How is this different?

[last1standing]

Apparently, Jane Hamsher from FireDog Lake is running around suggesting that progressives who hate this monstrosity of an insurance bill should join up with the teabaggers to protest it. I can't say I think this is a good idea, in fact I think it's a very stupid idea since, while both groups may hate the bill, we hate it for extremely different reasons. The only effect of joining with them, therefore, would be to pollute and confuse our message.

However, I remember when the inauguration was being planned and Obama announced that Rick Warren would be giving the invocation, many of us in the GLBT community and our friends, decried the move as appeasing the homophobes and an unacceptable move by our new "fierce advocate" president. Unfortunately, the response by many at DU was that we needed to reach out to religious conservatives and that it was only a two minute speech. We were called sensitive and haters for being upset by this callous move.

Flash forward one year later and we see many of the very same people screaming about Hamsher's suggestion that we join with the racist teabaggers and are upset when others point out that our own "post-partisan" president supports reaching out to the other side.

So I ask, how is this different? Do you who railed against us a year ago now understand that we were rightfully outraged or is there a subtlety that many of us are missing? Is racism worse than homophobia? Can one brand of hatred and prejudice be less bad than another?

How is this different?

[Starry Messenger]

1. I expect this will be met with *crickets*.

That was just this week a year ago, too. :(

[QC]

13. Here you go!

[Starry Messenger]

16. What lovely sounds they make.

You can hear them quite clearly over the resounding silence.

[Unvanguard]

2. It's not. Obama inviting Rick Warren is a blemish on his record. It was disgraceful.

Progressives need to stand together; they should not lend credibility to their enemies.

[VMI Dem]

3. Obama largely agrees with Warren.

These are well known views that the President has. No surprise there.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. The outrage is always selective.

Rick Warren has some rather, shall we say, antiquated ideas about women too.

[last1standing]

6. Yes, he does.

He's anti-choice for a start but that didn't seem to bother some people, either.

[Prism]

5. Don't expect many answers

The ones working hardest to condemn Hamsher's associations were some of the biggest Warren defenders on this site. When the President allies with bigots, it's ok. When a lowly blogger does it, why, it's the worst thing they've ever heard and it apparently induces violent flashbacks to lynching.

This dissonance will be papered over.

Welcome back :hug:

[last1standing]

7. Thanks, Prism

I don't know if I'll stay but I'm finding the cognitive dissonance quite amusing, so far. For example: Are the people unrecommending this thread angry because I said I don't support joining with the tea partiers, because I mentioned their own willingness to join with the homophobic Warren, because I pointed out that Obama supports "reaching out" (as they've told us time and again), or because they're really homophobes and think that its just fine to bash us?

I'm thinking there's a whole lot of the last option in there.

[Prism]

9. I hope it's shame

Oh, not shame enough to publicly admit the devastating hypocrisy inherent in their positions. To admit such is to admit they really don't much mind homophobia. We suspected this, but it's no good to lay it out in black and white. It makes things entirely too neat and easily referenced.

I hope it's shame enough to know there is no possible way to argue against your OP without revealing bits and piece of themselves that everyone knew all about anyway.

[last1standing]

10. I wish it was shame. That would be a start.

Shame would mean that these people understand the wrong they've done to so many others. It would mean that there was hope that they would/could change their ways.

Unfortunately, I think its just good old-fashioned homophobia and partisanship. This is seen most clearly when one of these people posts one of their "IfyoudontsupportourPresidentyouarearacist" threads. Yet these are the same posters who were first with the "WhycantyoustopwhiningforyourponyourPresidentdoesnthaveamagicwand" responses when we confronted them with the obvious homophobia and hatred of asking Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural.

It seems that these people are just fine with hatred and bigotry - so long as its their brand of it.

[dgibby]

8. There's NOTHING different about it.

You've held a mirror up to a lot people here who are going to have to be dealing with the ugly truth staring back at them.:hug:

[Jamastiene]

11. K&R

This is a very good example of the hypocrisy of the "It's only a two minute prayer" crowd. Homophobes, to them, are worth "reaching out" to because their own homophobia clouds their judgment. It doesn't affect them one bit. But, mention a scenario that turns the tables, and they freak the fuck out.

[last1standing]

12. LOL! They can't answer the question but they sure can hide behind a button, can't they?

Its funny how these posters running around calling anyone who doesn't agree with them a racist are too afraid to even come out of their spider holes to comment on this thread. They just reach out of the darkness, click on that little "Unrecommend" button and slither back into the comfort of their ignorance.

What brave folks. :eyes:

[mitchtv]

14. K&R

I'll go with door number three, Alex

[treestar]

15. She is talking about marching with them to affect health care

Warren only spoke. It was inauguration day, on which any new President will think it is time to bury the hatchet with anyone. There's no conflict on that day. She's not reaching out to them just to reach out and say we disagree with them but we're all Americans, and all that sentimental sort of inauguration day stuff. She's making a common cause with them.

[last1standing]

18. It's OK to coddle bigots so long as you don't try to support progressive ideals while doing it?

That really doesn't sound right to me. After all, there was no indication of any real disagreement with Warren that would necessitate burying the hatchet during the election or before the inauguration. I believe there was a tepid and vaguely bigoted comment from the whitehouse to the tune of "reasonable people can disagree" but that really didn't lead to any problems between these friends and that only came after the announcement had been made.

I guess you could say that Warren was only "speaking" even though he has often worked to affect legislation (proposition 8 ring a bell). Mind you, these tea baggers are "only" speaking as well so I guess there's no problem in your opinion with progressives joining up with them, right? I mean you wouldn't want to seem like a hypocritical homophobe, would you?

[treestar]

21. What leftist has ever got together with Warren to pass/oppose a bill?

I still think the day mattered. No Republican President would have done such a thing (let a member of the LBGT community speak). It was a day to all be Americans. That the right is so hateful doesn't mean we have to be.

[last1standing]

27. That's a pretty narrow justification you've found there.

So its OK to coddle and express good will toward bigots on certain days but not others. Got it.

It's fine to support homophobes so long as you don't specifically endorse their hateful practices. Umm... alright....

If a homophobe pushes raises money and pushes his followers to harm the GLBT community its still fine to stand on stage with him providing a tacit endorsement so long as you didn't actively (at least so far as has been proved) support his position. Nope. That's where the excuses end.

You are actually posting that its fine to coddle homophobes at inaugurations. Think about that. Would it be OK for the next president to bring on the leader of Stormfront to give a two minute speech? Or is it only the gays who can be insulted and slapped around?

I'm really curious to know. Do you think its acceptable to let racists speak at inaugurations?

[Prism]

19. At least she's doing it to achieve something concrete

She wants better health care for all Americans. As opposed to Warren, where there was nothing helpful or concrete at stake. It was homophobic symbolism, an unnecessary slap that helped no one at all.

It merely legitimized hatred.

At least Hamsher wants to do something for the people instead of kicking them in the side of the head, which is exactly what Warren was - a boot to the LGBT community's face.

[treestar]

23. Does Warren stand for nothing else?

Has he made himself the leader of anti-gay propaganda and has nothing else whatsoever to contribute?

I still think freezing them out is to go their way of treating us when they are in power.

[Prism]

26. It's a matter of means vs. ends

I may not agree with Hamsher's means, but I respect the end she is attempting.

Please tell me, what means or ends did the President have in mind when he invited the most famous homophobe in America to bless the inauguration?

[Bluenorthwest]

31. So you look to the 'balance' of good when you look at bigots?

Warren had just helped pass Prop 8 on the same day Obama was elected. His choice was political and intentional.
Tell me, specifically and in detail what sort of contributions you would see as mitigating of racist views in a minister. Are there such mitigating actions that make the racism somehow acceptable to you, or in the public square?

[last1standing]

33. David Duke is probably really nice to his dog. Does that excuse his racism?

Maybe we should all give him a pass for his tender feelings for dachshunds.

[griffi94]

25. so she's marching with them

while obama is only standing with them.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. It is exactly the same.

And this is a huge part of why I was so outspoken about first Donnie McClurkin and then Rick Warren. Obama's response to those who complained about McClurkin, an evangelist who uses the most extreme of hate speech, was that the bigots are 'good, decent and moral people' who would always have a place at his table, and he lectured those attacked for not 'reaching out' to the bigots.

They have many standards that they apply depending on the situation.

[last1standing]

20. Some would call that hypocrisy, but I guess that doesn't count when supporting gay bashers.

I have to admit that I stole the idea for this thread from a post of yours. It just rang too true not to have its own OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Why thanks

[KittyWampus]

22. Evangelicals and blacks are quite likely to agree with liberal policies and vote Democratic

Teabaggers are not.

[Prism]

28. So homophobia is ok

As long as they vote Democratic.

Nice. At least we're finally getting some truth around here.

[last1standing]

30. Evangelicals don't seem to be too keen on the gay stuff, though.

But that seems to be fine with some. Do you then think its acceptable for progressives to team up with racists for common cause or do you feel its only the gays who should be beaten down?

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Would you please explain what this has to do with black people?

This is a thread about working with crazed bigots, be they baggers or Rick Warren. Warren is a minister in one of the whitest counties in America. I just don't see the connection you are trying to build here. Why don't you state it more clearly and in greater detail?

[Little Star]

24. k&r