Yes, we can.

[Alex]

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.

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.

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.

Bill is successfully contained at Fox, the only network that would ever give him a pulpit, and their ratings overall do not seem to be holding their ground against their competitors.

“But the back-and-forth these last few months masks a more ominous trend for Fox News, particularly as its gears up to cover the general election campaign. The most dominant cable news channel for nearly a decade and a political force in its own right, Fox has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates.”

For example: “In the first five-and-a-half months of 2004, the last presidential election year, Fox’s prime-time audience among viewers aged 25 to 54 was more than double that of CNN’s — 530,000 to 248,000, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research. This year, through mid-June, CNN erased the gap and drew nearly as many viewers in that demographic category as Fox — about 420,000 for CNN to 440,000 for Fox.”

As far as your other questions, I'm going to need to ponder them a bit before I respond.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Bill is successfully contained at Fox, the only network that would ever give him a pulpit, and their ratings overall do not seem to be holding their ground against their competitors.

Yes, but then, you don't see MSNBC inviting him over to record promo spots for them.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yes, but then, you don't see MSNBC inviting him over to record promo spots for them.

True, but I have seen Letterman invite him on his show numerous times. And each time, Bill looks like an idiot in front of millions of people. I can only hope that Letterman continues to do so. That's what I mean about letting people like this speak frequently. It may take more time than I originally implied, but eventually people start to see these people for who they are. O'Reilly is always going to have his rabid supporters, but I think mainstream America is starting to see him for who he really is.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

Not giving Warren the opportunity to lead the nation in prayer is not silencing him.

I can respond to this though.

I don't believe that I ever said that not choosing Warren to give this invocation would be akin to silencing him. He is clearly not being silenced as can be seen by the millions of people that follow him, whether he appears at the invocation or not.

But for many Americans, they are fearful that their voices will be silenced by an Obama administration and I think this gesture acts to diminish those fears. And again, my point is simply that allowing someone to voice their opinion is not the same thing as agreeing with that opinion.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

Would you agree that there are ideas sufficiently repugnant that they should not be given even token acknowledgment?

If millions of people agree with those ideas, I think they should be acknowledged. That's not to say that I think they should be accepted or endorsed, but we damned well better acknowledge their existence because they aren't going away anytime soon. There is power in numbers, the power to vote. And if we fail to acknowledge them, we will continue to wonder how things like Prop 8 passed.

I'm not sure if I believe there is a line or not, because I tend to think that there is no stance unworthy of consideration. There are many that upon examining, I would completely disagree with, but I'm certainly not going to pretend that they don't exist, especially in cases when half of the nation agrees with them. A guy like Fred Phelps, who has a handful of followers, I'm not much concerned with him because he has no power. Millions of people in lockstep do have power though, significant power. That doesn't make their view any more acceptable in my opinion, but it makes it far more worthy of acknowlegement.

And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work.

Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further. Warren showed a bit of respect to Obama by allowing him to speak at his church even though he disagreed with him on just about everything, and Obama is responding in kind - saying I do not agree with you but I will show you the same respect you showed me. Maybe that will have a positive effect and maybe it will not, but if nothing else, it shows that Obama is a man of his word. That's a lot more than I can say about the guy currently occupying the White House.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work.

I'm still waiting for an example of it. I'm sure there must be some but I don't think it is the standard path to significant change.

Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further.

It isn't escaping me that this is the point you're trying to make. I just don't think you're correct in its possible impacts. Especially since, as you say, gay marriage is not likely to come up.

I agree a political decision was made: it is better to please this group and piss off that group than to pick someone neither side would have remarked upon. In the long term it may prove to be good politics.

For me, there is a line in the sand. You are free to hold whatever opinions you wish, but there is a point at which I, personally, will not do anything help prop you up so you can continue expounding on them. Now, for Obama this is probably easier since he does not support gay marriage so for Obama and Warren the question is merely how far they'll go in arguing against it. So, it is good politics? Quite possibly. Is it still a big **** you to a significant portion of the gay community? Yes.

[Kevy Baby]

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.

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.

Before I even saw Alex's question, I thought of two examples where the person had worked themselves to the laughingstock point: Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh. Sure, they still have their followers, but they did/have become mostly impotent.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm still waiting for an example of it. I'm sure there must be some but I don't think it is the standard path to significant change.

To date, I think that gay rights is a perfect example of it. Most people who have changed their mind, from not thinking gay people deserve rights to those that do, have done so based on a personal experience in their life, whether it is having a family member come out and re-thinking their position, to meeting a gay person they respected and taking a some time to get to know them. Much easier to hate the abstract, than it it is to hate a good person staring you in the face.

I know plenty of people who have changed their mind over the years, and it was never as a result of force or ridicule. It was a result of realizing they were wrong because the issue was finally personalized for them, for lack of a better word.

Sure, you can force people to comply through the force of law, and often that is necessary, but those people won't do so willingly and, in fact, it is unlikely to change their underlying prejudice. There are still plenty of racists out there who still detest people of color because that is what they have been taught at an early age. They might not be able to discriminate against them in the workplace, but that doesn't stop them from occassionally dragging them from the back of a pickup truck when nobody is watching.

My opinion is that it is better in the long run to try and change minds through dialog, rather than force because only the former results in true change.

Edited to add: And even using force to change things requires every vote we can muster. And the ones that already agree with the cause simply don't have the numbers yet. Changing people one at a time becomes even more vital when it comes to the bigger fight. There is simply no way to get this legislation passed unless a significant amount of people on the opposing side can be convinced to change their vote. Calling them names, yelling at them and boycotting their weddings simply isn't going to accomplish that. Anger rarely changes anyone's mind, which was my original point.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

My opinion is that it is better in the long run to try and change minds through dialog, rather than force because only the former results in true change.

I would agree that change happens through dialog and experience however it becomes a dialog as a result of the issue being on the front of people's minds - and public protests are a way to keep the issue in the forefront and therefore extremely necessary.