Yes, we can.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ugh, I feel awful about the whole thing. It's just like election day all over again. I couldn't enjoy that because Prop 8 passed, and now I won't enjoy the inauguration.

I understand and empathize with the arguments of both sides. I feel a knee-jerk reaction to defend Obama, because I feel he's a smart guy who wouldn't do this without knowing the implications, and must have meant well. Yet I feel so angry that someone who pushes hate was selected for this honor. He could have picked anyone else. Then I think, most ministers/pastors/whatever have the same point of view anyway. Then I get angry that there is a religious ceremony involved at all. SEPARATE! CHURCH AND STATE! I want to chant it out the window at the top of my lungs.

And when people say it "legitimizes" Warren, I keep thinking about how people reacted regarding talking to enemy leaders. Warren is an enemy leader. But there's a difference between talking to him and inviting him to a place of honor. Right?

Around and around. I just hope that O knows what he's doing. That this really will comfort "the enemy" to the point where we can all talk as Americans......and we can destroy their way of life

No, seriously, I do want everyone at the table, but.....ugh. Just WHEN do I get to enjoy Obama's victory?? Maybe once he gets something real happening as President? I'm saving my confetti and noisemakers for then.

[Not Afraid]

I was disgusted at first, but only because I really dislike Warren and despise his brand of religion. But, I can see where Obama is going with this and I think I'm going to put some faith in him. If Warren's inclusion draws an audience that wouldn't otherwise be there to hear his message, then that's a good thing.

[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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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.

I don't disagree at all. The problem is that those who used the occasion to ridicule people with religious beliefs aren't doing anyone any favors. You don't want a protest to insult the very people who were willing to vote "no" even when their church said to vote "yes." I don't want those people rethinking their support because of a sign that insulted them. We need every vote we can get if we are going to be successful next time, because this time we were clearly outnumbered.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Let me be clear.If Obama said, "I've invited Warren and other community leaders from a around the spectrum on the issue to begin a dialog," I'd have no problem with that. But selecting him for a position of honor in a public ceremony is beyond simply having a dialog.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Let me be clear.If Obama said, "I've invited Warren and other community leaders from a around the spectrum on the issue to begin a dialog," I'd have no problem with that. But selecting him for a position of honor in a public ceremony is beyond simply having a dialog.

And I don't disagree that, on the surface, it is insulting, especially to the people who have worked tirelessly for this cause. I just think there is a bigger picture at play here. I understand the immediate reaction of "how dare he?" but I surely don't think Obama did this for the purpose of insulting people, do you? I think he sees this as a small but important first step towards breaking down the ideological barriers that have divided this nation. Weaken those barriers a little and you might actually have an opportunity to get things done.

Upon further reflection, that round table discussion isn't even possible, as long as people are so entrenched in their positions that they are unwilling to even take a seat at that table. Perhaps this move gets them to consider taking that seat.

[JWBear]

People like Warren have no desire to compromise on gay rights. It's foolish to think you can ever change minds that are set in concrete.

[Alex]

Just going in circles of course, but I have no problem with "a dialog." This is not a dialog or even really an opportunity to start one.

There is a big difference between "hey, I'd like to talk to you about how we can go about getting you some reasonable religious opinions" and "since I hope someday you'll be a preacher that's a bit less of an ass I'd like you to officiate my wedding."

Of course, I'm still peeved that religion is being brought into a civil governmental event to begin with (and yes, I know it hardly the only religion stuff that will be on display that day).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by JWBear

People like Warren have no desire to compromise on gay rights. It's foolish to think you can ever change minds that are set in concrete.

I would say that you are right. I'm not so sure that his followers as all as set in concrete though, although every attack causes that concrete to thicken just a little more.

Besides, who cares, in the grand scheme of things, if his mind is changeable? Change enough people's minds in his congregation and it really doesn't matter.