Quote:
Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser
But when you give someone like Bill O'Reilly a national audience, his popularity eventually fades and he soon wakes to find himself a laughingstock that fewer and fewer people agree with.
|
I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.
Quote:
|
People have to come to that decision on their own though. Trying to silence them actually has the reverse effect.
|
Not giving Warren the opportunity to lead the nation in prayer is not silencing him.
Quote:
|
And I don't think that Obama is saying that you should look up to this man. He has made it clear that he disagrees with many of this pastor's viewpoints. I think he is simply saying "I'm going to give someone I disagree with the opportunity to be seen."
|
Would you agree that there are ideas sufficiently repugnant that they should not be given even token acknowledgment? Without directly comparing being opposed to gay marriage, if Warren were a preacher who was surprisingly progressive on many issues but had campaigned in support of limiting civil rights of Jews and Muslims because those faiths are sins according to his interpretation of the bible, would your view still be that this is relatively unimportant and it ok to hold up that person before a national audience in a task of some honor? Does it matter if that man holds the opinion himself with little public support (a congregation of 100) or does it become more acceptable as more people (a congregation of 2 million and a popular video series) buy into it?
I ask just to establish if you agree there is a line, in which case we're just arguing over where it is. Or whether are arguing about the existence of the line in the first place.