The question is: Can people of good will disagree?

[cali]

There are people I respect who disagree about Rick Warren doing the invocation. They are people who support marriage equality. Melissa Etheridge is one. E.J. Dionne is another. There are others.

Can we avoid casting people who are very much our allies, as enemies? My answer is we ought to.

.

[mondo joe]

1. I think the answer is: certainly. The remaining questin, however, is will the same

standard be applied to the war, to race, to unions, to immigration, etc.

[NJmaverick]

2. The answer is an emphatic yes

that is also the message Obama is trying to impart to the nation. The key is to focus on the entire person and not a single issue (or two). Unity is achieved by looking for common ground, mutual respect and tolerance.

[No Elephants]

45. I have no desire for unifying on oppressing gay people, though. If you think fundies, evangelicals,

Orthodox Jews, etc. are ever going to conclude that God was kidding in the OT when He called homosexuals an "abomination," i think you are greatly mistake, however much I may admire your optimism.

[JuniperLea]

48. Calling for the thought police to intervene asking for failure...

Besides, it's a slippery slope.

I don't give a flying rat's ass what ignorant bigotry one holds in one's mind as long as it isn't voiced to cause harm to others, and as long as the rest of us aren't forced by law to adhere to the covenants of any religion.

[ellacott]

60. It's sad you think that way, I do understand but...

There have been many religious people who have changed their mind. It's not impossible.

[Lucky 13]

3. preach!

This circular firing squad must stop. It gets nobody anywhere.

:hi:

[NWHarkness]

4. Yes we can

But we do need to remain vigilant. Not everyone who says they are your friend really is.

[Hellataz]

5. I think we can and should be allowed to disagree, it's just the matter of how we do it.

I don't agree with the vilification of anyone who is giving Obama's the benefit of the doubt in his choice of Warren. It's too rash and irresponsible to jump to the conclusion that one side is 100% right and the other 100% wrong. We live in grey areas and we need to open our minds to things that make us uncomfortable in order to understand each other and thus find a path to tolerance of one another, and that's advise for BOTH sides.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

10. In the spirit of the OP

might I suggest that trivializing the pain and concern of the GLBT community, is not helpful. Also, just because you think they look silly and childish, doesn't mean that's true. Nor is there any evidence at all that the objections to Warren have hurt the cause of full civil rights for GLBT persons.

[Blarch]

13. yawn.

[mondo joe]

17. Interesting choice of words.

"Their cause".

[Blarch]

25. I am an Atheist.

When the president told me he doesn't consider me a citizen or a patriot, did the gay community stand up for MY CAUSE ?

No, nobody did. Thats why it's my cause. Even my dog understands this concept. Jeeeesh, give it a rest.

[wellst0nev0ter]

54. That's Exactly The Circular Firing Squad We're Talking About

"Support me before I support you!" And everybody wins :sarcasm:

Now who looks childish?

[ellacott]

61. When did the President say that?

[Danger Mouse]

24. Their cause is our cause.

[Blarch]

35. And like I pointed out....

My cause isn't their cause. But they demand that their cause be my cause.

[JuniperLea]

49. You left out the "neener neener"

in your schoolyard rant.

You wouldn't know the high road if it rose up and smacked you in the face. Obviously you don't see the bigger picture.

[Danger Mouse]

58. Why not? You say you support gay marriage. Do you or don't you?

I may not agree with some of the sentiments expressed by some people on this board lately, but that doesn't mean their cause isn't one that every progressive should support.
Nobody's rights are safe when the rights of one are threatened.

[jonnyblitz]

not everybody here that has gone "nuclear" is gay, btw.

we have plenty of straight allies that are just as pissed on this issue and posting on these threads that you probably assume are gay because of the way you think. it's obvious what you are, you don't really attempt to hide it in your posts.

[Blarch]

43. Fuck you.

This is what I mean.

I support gay marriage, but here you are calling me a homo phobe. It's turning alot of people off.

[wellst0nev0ter]

55. Yeah, Your Support Reeeally Shows (n/t)

[JuniperLea]

57. I take it you know quite a bit about...

"Turning a lot of people off."

[littlebit]

59. Join the club.

I have been called a self hating house gay just because I don't agree with the tone on here.

[mmonk]

7. I think we do.

Politicians don't at times though (and I'm talking about ours). Their good will leaves when they exploit our differences like we are game board pieces.

[cloudbase]

8. Of course they can.

I've been married to the same woman for over thirty years, so I know it can be done.

[MADem]

9. Rick Warren is not a person of good will. He's a gay hating glutton. NT

[cali]

11. I was obviously not talkling about Warren.

I couldn't have been clearer about who I was talking about. And you know it.

[MADem]

15. Don't get touchy. The guy was invited to invoke by a person of good will, n'est pas?

Facts are pesky things. You wouldn't be asking your rhetorical "kumbayah" question were it not for the presence of Pastor Rick in this entire dynamic. He's the Jabba the Hutt in the room.

[T Wolf]

12. NOT on every issue. That is the point. There is RIGHT and WRONG on some things.

Someone "of good will" does not believe that gay (or black or female or athiest) Americans are wrong/bad/evil and do not deserve equal rights.

That view automatically eliminates one from the category of "good" will, etc.

[cali]

18. I'm obviously talking about people like Dionne and Etheridge

Do you see them as the enemy because they disagree with you about Warren?

[No Elephants]

41. False dichotomy. Seeing someone is an enemy is vastly different from disagreeing with someone on

a single event, perception or issue.

[JuniperLea]

51. Ummm... it was a question, not a statement

:eyes:

I for one am still waiting for the answer.

[sundog]

14. depends on a common definition of good

attempting to impede individuals from leading whole lives & wrapping it with some shiny paper & bows with a "good" tag on it does not meet any sort of common definition standards

melissa is entitled to her opinion & i won't hate her for it, but i think warren needs to justify himself far more than she needs to do that for him

[No Elephants]

16. What does "casting people" mean? Whatever it means, why are you telling people what to avoid?

[cali]

19. Discussion board. my opinion. that simple.

[No Elephants]

38. No. Expressing your own opinion is VERY different from seeking to control

the behavior (including the posts) of those whose opinion differs from yours.

What does "casting people" mean?

[cali]

50. oh for pity's sake, I'm not seeking to control anyone

grab a clue. (and that's advice, not an order)

[mmonk]

20. I can't speak for Cali but I think casting means painting

our friends and allies among us as enemies.

[HamdenRice]

21. The overwhelming majority of DUers say yes. An immature little clique says no

That's pretty much what it comes down to.

[jpgray]

34. Would you read my reply. and point out those aspects of my argument which are immature?

It's self-evident that people of good will can disagree about anything and everything. But, no matter how good-willed, I think it's abundantly clear that one side of this debate has lost its collective marbles and needs to be told so as frequently as possible. And it isn't the "immature little clique" you derisively refer to.

[HamdenRice]

53. None of your arguments are immature. You're not part of the club, though

Your premise is: "I'm sure Obama invited Warren with good will..." and you go on to say that people who support Obama's decision do so with good will.

But there is a very loud minority of DUers here who say that taking that position makes you a homophobe.

In fact, the position being take by this little clique is metastatically stupid -- metastatically stupid because it gets dumber and dumber as the debate progresses.

We start with the premise: "Warren is a homophobe" (although there is even some disagreement about that, even within the larger gay community -- eg Melissa Etheridge).

The next move is: "Obama is a homophobe for inviting Warren."

The next move is: "Anyone who supports Obama's decision -- even those who do so on strategic reasoning grounds who acknowledge Warren is a homophobe -- is a homophobe."

The next move is: "All of DU and the Democratic Party are homophobes for not agreeing with us that they are all homophobes..."

The next move is: "We're so wounded, the only way to get our point across is to tell ni**er jokes about slavery and miscegenation -- that will rally support to our side!"

The next move is: Online rending of clothing and gnashing of teeth) -- "oh, the agony of (online) oppression! It's worse than the Nazi gas chambers!"

That's the immature position I was referring to -- not the one you expressed. As you can see by an analysis of the (il)logical steps by which it has metastacized, there is no limiting this insane belief system.

One other point, on a different note. I disagree wholeheartedly with the latter part of your analysis. In fact, one of the most depressing aspects of the debate's use of the civil rights/history analogies so far is the absolute historical inaccuracy that these uses reflect. Consider this paragraph of yours:

"In particular, disagreements over fundamental human rights for a group of people are wholly unsuited for such compromise--you either have the rights of a human being or you do not. What compromise, for example, would you have preferred in the debates on slavery, or women's suffrage? I'm happy with the almost completely one-sided victory that resulted in each case."

Are you kidding me? In what way was the position of African Americans in 1866 after emancipation vis a vis their former position of servitude "uncompromised"? Are you saying you've never heard of share cropping? Or the prison forced labor system? In what way did women's suffrage usher in complete gender equality?

All human rights are compromised. That's why there is ongoing political struggle. There are people who think that the next phase of expansion of human rights we are all debating, will be won all at once without compromise. Good luck. That would be nice. What's worse, is that according to the metastatic (il)logic that has seized some of the weaker minded members of the DU community, anyone who points out how history and rights work is also a homophobe.

Go figure!

[ruggerson]

37. I don't think many would characterize you here as a "person of good will"

so the OP doesn't reference you.

[keith the dem]

22. Yes!

My experience is that there are two kinds of people, people who give a shit about matters beyond themselves and people who give a shit only about themselves.

I know "conservatives" who I find I agree with on 90% of things because they honestly care about the country and the world, I enjoy debating the issues with them and enjoy their company.

More and more, I have little patience with people who only care about themselves and their little insular world.

Bush and Cheney are failures because they had little regard for anybody outside there rich man base.

I don't know if this reverend cares more about himself or is honestly compassionate and can see the error of his ways.

[BeFree]

31. Indeed

Some folks seem to think the world revolves around themselves. I guess we all do to some extent, but those that recognize we are but like grains of sand on a beach of sand are easier to get along with.

Life's a beach!

[NMDemDist2]

23. of course we can, however...

I think Etheridge bought Warren's snake oil by the 55 gallon drum. She was quick to point out he told HER he 'regretted' his words, but he never told his millions of followers the same thing.

I haven't read the Dionne piece yet, but Warren has no business on the podium of a progressive's Inauguration IMO

I think we need to understand how wrongheaded and hurtful Obama's choice was to our gay brothers and sisters and agree that they have every right to be vocally outraged.

If you don't agree with the rights of people to freely and vocally disagree, we've lost one of the most basic of our Constitutional Rights.

[zeemike]

26. Well good luck with that.

But anytime you turn over any movement to anger the results are always disappointing.
History will bear this out if you look at any of the anti war or civil rights movements of the 60s like the SDS or black panthers to name a few.
When the anger takes over it runs off the ones that are not in it to satisfy their anger but to achieve a goal...they just feel like this is getting too weird and walk away from it.
But that was what Prop 8 was all about was it not? Too stir up anger on both sides. And the republicans are masters at doing that.
If we fail to learn the lessons of history we are doomed to repeat them.

[jpgray]

27. You can acknowledge good will while fundamentally rejecting its resulting behavior.

I'm sure Obama invited Warren with good will, I'm sure Dionne and Etheridge support the decision with good will, and I'm sure many (not all) DUers who disagree that Warren's invocation represents an awful insult and a mistake on Obama's part do so with good will. Recognizing the essential good intentions behind the behavior, however, doesn't make the behavior any less open to criticism.

This was a mistake on Obama's part. Meeting and speaking with those who hold hateful views is tolerable, and there may be good reasons for doing so. Providing such people with a singular honor they neither need nor deserve is not very tolerable. The establishment view of gay marriage, with all its attendant ignorance, prejudice and derision has more than enough exposure and prominence--it does not need any more. Religious voices in support of gay marriage are those that need elevating, if we are to have any serious dialogue about the issue. Most people are beat over the head with Warren's views daily, while lamentably few are well-informed of how gay rights advocates view the issue. So why not advance the dialogue rather than emphasize the bigoted side that neither needs nor deserves any emphasis?

Further, the idea that, if only those who disagree on a controversial issue would come together and work out a compromise, things would work out for the best, is in many cases a silly fantasy that would lead to results that are far from justice. In particular, disagreements over fundamental human rights for a group of people are wholly unsuited for such compromise--you either have the rights of a human being or you do not. What compromise, for example, would you have preferred in the debates on slavery, or women's suffrage? I'm happy with the almost completely one-sided victory that resulted in each case. What would a compromise have looked like, do you think, and would such a delightful "unity" and "coming together" have been at all preferable?

The worst part of this compulsion to respect Warren is the fallacy that bigoted views ostensibly justified by religion are somehow off-limits, and require "tolerance." When tolerance for religion serves to deny human rights to any group, human rights immediately take precedence. Female genital mutilation, honor killings and other "religious" practices do not deserve toleration. Neither should dehumanization and bigotry toward gays.

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Yes. But what does Rick Warren have to do with good will?

He is a bigot who wraps himself up in the Bible to justify his hate. "Good will" has nothing at all to do with him, and your argument is a strawman.

[cali]

29. I'm talking about people like the ones I specifically named

who disagree that having Warren give the invocation is a bad thing. They both support marriage equality. They clearly are on the side of those of us who think Warren giving the invocation is a bad thing and shouldn't have happened.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. I see them as being complicit with Warren's bigotry

I suppose that is my answer to your question.

[cali]

39. OK, and I see you as dogmatically

intolerant to a pathological place.

[TechBear_Seattle]

42. Well gee, thank you

I am "dogmatically intolerant to a pathological place" for refusing to be complicit with Warren's own dogmatic intolerance. I appreciate your pointing this out to me.

[QC]

32. Not if a loud pack of bullies insists on telling people that their concerns are invalid,

their feelings irrelevant, and their lives a "pet issue."

Most of the anger I'm seeing is not from the Warren pick but from the hateful, dismissive response to those who object to it.

[Malikshah]

33. It all depends on how you define good will.

So often people drop words about without giving them meaning.

[Undercurrent]

36. I sure hope so.

The hateful invectives are very hurtful all around. I posted Melissa's article earlier and the majority of responses were viciously negative.

The carnage is sad with so many people under various buses. It is damaging our shared cause. The cause of trying to actualize the dream of equality and respect for ALL human beings.

[ruggerson]

40. I'm glad both Etheridge and Dionne spoke their hearts and minds about the matter

they have every right to do so.

And others have the right to disagree with them.

Etheridge gets a bit of a bigger soapbox, because of her celebrity, but her opinion is no less or more valuable than anyone else's.

[cali]

44. I applaud what you said.

I think that's absolutely spot on. I just want to note that I don't think calling them "complicit in evil", is simply disagreeing with them. It's accusing them of aiding and abetting evil. That is not criticism.

[zulchzulu]

46. Single issue demonization is always short-sighted and ends without a solution

Just as some of the Religious Right only look through the lens of whether someone is "pro-life" or not and then calls those for reproductive choice "murderers", "baby killers" and other filth, we should not be as short-sighted.

I think a large group of people against same-sex marriage are older and it's a generational thing. They will stick to their opinions on the issue UNLESS we educate them that same-sex marriage is equal rights for all.

How do we slowly change their mind? Just as some on the Religious Right against reproductive choice vilify and demonize all that disagree and cut off all dialogue, doing the same to those against same-sex marriage produces the same, tired results.

There are plenty of good people who are presently against same-sex marriage that can have their minds changed if we don't cut them off or demonize them. We need to continue grassroots efforts to get those people to finally see equal rights for all is very American and very much what the World needs to see.

[zeemike]

47. Well I hope that the leadership of GLBT orgs share you feelings

Because if the anger takes over it may set back gay rights as well as the attempt to reform government and all sorts of things that we all have in common.

[zeemike]

52. There is a song by the Beatles that applys to what I am trying to say

And so I thought I would post ot to you here...I had to look up the lyrics to be exact but here they are...

Revolution

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

[JuniperLea]

56. I'm hoping this is the case

As the heat rises and falls at DU, I'm finding things said on both sides of the issue to be surprising, hurtful, and yes, ignorant. When I see people I admire, such as Etheridge and Dionne, show a different perspective than my own, it causes me to pause and look inward. I'm asking myself now if perhaps I'm not seeing the bigger picture.

Yes, we ought to.

I'm still against prayer at the inauguration, or in any governmental function for that matter. But I'm willing to give Obama my support regardless of his choices in what are essentially minor issues when compared to people starving or being killed all over the world. Before any flames are thrown, and because far too many people have misunderstood this very clear OP, I'm compelled to point out that the second sentence in this paragraph is a direct comment on the first paragraph in this sentence, nothing more.

You can draw a picture and name names and still some will find issue based on their own misunderstanding.