Three Major Fails This Week

[bigtree]

1. The prattle pretending that President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is some how at risk of being taken from him because of the political maneuvering by some in the committee. It will never happen. Carping over the prize is old news and the arguments against the award to the President almost always rest far outside of the specific reasons for his citation and more on quibbles over the meaning of the word 'Peace' in the title. It's a specific award for a specific accomplishment. Barack Obama earned it. Get over it.

2. Trying to convince folks that the President praying at a breakfast is part of some vast conspiracy to undermine the Constitution. Publicly proclaiming his religious beliefs and stating that those guide his actions in office can only lead one back to evaluating his policies and initiatives on their face in the long run. You have some rather standard statements about basic Christian belief which the president has said he relies on as the basis for his altruism and activism on the part of those in need. It's one thing to argue with the notion of helping the poor and disadvantaged, and a curious stand to argue about where that compassion originated. Who cares where he got the notion? It's an attitude and a commitment we should expect from our president.

3. Post after post arguing that the actions of 'Occupy' or 'OWS' are somehow 'hurting' our progressive 'causes'. Ther will be no 'causes' without outside pressure and protest. There will invariably be many different and diverse expressions of the reactive sentiment behind OWS, but the main effect of the movement is the movement of folks to public activism and advocacy. Those efforts shouldn't be marginalized or herded into one corner or the other where we all act right and try to not upset anyone.

We shouldn't be in the position where we're, in effect, protesting the protestors.Constructive criticism is fine, but the transparent predictions of the demise of OWS because someone, somewhere does something we disagree with -- coupled with the calls to shut the movement down -- are just siren songs meant to seduce folks away from these necessary challenges to the status quo. I'm not buying it. The spirit and determination of OWS is going to continue for as long as those forces resisting change persist; the efforts of those content with working overtime to stifle free expression only deepening that commitment and inviting even more resistance and civil disobedience.

[gopiscrap]

1. Great Post add a fourth fail

Mitt Romney open his mouth and put his foot in it!

[babylonsister]

2. Hi, bigtree. I haven't mentioned this to you in awhile, but

I still love how you write and express yourself. You are gifted. Thanks for making me happy to read what you write (and I'm so glad we agree now)!

[bigtree]

4. thanks, babylonsister

so very kind of you to say . . . Is it November yet?

[justiceischeap]

3. Just glad this time around it's OWS "hurting" the "progressive cause"

instead of the usual standby--teh gay.

[bigtree]

5. I hear you

[Bluenorthwest]

6. You write well and usually you are respectful to others.

The thing with the Family's Prayer breakfast and your question 'who cares where he got it from' is that the President states that Christianity is THE reason he opposes equal rights for others, which the Family does with aggression. The President's faith, when he decided to use it as a political modality, became a political modality. It is his choice to use 100% dogmatic religious language when he states his opposition to our rights. He is the one that made his holy things into tools of agenda.
So it is rather perplexing that anyone who is not also opposed to our rights could remain confused as to why the religious grandstanding is insulting.
At that breakfast he spoke of treating others as we would like to be treated, and yet he does not treat our community the way he wants to be treated. He speaks of us in terms that if anyone applied those terms to his wife or kids or household, he'd not care for it at all. We are 'not Sanctified'. We lack the 'spiritual element' straight couples all share. 'Treat others as we would like to be treated' indeed.
So this routine of gasping when those who endured McClurkin who called us child killers and Warren who called us pedophiles, all in the name of that faith, and 'for the President' do not much care for these religious meetings is a tad disingenuous really. You seriously can not figure out what is the issue with a faith when that faith is presented as the entire reason he opposes equal rights for all? Seriously?
Many in my family are dedicated Christians. They support equal rights, they WANT us in steady relationships, they see us in relationships that last longer than their own. They are Democrats, they support the President. They also take offense when he answers 'why are you prejudiced' with 'because I'm a Christian'. They do not agree with him, and they do not much care for his defining their faith, which they do not see as part of a politician's duty nor right.
So sure, it is all candy and flowers when he goes to pray with those who 'pray away the gay' while they make pay off deals to hush up their mistresses and the press.
Just saying. Separation of Church and State is important to many who are Christians, and they do not see any President as holding some spiritual office or power or authority to say who is and who is not a Christian. Add the pure anti equality rhetoric and it is what it is, and it is not all the Golden Rule. It is the Golden Rule presented in a context that shouts 'Do unto others unless they are gay'.
I can not find a single 'Scripture' that supports what they do. Jesus himself said only hypocrites pray in front of each other, and he commanded his followers not to do so. If I agree with Jesus, I am apparently deeply wrong. It is great to pray in front of each other, to make plans and drama out of public prayer. Forbidden by the Christ. And I am expected to say this is FOR the teacher who forbade it? I will not do that for anyone.

[bigtree]

7. I think you've conflated a few things that aren't necessarily linked

The President may well hold the views you outline in exactly the form you describe. I don't think he does. I agree that he did, in effect, use his Christian religion as justification for his stance on gay marriage. What I have seen in the past year or so, however, is the President willing to consider other rationale in opposition to DOMA which has nothing at all to do with religion. I don't think he's dug in on hiding behind his religious beliefs to continue to oppose gay marriage.

I also didn't see the President address this issue at all in his remarks at the breakfast, so I'm hard-pressed to draw a cogent line between his beliefs and his appearance. I don't believe the President endorses any particular policy in making remarks at the breakfast, but, to the extent that he did reflect his political beliefs in his remarks, I must note that he didn't appear to have accommodated the views of the conservatives gathered. I believe one conservative pol actually walked out because of the President's perceived political bent.

Now, I want you to understand me, at least, Bluenorthwest. It is my intention to refrain from standing in the way of almost every confrontation of the President on the issue of the acceptance and 'legalization' of gay marriage. I don't see any harm at all in being uncompromising in our demands on these issues of our fundamental rights. I don't happen to share any of the nature or relationship of homosexuality, but I firmly believe that these are OUR fundamental rights to be defended and advocated for.

I just don't see this prayer or statements at this event as having a thing to do with the issue outside of the fact that some there were as wrong as the President in his beliefs. I don't think his willingness or desire to pray in public affects this issue in any significant way. I realize you disagree.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Wow. So 'may well hold the views you outline'. I quoted him.

"he did, in effect, use his Christian religion as justification for his stance on gay marriage. " In effect? No. He did so directly, unflinchingly, and without any mitigation. Can you explain to me why you use 'in effect' as if he did not simply say "Well I'm a Christian, so I think marriage is...."? In effect. May well. Those modifiers are a tad on the cutting side. I'd like to know why you use them.
"I just don't see this prayer or statements at this event as having a thing to do with the issue "- Well when any person says they think we should 'treat others as we want others to treat us' and that person also says some others are not worthy of equal treatment, that is hypocrisy. In terms of the the public prayers, the point is that such actions are forbidden by the same Scriptures he uses to rationalize his opposition to equality for those unlike himself. Tell me, how do they pick which 'Scriptures' are not worth following at all, and which are 'The Word of God'? Seems to me that if the passage instructs them to certain actions, the passage is rejected. If the passage says 'gays are sinners' then the passage is the Word of God. They pick a few words to throw at others, then they redact huge passages that would alter their own actions. They simply do as they wish, no matter what Jesus said, then they tell me that I must do as they say for they speak for Jesus. They are like people who pause in the eating of a pulled pork sandwich to demand that you eat a kosher diet.
You think these hypocrisies are of no meaning? I say those who hold others to a standard must also hold those standards for their own actions, if they don't, they are just hypocrites.
I can not see how saying one thing and doing another is not hypocrisy. I can not see the good in hypocrisy.

[bigtree]

9. so, you take issue with the words, 'in effect'

No matter that I've tried to express my complete support for your position . . . I'm going to be criticized for 'in effect'? I really don't know why you think those words qualify anything. I believe 'in effect' means that his equating of his religious beliefs with his position on gay marriage has the effect of making it appear that he's wedded to some sort of immovable logic that he's determined to use religion as justification for. I just don't believe that he's determined to let his personal or religious beliefs ultimately dictate his thinking process on the issue to the exclusion of other reasoning like respecting the views of those who don't share his religious belief. I may be wrong, but I think he has been more willing to look at the other side of the issue.

That would be reflected, I think in his position stated last summer that DOMA should be repealed. Here's his position. Maybe you could explain to me how his personal religious views went into making this decision.

In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

"Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed" the Defense of Marriage Act, Holder said in a statement. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still "grappling" with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair."

I believe he put aside his personal view on this issue (a firm religious belief on his part that you acknowledge) and made this decision on the basis of what he considers the right and correct public policy. That would seem to be what you're asking of him.