service -- does anyone know if that's unusual for the civilian head of one of the military branches?

He seems like a good guy, but I'm still not seeing a lot of qualifications for Secretary of the Navy. He seems pretty light weight for the post. On the other hand, I haven't paid too much attention to what a typical bio for the Secretary of the Navy/Army/Air Force looks like.

It's a civilian position typically occupied by people with administrative/management/logistical backgrounds. It's more a political/advocacy/administration job than a strategic one. They often have been in other government administration jobs, or some kind of position that brings them into contact with the military, but actually being a veteran doesn't seem to be a requirement at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Navy#Secretaries_of _the_Navy.5B7.5D

A list of SecNavs with some biographical information. It's a pretty eclectic group.

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 09:27 PM

I like how Rick Warren is considered to have "extreme" "atavistic" views by some here, given that (a) he is literally as mainstream as Oprah - his book only sold about 20 million or so copies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purpose_Driven_Life). I guess those were to stupid people or something, though. And also (b) he's probably the most left-leaning evangelical leader in America, politically, his position on Prop. 8 and gay marraige aside. But clearly, because of that, he is politically unclean, and all the good works he's done goes straight to the memory hole. Good thing you guys are so tolerant, unlike those horrible Christians!
“But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’” he added.

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”
What actually happened is a historical thing – there was a split. Historically evangelicals and mainline Protestants were all in one group. Along about the beginning of the 20th century there were some protestant theologians who started using the term “social gospel.” What they meant by that was you don’t really need to care about Jesus’ personal salvation any more. You don’t really have to care about redemption, the cross, repentance. All we need to do is redeem the social structures of society [poverty and disease and charity and social justice and racial justice] and if we make those social structures better then the world will be a better place.

Really, Steve, in many ways it was just Marxism in Christian clothing. It was in vogue at that time. If we redeem society, then man would automatically get better. It didn’t deal with the heart. So they said we don’t need this personal religion stuff
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/18/rick-warren-obama-inauguration-religion
Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do. …
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/16/7415

And obviously he thinks everyone non-Christian will burn in hell and doesn't believe in evolution.
The most interesting comment is the "Marxism in Christian clothing" thing, because he was apparently chosen based on the extent he does good works, but unsurprisingly, that's completely secondary in importance to not having the values of the Democratic party.

That beam in my eye, Lum, it hurts. I'm sure people are so embarrassed that they don't want to invite him to speak to a national audience at Obama's inauguration, which is clearly equivalent to work to deny the rights of a large amount of people.

Hey, good news!
1. Submission does not mean women are under the authority of men in general.
I love the King James Version’s rendition of Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” Guess what? Wives aren’t asked to submit to anyone else’s husband! Just their own!
http://legacy.pastors.com/RWMT/article.asp?ID=122&ArtID=3908 (a Saddleback resource)
I'm sure women were worried there for a second.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of preachers and priests capable of giving an evocation, and a lot of them might not actually look down on large parts of Obama's constituency.

Flowers

12-18-2008, 09:54 PM

Of all public people who have weighed in on the gay issue, you know who I would have do the spellcasting at the Presidential fandango?

Katy Perry. Man, the pipes and tits on that girl.

I agree that Rick Warren is either a fraud or insane, given that he is looking to a time when slavery was ok to fix morality, and proposing a definition of marriage based on a book that allowed multiple wives. He's looking to a book that condoned incest to continue the family line. And he's saying that, because he has such a hard on for the book, he's against all those things.

Now, I will be the first to admit that, well I had a hard on like that for a girl once. She was batshit insane and I didn't see it. You make a lot of excuses when you are cross-eyed horny for someone. She was a liar with a mean streak and I twisted the information that my eyes and ears were giving me into a pretty, pretty, picture because I thought that was the way the world worked and she meant well. But the Bible is just a book. It can't go down on you. It won't moan into the phone when you are lonely on a roadtrip. It doesn't even pretend to like getting spanked. The piece of shit that lied to me at least did those things.

Rick Warren just needs to learn that, somewhere out there, there is a nice, articulate, shapely and internally consistent book that won't lie to him and make him look like an asshole in front of large parts of America. Like maybe a nice Geography textbook. It doesn't even need to be a serious thing, he could just subscribe to US Weekly for a year, to get back into the mix of critically assessing information like a motherfucking adult instead of some boltnut shitjob ten year old trying to get his friends to help him get prizes from the back of a comic book.

But! Of the famously deluded, he is available to the administration and he's vouching for us. So there is at least that.

Anders Hallin

12-18-2008, 10:07 PM

Of all public people who have weighed in on the gay issue, you know who I would have do the spellcasting at the Presidential fandango?
Now that'd really make me angry :(

Flowers

12-18-2008, 10:14 PM

Now that'd really make me angry :(

Do you not like Katy Perry? Everyone likes Katy Perry. She's a snappy dresser with a 1950's style, she's got huge jugs but she doesn't flaunt them, and her parents are Evangical Christians that used to sell drugs to Bob Dylan and fuck Jimi Hendrix in Spain. If that's not something for everyone, then neither is Old Country Buffet. And get this, the kid can sing.

Talk about looking down on someone's constituency. For this metaphor, it is important to pretend that constituency is a type of loose fitting shirt.

Jason McCullough

12-18-2008, 10:32 PM

I suspect you haven't actually read his book.

I like how Rick Warren is considered to have "extreme" "atavistic" views by some here, given that (a) he is literally as mainstream as Oprah - his book only sold about 20 million or so copies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purpose_Driven_Life). I guess those were to stupid people or something, though. And also (b) he's probably the most left-leaning evangelical leader in America, politically, his position on Prop. 8 and gay marraige aside. But clearly, because of that, he is politically unclean, and all the good works he's done goes straight to the memory hole. Good thing you guys are so tolerant, unlike those horrible Christians!

Warren's in the odd position of having extreme views even for an evangelical, yet he's famous and has a following for his book which has little to nothing of his extreme views in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purpose_Driven_Life) (to my knowledge). So it sucks that we have to pander to the crazies, but we could have done a lot worse.

"Purpose #1: You Were Planned for God's Pleasure" makes me envision God as a celestial Hugh Hefner, though.

Midnight Son

12-19-2008, 04:00 AM

Let's see if I understand this.

It's ok for Christians to hate people that are different from them.

It's not ok to hate those Christians because, after all, they're Christians!

Is that right?

bago

12-19-2008, 04:06 AM

Ask Rick.

Alternatively, do something that rhymes.

Hugin

12-19-2008, 05:12 AM

Everyone likes Katy Perry.

Ah, not so much.

Lum

12-19-2008, 08:25 AM

Drastic

12-19-2008, 08:28 AM

To be fair, I bet Aleister Crowley would have given a terrific inauguration speech. Well, not speech so much as drugged orgy. That would definitely make for Change.

Anders Hallin

12-19-2008, 08:31 AM

Katy Perry definitely wouldn't be an acceptable pick, though.

And that's just it, Lum. This could be a great time to move away from having evangelicals and their divisive message to be the default religious figures, and thus no longer have "religion" being represented by utter douchebags.

The other pick is great, and someone pointed out that if this was symbolic in the way that Warren gives the invocation before the inauguration, and Lowery delivers the benediction afterwards: out with the old, in with the new.

Lum

12-19-2008, 08:54 AM

And that's just it, Lum. This could be a great time to move away from having evangelicals and their divisive message to be the default religious figures, and thus no longer have "religion" being represented by utter douchebags.

Obama doesn't get to pick who's the most popular religious representative. (There's an amendment or some such regarding that, I believe.) Warren manages to be popular all on his own. And he's *not* a "utter douchebag" (especially in contrast to the great majority of religious figures in the US who *are*), but at the same time he's not a liberal, which apparently is a litmus test for people who insist they don't believe in litmus tests.

I do have the perfect solution for this, though: Rick Warren has to join the navy and turn gay.

BlueJackalope

12-19-2008, 08:55 AM

Actually, prop. 8 is more indicative, a symbol, if you will, of the fact that Rick Warren is ready and willing to work against the rights of parts of Obama's constituency. In fact, he's willing and has indeed worked against the rights of a majority of Obama's constituency.

Point of interest, I'd wager that a majority of Obama's constituency is not gay. And anecdotally, the two gay guys I had to listen to loudly discuss politics in the gym locker room were strong Hillary supporters. I don't mind sharing a locker room with the gays btw, what I mind is the 48 year old guy who sits on the pleather couches with a wee small towel under his 280lb ass and watches an entire football game on the locker room televsision to escape his wife. I'd like to see Warren do something about that guy.

The reason I'm asking is because if this is "only" a symbolic gesture and the Christian right will get nothing more, that's another discussion than if it's symbolic of the future compromises he'll make while in office. And to paraphrase several people on this topic, then the question is what value there is with compromising with groups that disagree with rights that you consider unalienable.

The point is, that you can do business with people that you disagree with. Especially in those areas that you actually do agree on them with.

Did you know the Bush administration screened applicants to the Iraqi Rebuilding Effort for their views on abortion? That doesn't seem to have worked out so well.

I think you'll find that most of the people who disagree with Obama on this pick are actually Obama voters, who knew full well he was against gay marriage, as well as countless other things that one may disagree with a moderate Democrat on.

Right. So what's your issue?

Please, everyone call Warren on his bullshit and make Obama squirm for picking him, but don't pretend he has appointed him to Minister of Gayness or Lord of Morality or something.

Anders Hallin

12-19-2008, 09:02 AM

Obama doesn't get to pick who's the most popular religious representative. (There's an amendment or some such regarding that, I believe.) Warren manages to be popular all on his own. And he's *not* a "utter douchebag" (especially in contrast to the great majority of religious figures in the US who *are*), but at the same time he's not a liberal, which apparently is a litmus test for people who insist they don't believe in litmus tests.
If this was an Establishment Clause issue, there wouldn't be an invocation in the first place. I don't think either Warren or Lowery were picked based on having the greatest membership numbers in the country.
The great majority of religious figures in the US are douchebags? Then that's an excellent time to elevate some non-douchebaggy religious leaders to "figure" status by, say, having them give an invocation.
I don't think I've ever given any opinion on the topic of litmus tests, I think you might be projecting from some other debate.

Hugin

12-19-2008, 09:03 AM

Evangelical Christians tend to be against abortion rights and gay marriage. Gosh. Next you'll tell me Democrats tend to lean to the left.

Clearly, since there is absolutely no religious figure of any kind acceptable to this group with the possible exception of Aleister Crowley, the only answer is, as Flowers said, to have Katy Perry give the invocation.

Oh please, can we cut the hyperbole on all sides of this? There are obviously religious authorities in the United States that are to a greater or lesser degree more liberal or more palatable on these two particular issues than Rick Warren. Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Mel White, Gene Robinson, etc.

Personally, I think Warren is useful in terms of helping the Religious right focus their attention on issues besides abortion and homosexuality, as a staunch supporter of gay rights and a Christian, his presense in thee inauguration doesn't bug me terribly much.

But it's not anti-religious or intolerant to recognize he's a problematic figure, and it's not anti-religious or intolerant to be wary of the continued involvement of evangelical or fundamentalists religious sects in what are ostensibly secular public events, let alone secular government policy.

Criticism or even outright rejection of Warren does not represent some kind of atheist liberal fascism, and there's no inherent intellectual or moral defense of specific religious beliefs or practices that have become unacceptable to modern societies even as we respect the idea of religious freedom overall, otherwise we'd still have a whole hell of a lot of beliefs and practices even most fundamentalists would find odd if not odious.

Anders Hallin

12-19-2008, 09:07 AM

Point of interest, I'd wager that a majority of Obama's constituency is not gay.
No, but they are women.

The point is, that you can do business with people that you disagree with. Especially in those areas that you actually do agree on them with.

Did you know the Bush administration screened applicants to the Iraqi Rebuilding Effort for their views on abortion? That doesn't seem to have worked out so well.
As I said before, that's a different argument than giving an invocation, which is, as you point out, symbolic.
Right. So what's your issue?
That Warren's far-right on women's rights and gay rights? That he's so far right of Obama's values and the position of the Democratic party that it's ridiculous? I thought that much was obvious.
Please, everyone call Warren on his bullshit and make Obama squirm for picking him, but don't pretend he has appointed him to Minister of Gayness or Lord of Morality or something.
But... that's what people are doing.

BlueJackalope

12-19-2008, 09:25 AM

No, but they are women.

As I said before, that's a different argument than giving an invocation, which is, as you point out, symbolic.

That Warren's far-right on women's rights and gay rights? That he's so far right of Obama's values and the position of the Democratic party that it's ridiculous? I thought that much was obvious.

But... that's what people are doing.

I think we should continue to furiously agree.

JeffL

12-19-2008, 11:39 AM

Let's see if I understand this.

It's ok for Christians to hate people that are different from them.

It's not ok to hate those Christians because, after all, they're Christians!

Is that right?

Actually, no. Christians are supposed to accept that everyone is imperfect, everyone has some types of flaws and wrongs in their life, and that, while you may personally believe that homosexuality is wrong, you love those people with the same love with which you'd love someone who overeats (which is covered more than homosexuality in the Bible) or lies (which is emphasized WAY more in the Bible) etc. The difference is supposed to be that a Christian may believe that something is not right, but they are tasked to love everyone sincerely. The key being sincerely.

Rick Warren believes marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman, OK. I have a different view. But Rick Warren has also opened his arms and heart and has spent money from his best seller to support AIDS clinics (and worked in them himself) and has stated from his pulpit that Jesus pushed the pharisees aside to get to the prostitutes and tax collectors (who were corrupt) and the unclean and would do the same for anyone. A quote from Rick Warren: "While I believe that homosexuality is a sin, it is no greater a sin than any that I commit every week. There are gay Christians who I hope to meet in Heaven and hypocrytical straight church-goers who I will never see there."

I have no vested interest in Rick Warren, but I have been to his church a couple of times, when I had the chance, out of curiosity.

Personally, I'm happy to see a president who will reach out and try to be inclusive even if he disagrees with some of their views - we've had an administration where you "are for us or you are against us."

Midnight Son

12-19-2008, 12:57 PM

So he's not as evil as say, the Mormons who spent millions of $$ persecuting gays in California...

Shades of grey....

Yeah, I know the difference between not approving of something and actively opposing it. I just don't know the extent of Warren's actions, if any.

Flowers

12-19-2008, 01:09 PM

Jason McCullough

12-19-2008, 01:18 PM

Rick Warren believes marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman, OK. I have a different view.

As pointed out, it's not his opinion, it's his.....creative way of saying it.

JeffL

12-19-2008, 02:42 PM

As pointed out, it's not his opinion, it's his.....creative way of saying it.

Oh, I perfectly understand people being put off by someone who is actively against gay marriage. I understand where he is coming from, although I totally disagree with him. And yeah, he's gonna be more active than Obama is, even though they both have the same stated position.

So if someone states ""I'm a Christian. And so........ I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." and ""Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination, I think is the right balance to strike in this society" I don't think I can disqualify this person as a basically good person with a different point of view than mine.

Mordrak

12-19-2008, 03:06 PM

Rick Warren believes marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman, OK. I have a different view. But Rick Warren has also opened his arms and heart and has spent money from his best seller to support AIDS clinics (and worked in them himself) and has stated from his pulpit that Jesus pushed the pharisees aside to get to the prostitutes and tax collectors (who were corrupt) and the unclean and would do the same for anyone. A quote from Rick Warren: "While I believe that homosexuality is a sin, it is no greater a sin than any that I commit every week. There are gay Christians who I hope to meet in Heaven and hypocrytical straight church-goers who I will never see there."

I think I saw him on Colbert and he smacked of being only a little less spiritually bankrupt than Olsteen. It's motivational speaking disguised as revelation to sell books and fill stadiums. For the cost of his book or some donations, he'll tell you you're special too.

Anders Hallin

12-19-2008, 03:27 PM

Oh, I perfectly understand people being put off by someone who is actively against gay marriage. I understand where he is coming from, although I totally disagree with him. And yeah, he's gonna be more active than Obama is, even though they both have the same stated position.
They don't have the same stated position, as Obama also has no problem with civil unions, which Warren does. I also think "will actively work against gay marriage" is a different position from "technically against gay marriage".
So if someone states ""I'm a Christian. And so........ I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." and ""Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination, I think is the right balance to strike in this society" I don't think I can disqualify this person as a basically good person with a different point of view than mine.
"I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there."

Added to that that Warren considers the right to abortion to be comparable to the holocaust (how many of the US's women are murderers according to this logic?) and having no problem with promoting the view that women should be subservient to men in marriages, for instance, I really don't see this as simply a gay marriage issue. It's just in focus at the moment because gays already felt thrown under the bus, as per usual.

Hugin

12-19-2008, 05:34 PM

You'd want to read the Time Magazine issue that is devoted to Rick Warren that came out last Summer.

Hugin... Hugin, Hugin. I quote The Chesty Prophetess when I say, you're so gay and you don't even like boys.

For the record, I think I Kissed a Girl has a catchy as hell beat, and I like a nice rack as much as the next person, but I think he kind of "Tee hee I'll sort of dance around the fringes of being transgressive while making it clear that really my sexual identity is totally traditional and have you met my boy friend?" is lame.

JeffL

12-19-2008, 06:35 PM

"I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there."

Well, see, the quote that you responded to that I take it you believe to be evasive is Obama's, not Warren's. So it sounds like you have the same objections to Obama's stances and stated opinions? (just poking at ya - but that was Obama's quote, and the point is that if Warren said the same thing people would probably call it a bigoted statement.)

Anders Hallin

12-20-2008, 01:31 AM

For the record, I think I Kissed a Girl has a catchy as hell beat, and I like a nice rack as much as the next person, but I think he kind of "Tee hee I'll sort of dance around the fringes of being transgressive while making it clear that really my sexual identity is totally traditional and have you met my boy friend?" is lame.
There's also her other song, which I think is called "lol, fags" or some such.

Anders Hallin

12-20-2008, 01:37 AM

Well, see, the quote that you responded to that I take it you believe to be evasive is Obama's, not Warren's. So it sounds like you have the same objections to Obama's stances and stated opinions? (just poking at ya - but that was Obama's quote, and the point is that if Warren said the same thing people would probably call it a bigoted statement.)
Well, obviously I have a problem with Obama's stated position, but what I'm saying is that there is no equivalence between their positions. I agree with what you're saying, since I don't really expect religious leaders, for instance, to be pro-gay marriage (though there are plenty who are), I think supporting civil unions is, to a certain extent, a valid option. Wrong, but still valid.
I actually thought they were fictitious quotes, and felt the need to respond with "ok, but that's sadly not what Warren thinks".

JeffL

12-20-2008, 07:35 AM

Well, obviously I have a problem with Obama's stated position, but what I'm saying is that there is no equivalence between their positions. I agree with what you're saying, since I don't really expect religious leaders, for instance, to be pro-gay marriage (though there are plenty who are), I think supporting civil unions is, to a certain extent, a valid option. Wrong, but still valid.
I actually thought they were fictitious quotes, and felt the need to respond with "ok, but that's sadly not what Warren thinks".

Yeah, that was kinda cheap for me to do that, but the point I was trying to make is that people are quick to demonize others and always feel 100% justified and will argue their prejudice (and we all have them) as completely correct and see people then through their filters. "He's a liberal, therefore I can assume this is how he/she feels, thinks acts" same for a Christian, a conservative, an African American, a southerner, a californian, an upper manager, a union member, etc. I know I have mine in spades.

It would be cool if people didn't immediately jump to preconceived positions on people then seek to justify them (even though we all feel justified to begin with or we wouldn't have the labels.) I know, this is where we hold hands and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing."

But I do think that we'd be better off if a liberal was open to friendly discussion with a Christian to discuss in a respectful manner their differences. Yeah, someone who sees abortion as the killing of a baby is not going to agree with the position of someone who says it doesn't matter, the mother has the right up to the moment the baby pops out. But if they could respect each other and understand better where each other comes from, and understand there are good people who believe both ways, perhaps we could make some progress in some of these areas. Same for other issues. Rather than jumping to extreme straw man arguments to cling to our divisiveness. There are a lot of people in politics who count on us hating each other - that's how they keep their power, by pointing to "the other side" and demonizing them and ensuring we all buy in.

And this is again a reason that a fairly fiscal conservative guy like me was so supportive of Obama even when I disagree with some of his politics. Way back before his nomination acceptance speech, when he spoke of finding common grounds, he spoke to a small group in Chicago (and I was in that group) of how much he found distasteful the political game, his words, that was preached from leaders of both parties to demonize the other side and go out of your way to ensure people don't respect the other side. Obama said that was an actual party strategy, from both sides, that is preached in the small insider meetings with the leadership. "Divide and conquer." And he stated that he believed that it was possible to be inclusive rather than exclusive and that America would benefit from "disagree but respect." He went in some detail of how that was radically different from "others who are my chief rivals for the nomination, but we will see just how crazy I am!"

FWIW.

ReptileHouse

12-20-2008, 11:07 AM

I'd like to hear Gene Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson) rather than Warren, but that's just me.

JeffL

12-20-2008, 03:14 PM

Actually, I think it would be a nice move to have a muslim leader, a Warren, a rabbi, and (OK - this is starting to sound like a bar joke.....)

Jason McCullough

12-20-2008, 04:01 PM

A perennial bit of fun (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/14/weekend-preview-obama-and-mccain-at-saddleback-church.aspx).

For those who believe that Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry--and its portrayal of evangelical preachers as hypocritical frauds--offers the last word on conservative Christianity, Rick Warren cannot possibly be a force for good. I have yet to let Jesus enter my life, but I admire Warren. We once appeared on a panel together along with Harvard's Peter Gomes at the Aspen Ideas Festival. When it came time for questions, a woman stood up, proclaimed her Judaism, and asked Warren if she was going to burn in hell. He paused before responding--and then answered her question the only way it could be answered. Yes, he said to audible gasps. My reaction was that either you believe that Jesus is the savior or you do not, and I found myself impressed that Warren remained true to his convictions, knowing full well that the audience would not like what he said.

StGabe

12-20-2008, 07:52 PM

It would be cool if people didn't immediately jump to preconceived positions on people then seek to justify them (even though we all feel justified to begin with or we wouldn't have the labels.) I know, this is where we hold hands and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing."

Here's the thing. I think people against gay marriage are bigots. Period. I think a lot of them have some goofy rationales and are still decent people on other issues. I also think there are racists with goofy rationales who are quite friendly in other contexts. People aren't so simple that we can call them "good" or "evil" based on their actions in one context. That said, I do think people against gay marriage are absolutely bigots and I don't think I'm rationalizing that or being an asshole. In 50 years we'll have no problem talking about them as such just as we now have little problem recognizing that many people were extremely bigoted 50 years before today.

All that said, I'm not going to shout "bigot" in the face of random conservative Christians who believe that being gay is wrong. And in fact, I welcome the chance to talk to those who are conservative about homosexuality in a non-confrontational way about why they believe what they do. I've quite possibly shed my chance for doing that in this thread but that's to prove a point. Discussing something with someone civilly has nothing to do with the fact that you may still feel that their ideas are hateful and wrong and feeling that someone is fundamentally wrong about one thing doesn't mean you can't still get along with them (just as getting along with someone doesn't mean that you don't think they're still wrong on a number of issues). I'm not an asshole for having an opinion on this subject and for having a judgment about people with different ideas about the issue than me. I don't expect religious people to completely understand where I'm coming from either. The goal shouldn't be for us to all be right. The goal is for us to still get along and be able to talk past/through our differences.

Ultimately I've given up on having any change occur on this issue due to discussion. It's something that will just see to itself with time. Too many people in our younger generations are regularly exposed to homosexuality for them to continue to hold the close-minded views that still, unfortunately, predominate. That's going to be what fixes this. In the meantime, I reluctantly tolerate what will no doubt be recognized as disgraceful in a generation or two. But tolerating it has nothing to do with rationalizing that it isn't wrong. It's more about making do with an imperfect world.

JeffL

12-21-2008, 06:55 AM

StGabe, 100% understand where you are coming from. I do find it interesting that people are willing to give Obama a break on his repeated statements that he is against gay marriage - the quote that I put up earlier, from Obama, could have come from Rick Warren (which is why I put it there.) But because he's a liberal, no one calls him a bigot for consistently saying he personally thinks that gay marriage is wrong due to his religious beliefs. Cause we like him, he's "on OUR side", etc. He hasn't done a single thing to disavow his comments, yet we find excuses to impart certain thought processes to cut him a break.

The smartest guy I ever knew, and probably ever will, was a guy named Paul Flory. I met him in grad school and had the rare and privileged opportunity to work with him a little after I got out. He is far "smarter" than anyone else on this forum - he was scary intelligent, in his own world, in fact kind of low in his points in other characteristics (he put all of his RPG points into "intelligence.") He won the Nobel Prize years ago, has since passed on.

One thing he taught me that stuck: one day he gave a presentation at a seminar that I attended, and some guy in the audience essentially challenged him on a theory that almost everyone accepted and all of the data supported, and there were VERY few scientists who even dared say they didn't believe it. One of those "All serious scientist believe this" things. And Paul gave him a thoughtful answer, and invited the guy to chat with him one on one later in the day. I asked Paul at lunch: How can you take that guy seriously? Why not just blow him off, he's obviously either ignorant or just trying to show off in a weird way. Paul's answer stuck with me - he said "Jeff, whenever I encounter someone who has a significant belief that is contrary to one that I hold and firmly believe, my first thought is not how stupid the other person is, but rather that there is something I do not understand: why does this person believe this way? What is the basis for their belief, obviously something I do not understand? They may indeed be ignorant, but why? Is there a reason that they WANT to believe this? There is much to be learned from such people, and I almost never fail to come away a little better and having learned something from a discussion with such a person, whether the belief is scientific, social, religious, or any other area."

I didn't quote that exactly, but close. I figured if the most intelligent person I've ever known started with the assumption that a person who held a belief far different than he did was something he did not understand and thus wanted to attempt to understand rather than simply pass judgment on them, it would be pretty arrogant of me to simply quickly pass blanket judgment. I don't adhere to that very well a lot of times, I'm no saint and have more than my share of arrogance but it at least is something I think about.

On something like gay marriage: yeah, we may not make any progress by sitting and talking with people who strongly oppose it. But I think we'd be better off sitting with such people, talking with respect, talking about why we believe it is the thing to do and why they oppose it, getting each side to see the other side as real people with a reason behind their beliefs and perhaps have some respect even when we disagree, and I would guess there might be some movement. Certainly it would create a better environment than the current vitriol that ensures the two sides will only see the other as the enemy.

For me, the real moment where I went from neutral to pretty strongly pro-gay marriage was when I got to know, closely, a gay friend of my wife and chatted over the years with him and understand his strong love for his partner, and how much it would mean to the two of them to be married. When I was able to see it in such a personal level vs. internet arguments, and really see the heart of this wonderful person and how deeply he felt, I was so touched that I now took it personally. Should I have been as pro-gay marriage without a personal experience? Sure. But it is an example. And I know at least one person from a Southern Baptist Church who has had such a personal experience and they now also have been "converted". Again, the point being that engaging with respect with people who disagree does not mean either side will be massively converted, but it certainly creates a more fruitful environment than what we generally have today.

Unfortunately, I think we have too many people today on both sides who are invested in and who derive great pleasure from the demonization of the other side.

Kraaze

12-21-2008, 07:56 AM

Tyjenks

12-21-2008, 10:48 AM

While I normally don't approve of "me too" or "what he said" posts, but Jeff's post was so excellent and so exactly representative of my views on the subject that I'm going to break down and do it.

Yeah, what Jeff said.
Beat me to it.

What Kraaze said. (If Jeff is in a thread, it is easier for me to just wait and let him post as he ends up mirroring much of my thoughts only in a clearer fashion)

Jason McCullough

12-21-2008, 02:41 PM

I do find it interesting that people are willing to give Obama a break on his repeated statements that he is against gay marriage.....

That's because we don't believe him. From what we know of the man it's out of character, so probably dialing back his real opinion for political gain.

On something like gay marriage: yeah, we may not make any progress by sitting and talking with people who strongly oppose it. But I think we'd be better off sitting with such people, talking with respect, talking about why we believe it is the thing to do and why they oppose it, getting each side to see the other side as real people with a reason behind their beliefs and perhaps have some respect even when we disagree, and I would guess there might be some movement. Certainly it would create a better environment than the current vitriol that ensures the two sides will only see the other as the enemy.

I guess you've sure got us there with citing a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, for his views on scientific methodology, and then extending them to the not particularly related area of political coalition building and bill passing!

While "let's talk it out" works well for discussion with individuals who aren't particularly invested already, it doesn't work for partisans on a subject, and it doesn't work for political leaders.

Coates combines a couple things (http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/nail_to_hammer.php):

People who are upset about a politician doing something they don't like that's essentially symbolic in nature -- like the selection of Rick Warren -- often have difficulty articulating to skeptics exactly what the nature of the problem is. Simply digging up more and more quotes of the offending person's offending activities doesn't answer the reply "so what? it's just symbolism..."

A brief point to make is that it's very easy for a person who isn't part of the minority group that's being symbolically dissed to dismiss someone else's concerns as merely symbolic and not that big a deal. But it's worth considering how much public policy acts consistently to reaffirm the symbolic commitments of majority groups. If Barack Obama were proposing to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday and end the White House Easter Egg Hunt, nobody would be surprised to see people get very upset even though the concrete stakes would be low.

Warren is not a symbolic figure. He's a religious leader who mobilizes his flock and leverages his public influence in order to affect electoral outcomes (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=political_not_just_religious). The most prominent example was the Proposition 8 ballot initiative -- as opposed to, say, the Proposition 8 symbolic logo design contest -- in California. Warren used his power and prestige instrumentally, not symbolically. And Obama is giving him more power, and more prestige, which he will, quite assuredly, deploy in an instrumental fashion.

Meanwhile, I'd also note that the people deriding concerns about Warren as "symbolic" are the same people who were dancing in the streets when Obama won the election. When the symbolism mattered to them, they weren't spending a lot of time noting that Obama's basket of policies was really pretty standard for a Democratic candidate and so people shouldn't get exercised over the symbolism embedded in his victory.

Apparently Obama thinks he needs Warren for political purposes; I guess I can swallow that. He's definitely better at politics than me.

Rick Warren, however, can go fuck himself for his work taking people's marriages away from them.

JeffL

12-21-2008, 02:51 PM

That's because we don't believe him. From what we know of the man it's out of character, so probably dialing back his real opinion for political gain.

You don't believe him because you don't want to. Even though he has said this for years and never said otherwise. It isn't convenient to believe it, so you decide OK, he must not really mean that. So I'll twist it into something that fits better.

He's also said the exact same thing to GLAAD - hardly the correct political answer.

Jason McCullough

12-21-2008, 03:11 PM

So? Politicians who lie about their real views on a subject until they're retired has a long, long history. Note Clinton getting far more liberal the second he was out of office.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sticks out like a sore them when you try to put together an ideological map of how the guy thinks. It's also not all that big of a deal because for someone who doesn't support gay marriage he certainly does little to push against it.

StGabe

12-21-2008, 03:12 PM

Re Obama: from my perspective he's wrong on several issues. He's still, by far, the best presidential candidate we've had in my lifetime. Calling people out for an inconsistency here doesn't really make sense. It was a refusal to let Obama off the hook for supporting Warren that started this conversation in the first place. Sure, Jason may still be holding out, but we've had this conversation several times (i.e. telecom immunity) and mostly people are willing to be critical of Obama on certain issues while still liking him overall.

Re: Respect. I respect the person, but not the beliefs. Being against gay marriage, by everything I know and believe, is nothing but bigotry. Period. It's not that I'm deomonizing these people. It's that there's this word, "bigotry", and they fulfill it's definition.

I've had calm, respectful conversations with people from all sorts of walks of life: fundamentalist christians (of several flavors), mormons and jews, outright racists, people who fought for the Nazi's in WW II, etc. I do see a lot of value in this act and it does give one a better understanding of where these people are coming from. However I'm not going to apologize if, after the conversation, I still find their beliefs and acts to be forms of hate, fear, and/or ignorance.

Anders Hallin

12-21-2008, 04:21 PM

the quote that I put up earlier, from Obama, could have come from Rick Warren (which is why I put it there.)
No, it's not. Rick Warren wouldn't say "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination, I think is the right balance to strike in this society", he'd say they already have all the rights that straight people have, and that there's no reason to give them further rights. In other words, the quote you posted from Obama is open to civil unions, which is why it's acceptable. Kinda.

Kraaze

12-21-2008, 06:33 PM

I guess you've sure got us there with citing a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, for his views on scientific methodology, and then extending them to the not particularly related area of political coalition building and bill passing!

I really enjoy reading a lot of your posts Jason, you seem well informed and up to speed on a great many topics and usually have some angles and insights I've never thought of. That being said I'm often irritated by your habit of handwaving off posts you disagree with, using no more rebuttal than a snide jab at the source. It really makes me wonder you are sincerely interested in discussing these topics.

JeffL

12-21-2008, 06:50 PM

No, it's not. Rick Warren wouldn't say "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination, I think is the right balance to strike in this society", he'd say they already have all the rights that straight people have, and that there's no reason to give them further rights. In other words, the quote you posted from Obama is open to civil unions, which is why it's acceptable. Kinda.

Actually, you're probably right.

Jason McCullough

12-21-2008, 09:32 PM

I really enjoy reading a lot of your posts Jason, you seem well informed and up to speed on a great many topics and usually have some angles and insights I've never thought of. That being said I'm often irritated by your habit of handwaving off posts you disagree with, using no more rebuttal than a snide jab at the source. It really makes me wonder you are sincerely interested in discussing these topics.

We should listen to people who disagree with us, is fine. Argument from authority from a nobel prize winner (can I cite Krugman on gay marriage to parry?) on an unrelated topic isn't.

JeffL

12-22-2008, 07:11 AM

We should listen to people who disagree with us, is fine. Argument from authority from a nobel prize winner (can I cite Krugman on gay marriage to parry?) on an unrelated topic isn't.

You really exasperate, Jason. When I discuss something I heard on CNN, ABC news, and NPR, you tell me I'm just falling for the right wing blather and that you can't trust the media for information. Then you quote for authority an internet article that's about 2 paragraphs long by someone people have never heard of that basically has some guy saying hey, I got on the phone and called a guy who wrote a book and here's what he said in a couple of sentences.

I wish I hadn't used Paul's name because you apparently got distracted from the point (or you're just pulling out one of your 3 or 4 standard catchphrases you seem to use to reply to all of my comments and opinions these days.) The entire point was that I - not anyone else - was influenced by a very smart guy who said that he has learned that whenever he ran into someone with a very different opinion than his on any topic - social, religious, technical, etc. - his first thought was that here was something he did not understand, and then sought more understanding of that person and why they held that opinion. And that led me to think that way when I run into people with very different opinions.

How you turned that into a comment on the scientific method is beyond me - you're starting to come across as uncharacteristically knee-jerk these days. I don't expect you to agree with me nor do I EVER expect these days you to ever change your mind on anything, you're not someone I expect or attempt to modify your opinions no matter what.

You left out another opportunity to attack me for describing something I observed in my life (anecdotal) and arguing from authority - I also described how my opinion on gay marriage was greatly influenced by getting to know a very close gay friend of my wife who beautifully articulated why it was important to him to be married to his partner. Surely he is an authority on gay marriage matters.

And yeah, if you had dinner with Krugman and he shared some thoughts that were good on gay marriage and how it influenced your thinking, I think a lot of people would be interested. How people's opinions are shaped are interesting - this place is far from a formal debate with refs and rules and an official winner and loser. You come across that you think some opinions and some sharing of experiences and thoughts is not allowed or inappropriate - how sharing opinions and how they were shaped is inappropriate on an Internet forum on politics and religion is beyond me.

EDIT: Jason, one difference I just thought of - I'm not trying to "beat" you, your comment on using Krugman to parry makes it sound like you think this is a contest rather than a sharing of opinions, sources, thoughts, etc.

Destarius

12-22-2008, 07:24 AM

Kraaze

12-22-2008, 07:34 AM

Argument from authority from a nobel prize winner (can I cite Krugman on gay marriage to parry?) on an unrelated topic isn't.

It wasn't an argument from authority, it was an anecdote explaining how Jeff had come to his personal views on the topic. You seem to be counterattacking hard in the absence of, ya know, an actual attack.

Tyjenks

12-22-2008, 08:45 AM

I view Jason and his posting habits as similar to a liberal version of a Southern baptist minister in preaching to his flock. Given time, he can search and find something to support whatever he believes as right and construct a plausible theory by piecing together bits from the ass end of everywhere. Also, similarly, he has the time that others do not to endlessly trackdown and refute almost anything by bending info to suit him. He is also happy to ignore other things that run counter to his views because their support is so obviously ignorant and, "Look at these links that back me up".....sort of.

At some point, I gave up reading his posts unless he is involved in a debate with someone who has rational views who is actually interested in trying to debate him (It still boggles my mind that people attempt such a thing.). I do not think Jason is interested in actual debate. While the case with most of us to some degree, I think with Jason it IS all about winning the thread.

I do realize that you don't give a crap about what I think, Jason, but, in my view, some of your posting patterns have done irreparable harm to your credibility in posting in P&R.

More importantly, I thought Jeff's reference to his acquaintance gave a real life context to his personal view rather than some dry blog snippet. I would welcome anyone in a debate to do something similar as that type of support for one's side of the story fleshes out a point much better than a link.

Jason McCullough

12-22-2008, 09:29 AM

You really exasperate, Jason. When I discuss something I heard on CNN, ABC news, and NPR, you tell me I'm just falling for the right wing blather and that you can't trust the media for information. Then you quote for authority an internet article that's about 2 paragraphs long by someone people have never heard of that basically has some guy saying hey, I got on the phone and called a guy who wrote a book and here's what he said in a couple of sentences.

They're not really the same thing. Appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) usually relies on the authority without checkable data or anything, e.g., nobel prize winner says to talk to people who disagree with you in a certain way because he does so and he's a nobel prize winner, which isn't an actual reason. No really, re-read what you post - it's interesting I guess, but there's no reason expressed as to why it's a good idea. As pointed out in the link, trusting an expert without him providing the data is less severe, and note 1) I didn't claim that guy was obviously right; people are free to refute him and 2) no one else had offered up even a single data point on the intimidation issue so I figured it was ok, while not ideal. If someone actually had published a study or something you can't realy refute that by calling some labor expert, obviously.

The smart nobel prize winner does X, so I do that, so therefore you should also, was your point, right?

You left out another opportunity to attack me for describing something I observed in my life (anecdotal) and arguing from authority - I also described how my opinion on gay marriage was greatly influenced by getting to know a very close gay friend of my wife who beautifully articulated why it was important to him to be married to his partner. Surely he is an authority on gay marriage matters.

Sure. This is why I think arguing with dogmatic anti-gay marriage people is pointless, contrary the smart guy - the only cases where I've ever heard of a dogmatic changing their mind on this stuff is from friends and family who turn out to be gay. It's a weak theory, but I haven't seen much better. Reasoning seems to have no effect on the likes of Warren.

Jason, one difference I just thought of - I'm not trying to "beat" you, your comment on using Krugman to parry makes it sound like you think this is a contest rather than a sharing of opinions, sources, thoughts, etc.

It's more trying to determine the proper opinion and recommended course of action. If you really could change Rick Warren's mind by discussing with him, sure, great, but I suspect we all would just be wasting our time.

My not expressed very well point on parrying was that argument from authority just results in people citing names back and forth trying to get a bigger pile of authority.

StGabe

12-22-2008, 09:58 AM

You really exasperate, Jason.

To be fair this is the Nth thread in a row where you've entered on a high horse and offered a mix of anecdotes and appeal to authority towards some conclusion with popular but dubious support.

If you take the same tact as last thread on this (union intimidation) you'll claim that you're not trying to make an argument. However, in so doing, you are turning your face on reason. Philosophy, science and mathematics use a discipline of converting ideas into arguments. This discipline, believe it or not, does not exist in order to "win teh internet". It exists in order to allow us to better understand ideas and filter the good ones from the bad ones. When I take your arguments, distill them down to premises, conclusions and deductions, all too often there's nothing there.

Let me, as an authority on this subject (I taught a bit of logic in grad school after all) instill upon you this: you're reasoning would be better if you swept away some fallacies. Appeal to authority is a bad habit, an intellectual laziness, that's very clear in your writing. Heck, in your recent reply to Jason you are even suggesting that he should use it ("see, this gay guy is YOUR appeal to authority/anecdote -- why aren't you using it???"). It's not enough to say that it isn't an argument because it is. It's an argument that you use to justify certain ideas to yourself and then, by bringing out your anecdotes, to us.

JeffL

12-22-2008, 10:47 AM

StGabe, at the risk of doing precisely what you are telling me I am doing, I do have some experience in making actual arguments to prove or disprove a hypothesis in a matter - it is kinda what I have been doing for a living since 1982. But I do understand your point.

Here is my counter, however. If I were in a debate in which I was trying to "win" I would indeed be spending time googling up stuff, etc. and spending a lot of time dredging up documentation, etc. And if I feel I'm in a situation where that is important - e.g. I'm on a Washington D.C. based subcommittee where we present data to Congress and several D.C. Congressional committees in order to help them with decisions on issues relating to technical matters - in that case I absolutely spend a lot of time trying to put the data together, dig to try to disprove my data (to ensure it is the best data,) cite the references and check on them and try to disprove them, etc. It is pretty exhaustive and exhausting.

Here - this, to me, is a bunch of people talking the way we would in a bar or over dinner. I post my opinions, take it or leave it, and I usually try to post how I developed that opinion. I don't care who believes me or not. For better or worse, I'm old. ;) Older than most here. And as a result, I've had a lot of life experiences. I've worked in most areas of the sciences for decades, from the mundane (working with car technology, computer technology, medical technology, etc.) to the very cool (working on cancer treatments, for example.) and in that have been in a lot of business situations. I've lived in a lot of places and visited and worked in a lot of places. I was a kid in the deep South when integration occurred and was one of the white kids that was moved to a formerly all black school, with Alabama State Troopers present. I made friends with black kids in that school and got to know what it was like for them. I was lucky enough to attend a Martin Luther King Jr. sermon in a not so big black church as a child, and had him address me directly (I was one of about 3 white people in the church!)

I've been to Northern Uganda more than once and held a small child in my arms as he died from starvation even though we'd gotten the food into that area, just too late. And I've had a soldier there stick a rifle barrel in my mouth and tell me that he didn't like people like me coming into his country to interfere.

I've had a lot of other experiences: I played in a rock band that played regularly in New Orleans and had Buffet come on stage with us and then party with us afterwards, I've done drugs, I've had to meet parents at the airport and tell them their 23 year old son was dead because of someone violating a safety policy, etc. I say all of this not to claim superiority or "authority" - just to explain that I'm an old guy with a lot of life experiences behind me, and one who has changed opinions on a lot of matters on which I was 100% convinced I was right before I ran into some real life experience that convinced me I was wrong. And I have no doubt that I'm "wrong" on a lot of issues now - if I was wrong before I'm sure I can and will be wrong again.

But here, I just read and throw in an opinion, and tell how I developed it. I'm not telling anyone THEY should adopt my opinion just because I state it - just take it as whatever it's worth, with whatever else you read, and create your own opinion) I assume no one is going to develop an opinion on anything important from a few posts in an internet forum from people they don't know in real life.

BlueJackalope

12-22-2008, 11:35 AM

Your trolling now right?

http://www.racketmag.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/wutang.jpg

StGabe

12-22-2008, 01:54 PM

I'll give you my resume of impressive life experiences if you really want it. If it's impressive enough, will it make me right?

The point of making good arguments isn't to win. It's to maintain intellectual consistency and honesty. Smart people aren't immune to self-rationalization. Just the opposite: they're extremely good at it. It's even more important for smart people to engage in due diligence of their ideas. That's why anecdotes and appeal to authority don't cut it. Those are actually more appropriate for people who have less skills expressing complex ideas and arguments. You're far beyond the point where you should be expected to be able convey the actual argument behind something. And especially in the case where someone starts laying one out, for example Jason, you can engage them at that level, not at the level of claiming greater authority.

Your gay friend may have opened your eyes on the issue. But he's not the reason why you are right/wrong about it. He's merely the guy who made you think about it enough to decide that you'd been wrong in the past. There are two things here:

1) Having sufficient reasons for believing something.
2) Being able to consider those reasons in the first place.

You're "I have a gay friend" credential helped you with #2. But it didn't make you wrong or right. There are a lot of inspiring figures in the world. Many of them inspire contradictory ideas or have followers who inconsistently apply their ideas. It's well and good to inspire people to look at an issue in a new way and it can be necessary to have them change their mind. However, the key point is, it's never sufficient. Anecdotes and inspiration can only make you open to an idea but these never give sufficient evidence for that idea (well unless the idea is very limited in scope). Similarly authority is only good in-so-much as it conveys an ability to adequately explain the reasons for believing something. Without the reasons themselves authority is worthless.

StGabe

12-22-2008, 03:11 PM

Let me put things this say:

This Nobel prize winner that you admire, let's say he goes in to have a discussion with the fellow who disagrees with him. Does he start the conversation with, "well, you see, I'm a Nobel prize winner, so let me tell you how it is"? Is it better if he says, "well I have lots of Nobel prize winner friends and this is how they say it is"? What if he goes with, "well I had an experience once that tells me I'm right, so let me tell you about it so you'll understand that I am in fact right"?

In fact I bet the first thing he does is ask some questions and try to break down what the other person is saying. You know, discover what the underlying argument and logic is. If the argument is purely anecdotal and full of appeal to authority or other fallacies then at some point he's forced to admit: ok, I gave this guy a shot, but unfortunately there's just not a lot there this time. And if the dissenter seems smart and maybe has a few good ideas, but has a few holes in his argument, then your friend would, I have to imagine, point the problems out and see where the conversation goes from there.

The point being: the important bit is the reasoning and not the anecdote that illustrates the reasoning. Authority does not enhance these reasons in and of itself. It only tells the listener that the authority likely has some good reasoning to impart.

P.S. and nice troll. :-P

JeffL

12-22-2008, 04:11 PM

OK, StGabe, I have no arguments with your points - you make them well and I understand. The whole point of mentioning that Paul was a Nobel Prize winner was not to say "See, my guy is smarter than your guy!!!" but apparently the competitive nature of this forum makes it difficult to chat without people thinking you're trying to win or lose and thus mentioning that Paul is a smart guy, and he impressed me with his thought process, and the fact that he thought the way he did made me examine how I reacted to people I disagreed with. There was no intent to "use authority" - people seem hung up on the "use authority" factor here, which to me is a little silly since this is a little internet forum and not a refereed journal or testimony in court or judged debate or even a campaign to get nominated, etc.

To directly answer your question, Paul would enter a discussion with "you are one of the few people I've met who disagree with the reptation theory of chain configuration. Help me understand your thoughts and why you disagree?" And he would do that with someone who was a Scientologist, for example, which would drive me crazy since I consider Scientology to be such a sham, so I "get" where people are when they look down on people who are Christians, for example. I heard him chat with a guy in L.A., at dinner, who was a Scientologist, and he asked him about his thoughts on Ron Hubbard, explained his own (Paul's) view that so much of what Hubbard taught about being from Mars, etc. was just impossible for him to accept, so he was interested in how someone who was an obviously intelligent person could resolve those issues, etc.

So, OK, I'll not mention if someone I knew who influenced me has a prize or is well known or whatever, as that seems to be taken here as trying to one-up or whatever. The entire point was that a smart guy impressed me and got me to thinking that listening to others and trying to understand them will probably be a better approach that the status quo of demonizing the other side and treating them all as if they are cretins. My expectation is that the discussion will be around the point, which was that we'd be better off trying to engage and understand rather than demonize and divide, not a focus on why I myself developed that opinion. Which you said yourself - the important bit is the reasoning not the anecdote on why I think that way.

quatoria

12-22-2008, 05:40 PM

Anders Hallin

12-23-2008, 12:39 AM

Read this on digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/one-way-street-by-digby-i-saw-something.html) (from Hardball):
Rogers: What I would like to see, and I'd like to hear you agree with it, is that Rick Warren convenes and sits down, again, behind closed doors, not on the stage trotting everybody out, but sits down with the leadership of our community, the gay leadership, and says "I'd like to build a bridge." Sit down with the Human Rights Campaign, sit down with National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Religious Roundtable, and show me that your speech is really about reaching out and that it's really about uniting America. And if you can't sit down and have those meetings with the community, then I think that shows what you're really about.

Rivers:(upset) No, no, no. Mr Rogers, listen ...

Rogers: sure

Rivers: It would be presumptuous of you to suggest that if Reverend Warren doesn't sit down with your particular crew, that's an act of bad faith. That's a political trick...

Rogers: If Warren is a so-called leader in the evangelical movement who represents the evangelical movement on a national level, certainly it's appropriate for him to sit down with the national leaders of the gay and lesbian movement...
I rather think Warren, a man whose church doesn't welcome "unrepentant gays" (that's "gays" for us people who have no problem with homosexuality), is not very interested in meeting representatives of the glbtq-movement, because this outreach we all so much want seems to mostly go in one direction.

It's fair enough to involve people you don't agree with on every bit of policy in a political process where you do agree with them, but when choosing someone to perform a symbolic act, is it too much to ask that that person be someone who's inclusive?

Tyjenks

12-23-2008, 07:08 AM

Not sure we need people rallying behind different posters, but that always seems to happen, so..

You have a very definite style, a pattern of posting in P&R that you rarely deviate from, and it does not seem to serve your intended purposes well.

I don't see that. I see Jeff putting forth his point of view just like anyone else. People just have different styles of going about it and, it would seem, those of us who view all the postings tend to prefer one way to the other.

Lum

12-23-2008, 08:25 AM

Meanwhile, Melissa Etheridge talks to Rick Warren, who surprisingly was not trailing brimstone and the tears of fornicators behind him. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html)

This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays.

Anders Hallin

12-23-2008, 08:35 AM

That's funny, I just read this open letter to the Etheridges:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/23/bamboozling-the-etheridges/

I really wish you had asked him at that point what he was doing to ensure that every loving relationship has equal protection. Because somehow it seems like all he’s been doing in that direction is insisting that wives should submit to their husbands, and trying to keep gay folks from getting married and having families, spouting rhetoric repeatedly about how marriage is only for family and procreation, and therefore not for homosexuals. Obviously he wasn’t cultivating any regard whatsoever for families like yours.

Anders Hallin

12-23-2008, 08:38 AM

Basically, I don't doubt that Rick Warren is unpleasant to be around. Nor that GW Bush would be pleasant to have a non-alcoholic drink with.
But we're not really talking about personal qualities.

JeffL

12-23-2008, 08:47 AM

Meanwhile, Melissa Etheridge talks to Rick Warren, who surprisingly was not trailing brimstone and the tears of fornicators behind him. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html)

It's worth reading her entire post. That is the kind of attitude that I was talking about. Sure, if the other guys spit in your face, OK, what can you do. But it does mean a little something that people like Etheridge who actually sit down and talk with Warren come away with a different view of the guy than people in an internet forum.

theblackw0lf

12-23-2008, 09:19 AM

Read this on digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/one-way-street-by-digby-i-saw-something.html) (from Hardball):

I rather think Warren, a man whose church doesn't welcome "unrepentant gays" (that's "gays" for us people who have no problem with homosexuality), is not very interested in meeting representatives of the glbtq-movement, because this outreach we all so much want seems to mostly go in one direction.

It's fair enough to involve people you don't agree with on every bit of policy in a political process where you do agree with them, but when choosing someone to perform a symbolic act, is it too much to ask that that person be someone who's inclusive?

Err, "unrepentant gays' can attend the church services, but they can't become members unless they repent of their homosexuality.

As Andrew Sullivan points out, this is pretty par for the course for many churches. The Catholic Church doesn't allow Sullivan to join the church because of his civil union with his partner. I disagree with it, but I'd hardly say it's an extreme position outside the Christian mainstream, and doesn't necessarily indicate he's not interested in dialog. The choice for exclusion isn't necessarily based on their dislike of gays, but may be based on the theological belief that to join the church one must declare their lordship to Christ and repent of all those acts that Christ would see as sinful. (They also don't allow people living together to join the church also).

And just to be clear (since the person you quoted made this mistake) he's not giving a speech. He's giving a one minute prayer.

Jason McCullough

12-23-2008, 11:41 AM

Warren is a good politician who can "sound reasonable" while still holding appalling views. I'm shocked, truly.

Lum

12-23-2008, 01:31 PM

You know, this bears repeating:

If a minister believes in biblical inerrancy (which, you know, is one of the hallmarks of fundamentalist Christianity), they're not going to be accepting of gay relationships within their spiritual community, because the Bible specifically forbids them repeatedly and explicitly.

If you accept gay relationships as valid, and don't believe in biblical inerrancy, or the Bible as a moral guideline in general, that's perfectly reasonable.

If you are a Christian but want nothing to do with churches that espouse biblical inerrancy and all that go along with it, that's perfectly reasonable.

If you want to support politicians that do not enact laws based on fundamentalist views of biblical inerrancy, that's perfectly reasonable.

If you want to move the prevailing views of the culture in that direction, that's perfectly reasonable.

If you demand a minister of a fundamentalist Christian church espouse views contrary to fundamentalist Christianity, that is not that reasonable.

If you insist that people who believe in fundamentalist Christianity have no business championing their views simply because you disagree with them, that is not that reasonable.

Engaging/challenging Warren on his support for Proposition 8 in California as a political figure is fine, but the continued attacks on him as some kind of immoral ogre and fundamentalism as some sort of bizarre ritual from the Dark Ages with no public support on the order of leeches and burning Albigensians at the stake, simply because you don't believe in the same kind of Christianity that he does is silly and counterproductive and literally the same kind of intolerance that you condemn him for.

Jason McCullough

12-23-2008, 02:02 PM

"My religion says I have to believe and do this regardless of whether it makes sense or has bad consequences" isn't much of a defense. It's not like it just so happens there's one variant of "biblical inerrancy" either and you can't interpret it for yourself; I don't believe for a second people exist that actually don't mind gays at all but are just "following orders."

Lum

12-23-2008, 02:06 PM

"My religion says I have to believe and do this regardless of whether it makes sense or has bad consequences" isn't much of a defense.

It's also irrelevant; fundamentalist Christians, obviously, do not believe their faith is nonsensical.

And as was pointed out in the Pope-vs-gender-theory thread, the Bible itself does not lend itself to an endorsement of modern views of gay relationships. Christian denominations that do so also do not emphasize biblical inerrancy, for obvious reasons. Denominations that do insist on inerrancy generally follow, well, what the Bible contains (although they cherry pick as well, thanks to Paul's waffling on Mosaic law).

Regardless, you can't realistically condemn a fundamentalist preacher for actually preaching fundamentalism. (Well, I suppose you could, but it's not particularly helpful.) And given the not-insignificant numbers of fundamentalists out there, the question really is, should Obama have reached out to probably the most moderate of their number, or should he have blown them off and told them to go hang?

Hugin

12-23-2008, 02:19 PM

I don't believe for a second people exist that actually don't mind gays at all but are just "following orders."

I think you're very wrong. Look, I understand that for many people, their expressed reason for being anti gay is just the conscious or unconscious rationalization for their true reason, which may be one or more of many things.

But some people really are just kind of very, very rules oriented, very tuned to obeying whatever authority they recognize as legit. I find (anecdotal generalization alert) that these people tend to be somewhat anxious folks who get a lot of comfort from clear cut situations, and perhaps lacking a bit of imagination. Having a clear set of rules to follow or a clear leader to follow gives them a strong sense of security.

Jason McCullough

12-23-2008, 02:46 PM

Sure, theoretically, the obeying orders people must exist - but have you ever met one? Serious question.

Regardless, you can't realistically condemn a fundamentalist preacher for actually preaching fundamentalism. (Well, I suppose you could, but it's not particularly helpful.) And given the not-insignificant numbers of fundamentalists out there, the question really is, should Obama have reached out to probably the most moderate of their number, or should he have blown them off and told them to go hang?

In practical terms, Obama's better at politics than I am, so I figure splitting the GOP evangelical coalition is worth it; we just have to make it, ah, clear what we're putting up with.

Your post just made it sound like adopting appalling views was a given we couldn't complain about, which I disagree with - no one is forcing anyone to adopt specific views on homosexuality to stay in a religion; there's plenty of denominational variance. It's not biblical inerrancy is a required entrance condition for christianity either. Personally I think inerrancy it's more about the lazy psychological needs of the adherent, just like hardcore ideological people who refuse to adjust, but that's a separate discussion.

Lum

12-23-2008, 02:53 PM

Your post just made it sound like adopting appalling views was a given we couldn't complain about, which I disagree with - no one is forcing anyone to adopt specific views on homosexuality to stay in a religion; there's plenty of denominational variance.

I like how you're going to convince fundamentalist Christianity, Roman Catholicism, and much of mainline Protestantism to give up on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy just because it contains strictures you find appalling. Good luck with that.

Religion - the quickest way to sound out P&R's echo chamber. "Everyone I know is an atheist. The world is atheist!"

You're not going to convince someone their religious faith is wrong, most likely. You can work to defeat laws that impose that faith on the public sphere, but doing so by mobilizing your own team through shredding the faith of adherents on the other side is exactly the sort of slash and burn politics... that you stand for, right. Forgot.

Mordrak

12-23-2008, 02:57 PM

You seem too caught up in the idea that everyone but you is viewing this as a competition, and you're the lone dissenting voice of reason. It's a role you always seem ready to jump into - that of the wise, persecuted stranger, who just wanted to make a few simple comments without argument or disagreement.

If he wants the title, he's going to need to go one on one in a cage match with Lum. Heh.

Lum

12-23-2008, 02:58 PM

If he wants the title, he's going to need to go one on one in a cage match with Lum. Heh.

Sorry, can't hear you. Can you come closer to the cross I'm nailed to, please?

Jason McCullough

12-23-2008, 03:08 PM

You're not going to convince someone their religious faith is wrong, most likely. You can work to defeat laws that impose that faith on the public sphere, but doing so by mobilizing your own team through shredding the faith of adherents on the other side is exactly the sort of slash and burn politics... that you stand for, right. Forgot.

If you're not going to be able to convince them specific tenets of their religious faith are wrong on certain important issues, what exactly is the point of inviting them into your party? So they can still vote against you in return for the consideration? Convincing people their religion doesn't necessarily imply certain things, or in fact implies the opposite, has a long, long history, most noteably with slavery in the United States.

On the note of me being mean to the oh-so-very not-slash and burn Warren, note this is a guy who says gays suffers from christ-phobia (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/12/23/seattle_times_to_puget_sound) and has compared homosexuality to pederasty (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=SYG&q=rick+warren+pederasty&btnG=Search). I thought he supported civil unions at least and what cutting him some slack, but apparently that's not the case (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/12/23/rick_warren_king_day.html).

StGabe

12-23-2008, 03:56 PM

If you're not going to be able to convince them specific tenets of their religious faith are wrong on certain important issues, what exactly is the point of inviting them into your party?

To get them to vote with us on other issues. Just because we disagree on 20% of the platform doesn't mean we can't work together on the other 80% (pick whatever %'ages you want -- as long as the second is significant, the argument is worth considering). While I may think that certain people have asinine views on abortion and gay rights, neither of those issues are in my top 10 right now.

Hugin

12-23-2008, 05:06 PM

Sure, theoretically, the obeying orders people must exist - but have you ever met one? Serious question.

Of course, many. I'm kind of weirded out that you haven't.

It's one of the reasons (not the only reason, obviously) why it's so common for people to be friends or family or friendly neighbors with this or that or the other (gay, black, muslim, etc) specific member of a minority while still holding generic prejudiced views against them as groups. It's also a reason why so many people can so doggedly espouse views based on theories and philosophy they don't even understand, and might even disagree with if presented to them in granular form (See Sarah Palin on abortion. Intellectually, she's completely incoherent on the subject. Not stupid. Not coherent. Her views don't connect to each other rationally, they're just spackled on to her political gestalt with brute force.).

Lum

12-23-2008, 05:14 PM

On the note of me being mean to the oh-so-very not-slash and burn Warren, note this is a guy who says gays suffers from christ-phobia (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/12/23/seattle_times_to_puget_sound) and has compared homosexuality to pederasty (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=SYG&q=rick+warren+pederasty&btnG=Search). I thought he supported civil unions at least and what cutting him some slack, but apparently that's not the case (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/12/23/rick_warren_king_day.html).

Amazingly, one click away he disavowed pretty much everything you said (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared-gen/ap/Religion_Columns/Inauguration_Warren.html?cxntlid=inform_artr) to his own church.

Pastor Rick Warren, chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to pray at his inauguration, said in a video message to his church that he doesn't equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but opposes redefining marriage just as any conservative Christian would.

Warren said that disagreeing with gay-rights activists on same-sex marriage does not qualify as hate speech and doesn't mean he is anti-gay. He said Obama chose him to give the invocation at the swearing-in to show that people with different views don't have to demonize each other.

"We're both willing to be criticized in order to try to bring America into a new day of civil discourse and to create a new model that says you don't have to agree only with your side on everything," Warren said in the video posted Monday night by Saddleback Community Church.

Lum

12-23-2008, 05:26 PM

Slash and burn in action: woman's life ruined thanks to a $100 political donation. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez14-2008dec14,0,5995847.column)

Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that's always had throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage.

She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of "for" and "against" donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting "shame on you" at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

The mob left, but so did the customers.

But of course, that's justified, right? I mean, it's not like people should be free to believe things or anything. After all, gay marriage is as just a cause as the abolition of slavery, anyone who disagrees is a bigot (especially blacks who might get a wee bit out of joint at the conflation of the two), and the fact that homosexuality was only expressly legalized by the Supreme Court 5 years ago is entirely besides the point - those wacky fundamentalists, standing athwart history!

(Oh, and before people organize a demonstration at my own office, I'm all for civil unions, I took part in ACT-UP demos before a lot of you were out of diapers, and I'm pissed off our new medical insurance isn't covering domestic partnerships. Historical revisionism and political correctness just irks the crap out of me.)

nlanza

12-23-2008, 05:54 PM

But of course, that's justified, right? I mean, it's not like people should be free to believe things or anything.

Okay, stop right there.

Part of freedom of speech is that OTHER PEOPLE are also free to react to your speech.

At no point has freedom of speech EVER meant freedom from criticism.

You're free to think and say whatever you want. I'm free to say you're an asshole and encourage other people not to give you money or hang around with you. All that freedom of speech means is that the GOVERNMENT can't prevent you from thinking or speaking.

This "how dare you criticize people? don't you believe in freedom of speech?" thing is showing up a lot in prop-8 discussions, and it's just the lamest kind of lazy thinking.

If you want to support a public political cause or otherwise engage in political discourse in this country, you get to take the lumps when the people who know you and do business with you don't like your views. That's pretty much how it works. That's pretty much how it's ALWAYS worked.

I understand that people can go over the top in their reactions and protests sometimes, but I have very little sympathy for the "look at how horribly repressed we are for our views!" card that so many conservatives play these days. Yeah, it's tough to have people disagree with you. Real tough. Cry me a river already.

StGabe

12-23-2008, 05:54 PM

But of course, that's justified, right?

Just out of curiosity, are you saying it's not alright for people to organize protests and boycotts or choose how to spend their money?

I mean, I get what you're saying and it certainly seems extreme (harassing customers is a bit over the line) but making a personal choice based on politics doesn't seem that evil.

Also, this is the type of one-off story that people use to make a point that really doesn't say anything. Yay, some people somewhere are stupid. Stupid happens.

Hugin

12-23-2008, 05:59 PM

Slash and burn in action: woman's life ruined thanks to a $100 political donation. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez14-2008dec14,0,5995847.column)

But of course, that's justified, right?

Well, yeah. It's not "nice", but neither is contributing money to deny people their civil rights/happiness. Justified is kind of an irrelevant word. She engaged in political speech, the people that speech hurt (or their allies, whatever) heard her, and yelled back. It got ugly, police did their jobs, etc. There's collateral damage on both sides of the debate.

I mean, it's not like people should be free to believe things or anything.

Sure. How about believing that people who take your business and smile in your face then work against you or your friends legal status as a human being behind your back suck?

After all, gay marriage is as just a cause as the abolition of slavery, anyone who disagrees is a bigot (especially blacks who might get a wee bit out of joint at the conflation of the two),

The typical argument equates gay marriage with interracial marriage, not slavery or at worst a general approach to law and human rights from the ~1960s civil rights era that falls well after the abolition of slavery. This black person doesn't particularly mind the comparison at all.

and the fact that homosexuality was only expressly legalized by the Supreme Court 5 years ago is entirely besides the point - those wacky fundamentalists, standing athwart history!

I'm sure if gay rights activists would just be quieter, politer, and patienter, homophobic bigots would get around to reforming their views, or at least the perncious laws associated with those views, even faster!

Anders Hallin

12-23-2008, 09:55 PM

Err, "unrepentant gays' can attend the church services, but they can't become members unless they repent of their homosexuality.
Yes, and that is, in fact, not inclusive. You'd think they'd be going for inclusion with that kind of symbolic gesture, but I guess it shows that some people are more worth including than others. But hey, I'm sure the gays are plenty used to it by now. And it's not like they're even part of your constituency or anything.
I disagree with it, but I'd hardly say it's an extreme position outside the Christian mainstream, and doesn't necessarily indicate he's not interested in dialog.
No, turning away people interested in dialogue when it's someone who's not rich and famous and about proving your inclusive credentials indicates that: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/hypocrite_rick_warren_tried_to_back_out_of_meeting _with_gay_and_lesbian_fam/

Of course, this last move with Etheridge may be proof that Obama's outreach has worked. But I suspect Warren has far more to gain in the long-term by playing nice in the short-term. And as his organisation removed the language of not "welcoming unrepentant gays" from its webpage, apparently he does think that hiding such aspects is playing nice.
And just to be clear (since the person you quoted made this mistake) he's not giving a speech. He's giving a one minute prayer.
I'm pretty sure "speech" was a general term, seeking more that his actions should fit his words.

Anders Hallin

12-23-2008, 10:00 PM

If you demand a minister of a fundamentalist Christian church espouse views contrary to fundamentalist Christianity, that is not that reasonable.

If you insist that people who believe in fundamentalist Christianity have no business championing their views simply because you disagree with them, that is not that reasonable.
Which no one has done. This is about President-elect Obama's choice, not what Warren should or should not do. The talk of what he does is about illustrating why he's a bad choice.
Engaging/challenging Warren on his support for Proposition 8 in California as a political figure is fine, but the continued attacks on him as some kind of immoral ogre and fundamentalism as some sort of bizarre ritual from the Dark Ages with no public support on the order of leeches and burning Albigensians at the stake, simply because you don't believe in the same kind of Christianity that he does is silly and counterproductive and literally the same kind of intolerance that you condemn him for.
I'm sorry, I thought people wanted him to be replaced by someone more inclusive in a ceremony for a politician whose constituency Warren condemns, but I must have missed the lynch mob.