Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

On a slight tangent, I spent an ill advised amount of time in the trenches over at Change.gov in the comments section.

First off, it was a pleasant surprise to see that the level of discourse there was well above average for blog comment threads. Well above. Even at its nastiest, people remained relatively civil and well spoken, on both sides.

What was particularly gratifying, though, was that the people defending the selection, and ultimately defending the ban on gay marriage, were doing a great job of proving my point for me, namely that opposition of same sex marriage is rooted in religious dogma and nothing else. Here is how every single one of the conversations I got into over there proceeded:

Me (or some other like minded commenter): Angry at the choice of Warren
Defender: You're not being inclusive. Besides, he's just defending his beliefs. [insert bad analogy that equates supporting same-sex marriage with preventing religious freedom]
Me: Actually, no, Warren's free to believe whatever he wants still, he's just not free to legislate it
Defender: ....Oh yeah? Well God said gays are icky!
Me: That's nice. Good thing god didn't write the Constitution. Not a basis for law. Thanks for playing.
Defender: ............

Over and over again in various forms, the most common alternate form being, "Marriage has always been that way!" leading to the simple miscegenation rebutal. Without fail, no matter how rational they were trying to be, they all eventually had to fall back on, "Oh yeah, well God said so!" And once I called them on that, they never responded.

It was frustrating to see so many people willing to legislate religious doctrine. But it was comforting to see in practice what I had known in theory, that when pressed, religious doctrine is all they have to stand on. And that when you finally force them to face the fact that they're trying to get "God said so" into the constitution, they shut up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

For the record, I would have been nearly, if perhaps not equally, as disgusted if he had, instead of Rev. Lowrey, chosen Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

I voted for Obama because I hoped he would move away from propping up loud mouthed egos who have vested interests in continuing to polarize the country. Rick Warren is one, Jesse Jackson is one. It's not about respecting viewpoints with those personalities. It's about no longer telling the American people that these blowhards should be looked up to.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It's not about respecting viewpoints with those personalities. It's about no longer telling the American people that these blowhards should be looked up to.

I think the best way to turn people off from these "blowhards" is to let them be heard loud and clear, otherwise their followers simply see them as martyrs. 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. People have to come to that decision on their own though. Trying to silence them actually has the reverse effect.

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." And considering that millions of people already look up to this guy, I hardly think that this prayer is going to make much difference.

And hey, there is always that small chance that this guy will decide to make a political statement while doing this and say something really stupid. That might actually change some minds as to whether he should be looked up to or not. I've always felt that the best thing one can do is let these people keep talking and talking and eventually, given enough rope, they will hang themselves by saying something that nobody agrees with.

[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 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.

[BarTopDancer]

I listen to my co-workers talk about RW and they think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's seriously scary how much influence this man has over his followers. Not his religion, him. He could easily form a cult, and in a way he has.

The more I think about it, it's not really a bad move. By inviting him to speak, Obama can get RWs followers across the country to think Obama won't be so bad, because after all, Obama invited RW to speak at his inauguration then they may be more likely to accept Obama and the decisions he is going to make setting him up for a more effective Presidency. It may help remove the "Democratic party = anti-god and anti-country" stigma that was so well perpetrated by the last Administration.

We tend to forget that we live in, and are surrounded by a mostly politically liberal population. The rest of the country isn't so progressive. It's "that rest of the country" that needs to be eased into a more liberal administration after having 8 years of their god-law President. It would not be effective for Obama to go "ok, I personally think gay marriage is wrong but I want the Supreme Court to find a way to add gay marriage is to be allowed in all 50 states to the Constitution" right away. That would just piss off his opposes and those looking at him to fall on his face.

It's sad that starting out of the gate he's made such a poor choice in the eyes of us, but much like selecting Hillary as the SoS, this may be a politically savvy move.