Yes, we can.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm confused, because I can't read anything else into what you've said. That is was a political choice, that this doesn't directly address the issue, that it merely opens the door a sliver that maybe someday down the road an opening will arise to sway Warren and/or his followers.

I don't think that Obama is so naive that he thinks this gesture is going to change any of Warren's beliefs or that someday he will be less of an ass. But this gesture does show quite clearly that Obama meant it when he said that he was going to try and bring both sides together. "You are wrong and I am right" rarely accomplishes that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

That he choose a mainstream religious leader that supports gay marriage?

No, he could have chosen one of a billion priests that do not support gay marriage and have proven themselves to not be attention-grabbing blowhards. If you want reasonable discourse, you don't need to be dealing with the people directly responsible for the unreasonable discourse.

That's why I brought up Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Can you imagine the response from the right if he had selected either of them? It would make this reaction seem tame. And rightly so, those two are attention-grabbing blowhards. I do not subscribe to the belief that being tolerant means respect every person with an opinion willing to shout loud enough.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

If you want reasonable discourse, you don't need to be dealing with the people directly responsible for the unreasonable discourse.

Actually, I think that is exactly what you need to do. You need to take on the unreasonable, with the understanding that the result may not be to sway the person being unreasonable but those who follow him. Do you disagree that there are people in his congregation that are reachable? And if you don't, which do you think is more effective, demonizing the person they follow or having a reasonable discourse with them?

A member of my family might be in the wrong about something, and you might be able to convince me of that fact through reasonable discourse, but if you start out by insulting them and demonizing them, then right or wrong, you are going to bring my defenses up because they are still my family. And the likelihood of you swaying me from that point on has just diminished greatly. Telling me that you are concerned about my father's drinking and telling me that my father is a no good stinking drunk are going to be met with very different reactions, even if the latter holds more actual truth than the former.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

A member of my family might be in the wrong about something, and you might be able to convince me of that fact through reasonable discourse, but if you start out by insulting them and demonizing them, then right or wrong, you are going to bring my defenses up because they are still my family.

1) Start out? Rick Warren didn't just appear. He's been preaching his hate for years, has built an empire on it, and has shown no capacity to listen to reason.
2) For the zillionth time, this isn't about completely ignoring Warren and never speaking to him and never including him in the conversation. It's about the choice to honor him. Alex nailed it perfectly with the wedding officiant analogy.

I don't expect Obama will completely shun Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I know for sure he's still meeting with them, listening to them, and taking what they have to say into consideration. But boy am I glad he chose Lowrey instead of either of those two egotitstical blowhards. THAT'S the change I wanted from Obama. To stop using the extremists as symbols. To stop the lie that "If I show that I'm honoring loud mouths from both sides, then I'm being inclusive and fair." It's a charade and it doesn't help, it continues to validate the loud mouths.

[Morrigoon]

Yeah, but you don't see Obama inviting David Duke to speak

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Yeah, but you don't see Obama inviting David Duke to speak

I would argue that, not only is Duke not a minister, but he has pretty much been made irrelevant over the years. The difference is influence - like it or not, Warren speaks to millions of Americans who follow his every move. And as no surprise, many of his followers are also upset that he chose to accept this. Why do you suppose that is?

And if both sides are upset, I tend to think Obama is on to something.

[Morrigoon]

I suppose you have an argument there. But Obama cannot be ignorant of the extremely raw feelings following the November election, so it does smack of a stab in the back.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

But Obama cannot be ignorant of the extremely raw feelings following the November election, so it does smack of a stab in the back.

I highly doubt that Obama is ignorant of this fact. But the sting from that slap in face is going to fade pretty fast, if he is able to do something substantial to heal the divide that is truly tearing this nation apart. And the alternative is to simply appease his base. I don't know about you but I've had enough of that route in the last eight years.

[Alex]

If the gay lobby will be mollified when Obama ends Don't Ask/Don't Tell, won't the anti-gay people pleased by Warren's praryer be similarly put aback?

In other words, doesn't this invocation by Warren really only have a chance of working at gradually changing minds if Obama chooses to NOT do anything of significance to advance gay issues in the near future?

[Alex]

Again, I'm not opposed to that (reaching across differences). I just don't think this is the correct forum for it. The inauguration is not a dialog it is a elevation of honors (to Obama and to the people he selects for it).

But despite our arguing I do think we agree in most other respects.