I completely disagree. The vast majority did not hate blacks back then, but they still supported discrimination. Many had religious objections to the races mixing. If blacks had done as you suggest back then, they would still be riding in the back of the bus and drinking from separate drinking fountains. Appeasement gets you nowhere.

If those in power treat hate and discrimination as something normal (and honor those who espouse it), then it is given validation. If those in power treat hate and discrimination with contempt, people become shamed into ending it.

You're all right.

You do realize that the vast majority don't hate gays, don't you? But they still support discrimination based on religious objections to them getting married.

As I suggest? I voted against Prop 8 (and convinced as many people as I could to do so) because I want the law to step in here as well. Do you honestly think I would have done that had I thought appeasement was the answer? But those civil rights laws were not passed because people of color wanted them. That wasn't enough; they also needed the support from a heck of a lot of white people. And we need the support from a heck of a lot of straight people, if we want anything remotely similar to occur. And this vote made it crystal clear that we aren't there yet. And what you call appeasement, I call reaching out to as many of the very people that opposed it as we can muster, because until we change enough of their minds, we aren't going to get very far.

Obama has made it perfectly clear how he feels about discrimination, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. You and I simply have a difference of opinion as to whether or not offering a role in the inauguration to this Pastor is validation for those who discriminate. I don't see it that way.

I heard someone yesterday say that Bush would have done the exact opposite - give someone completely innocuous the role of performing the invocation, then putting a raging homophobe in a position of power in his administration. And, in fact, he tried his best to do so with regard to the Surgeon General. I much prefer Obama's tactics - let the bigot have his 3 minutes of prayer time (perhaps to lessen the approaching sting?) and then put openly gay people in positions of power. Which way do you think has more damaging repercussions? Would a perfect world mean that Obama did those things and also didn't give Warren this role? Perhaps it would. But Obama doesn't strike me as someone who makes decisions lightly and without forethought, and I have to believe that there is a bigger picture here.

Sigh. I wasn't referring to Warren in that statement. I was talking about insulting the very people we are trying to reach, with signs that are insulting and demeaning to followers of Christianity. I don't think Rick Warren has the capacity to listen to reason either, but I do think there are many of his followers that do. But the more you attack the man they follow, the less likely they are to listen to reason - even if he is totally wrong, and he is.

So let me ask you the same question I asked above then. Does Obama truly strike you as someone who makes decisions without considerable forethought? And if he does, as he has stated many, many times, believe in gay rights, why on earth do you think he would do this? Don't you think the possibility exists that there is more here than meets the eye? Or do you have such little regard for him that you think he is just flailing around blindly here, and completely disregarding those that he says he supports? I refuse to believe that.

And if this is such a grand and meaningful honor, can you tell me (without looking it up) who the last three pastors were to give inaugural invocations? In my opinion, this is nothing but a token gesture that, in and of itself, is relatively meaningless. And had Warren not been given all of this wonderful press exposure leading up to this day, I suspect it wouldn't have been very long before everyone forgot who gave this particular invocation either. Doesn't sound like much of a meaningful honor to me.

I understand WHY he thinks it's a good idea. I do not agree with the reasoning. He's smart, he's not infallible.

To elaborate, the reasons that have been given in support of the decision are the same reasons that have been given for the last decade+ that have resulted in more and more polarization. They're the same reasons that allow the loudest, most radical representatives of a given position be the ones that are given the most credence. And they're the very things I voted for Obama to get away from.

He had the opportunity here to put on the national stage a religious leader who is against gay marriage but has been reasonable in their actions and their discourse. THAT would have been real change. THAT would have been progress towards resolution. He chose instead the status quo. Feeding the cycle by propping up the one of the key figures responsible for the divisiveness, based on the flawed logic that appeasing a vocal minority is the way to mend bridges.

I think our biggest disagreement is on the amount of credence this gives. I also don't think that Warren is "the most radical" by any means. He may be the most popular and powerful though. He was voted one of the 100 most influential people of last year.

Here, you lost me because I don't find being against gay marriage to be a reasonable position, regardless of who the leader is. Real change would be doing away with this religious invocation altogether. And progress towards resolution will come from real policy, along with the changing of minds - not from choosing a different pastor who is also against gay marriage but less influential. All in my humble opinion, of course.


I don't see it as appeasement, but rather representation - not of a vocal minority, but a vocal majority. It's easy to write this guy off as a blowhard nutcase, but I suspect he represents far more people's views than you realize - people, who in my opinion present the most formidable obstacle we face. Polarization comes from simply writing them off as unimportant. Changing their minds is incredibly important. And again, I don't think this is about trying to reach or change Warren; I think it is about opening the door to reaching his followers. We obviously have differing views about that approach and about its effectiveness, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

To throw in something new, I don't think this is a helpful viewpoint from which to analyze Obama's decisions. He is not God or Deep Blue or some super rabbi. Over his presidency, he will have to make too many decisions for any one person, most with the advice of other voices that will probably conflict. I don't think we can rule out that he may fail to give something sufficient thought or, alternatively, that he may overthink something and come out looking too clever by half.

He did after all, nominate an Attorney General who was heavily involved or, more accurately, insufficiently involved, in the Clinton decision to pardon Marc Rich. We'll certainly hear more about that in the confirmation hearings.

I'm certainly not trying to suggest infallibility. I'm just saying that he doesn't strike me as someone who made this decision without giving it some thought first. And based on what I've seen from him so far, I've been pretty impressed. So I'm willing to cut him some slack and see where this leads. Time will tell if the positive outweighs the negative.

Hey Christophobes! I've got your most recent installment of Pastor Rick's News and Views over at the Prop 8 thread.

Thanks, Americablog!