Yes, we can.

[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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

Sigh. I wasn't referring to Warren in that statement. I was talking about insulting the very people we are trying to reach, with signs that are insulting and demeaning to followers of Christianity. I don't think Rick Warren has the capacity to listen to reason either, but I do think there are many of his followers that do. But the more you attack the man they follow, the less likely they are to listen to reason - even if he is totally wrong, and he is.

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.

So let me ask you the same question I asked above then. Does Obama truly strike you as someone who makes decisions without considerable forethought? And if he does, as he has stated many, many times, believe in gay rights, why on earth do you think he would do this? Don't you think the possibility exists that there is more here than meets the eye? Or do you have such little regard for him that you think he is just flailing around blindly here, and completely disregarding those that he says he supports? I refuse to believe that.

And if this is such a grand and meaningful honor, can you tell me (without looking it up) who the last three pastors were to give inaugural invocations? In my opinion, this is nothing but a token gesture that, in and of itself, is relatively meaningless. And had Warren not been given all of this wonderful press exposure leading up to this day, I suspect it wouldn't have been very long before everyone forgot who gave this particular invocation either. Doesn't sound like much of a meaningful honor to me.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

So let me ask you the same question I asked above then. Does Obama truly strike you as someone who makes decisions without considerable forethought?

To throw in something new, I don't think this is a helpful viewpoint from which to analyze Obama's decisions. He is not God or Deep Blue or some super rabbi. Over his presidency, he will have to make too many decisions for any one person, most with the advice of other voices that will probably conflict. I don't think we can rule out that he may fail to give something sufficient thought or, alternatively, that he may overthink something and come out looking too clever by half.

He did after all, nominate an Attorney General who was heavily involved or, more accurately, insufficiently involved, in the Clinton decision to pardon Marc Rich. We'll certainly hear more about that in the confirmation hearings.