Yes, we can.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex

The inauguration is not a dialog it is a elevation of honors (to Obama and to the people he selects for it)

I'm not so sure about that - this is all part of the political dance and display of symbols. Perhaps not a dialog in a literal sense, but certainly a semiotic conversation is happening.

[JWBear]

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

[alphabassettgrrl]

Yeah, even though this time it's my turn to be appeased by my president, and I'm glad he's not doing it, does he really have to go that far over to the other side? I want to trust him... but ... ugh.

Do what's right... I know, I know. But why is "right" feeling so repugnant? Isn't doing right supposed to feel good?

[JWBear]

To me, what's "right" would be Obama telling Warren that homophobia has no place in his inauguration.

[Gemini Cricket]

So much to say about Warren at the Obama block party inaugural bash but no time to do it. Will post later.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Isn't doing right supposed to feel good?

Rarely. Or people would do it more often.

[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 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.

[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.