Yes, we can.

[JWBear]

Hatred is wrong. People who preach hatred shouldn't be appeased or honored, they should be opposed and marginalized.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Hatred is wrong. People who preach hatred shouldn't be appeased or honored, they should be opposed and marginalized.

With all due respect, your opinions seem as firmly cemented and unswayable as his and that line of thinking brings any hope for change to a halt because you cannot marginalize him without also marginalizing all of his followers, some of which voted against Prop 8.

It sounds good to state that hatred is wrong (and clearly it is) but it is also clear that you don't understand that they don't see what they do as hatred, which is much different from the civil rights movement where people hated and were damn proud of it. And until these followers of people like Warren can be convinced that they are hurting people rather than helping people, nothing changes. Sure, you are unlikely to sway him away from his convictions but the same is obviously not true of ALL of his followers, otherwise people wouldn't have taken a different course of action in the voting booth - and I personally know people from his congregation that did not vote "yes" on Prop 8. That is where the focus needs to be.

So marginalize them all as haters by proxy at your own peril. You just might get your wish and change their minds back before the next time a proposition comes around. Do you honestly think we can afford to lose votes from the "opposition" at this stage of the game? Because that is exactly what is going to happen by continuing to demonize him, refusing any sort of dialog, and thereby turning off those that were on your side to begin with. It is already happening.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

With all due respect, your opinions seem as firmly cemented and unswayable as his and that line of thinking brings any hope for change to a halt because you cannot marginalize him without also marginalizing all of his followers, some of which voted against Prop 8.

It sounds good to state that hatred is wrong (and clearly it is) but it is also clear that you don't understand that they don't see what they do as hatred, which is much different from the civil rights movement where people hated and were damn proud of it. And until these followers of people like Warren can be convinced that they are hurting people rather than helping people, nothing changes. Sure, you are unlikely to sway him away from his convictions but the same is obviously not true of ALL of his followers, otherwise people wouldn't have taken a different course of action in the voting booth - and I personally know people from his congregation that did not vote "yes" on Prop 8. That is where the focus needs to be.

So marginalize them all as haters by proxy at your own peril. You just might get your wish and change their minds back before the next time a proposition comes around. Do you honestly think we can afford to lose votes from the "opposition" at this stage of the game? Because that is exactly what is going to happen by continuing to demonize him, refusing any sort of dialog, and thereby turning off those that were on your side to begin with. It is already happening.

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by JWBear

The vast majority did not hate blacks back then, but they still supported discrimination. Many had religious objections to the races mixing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.