I have no need for angerWith intimate strangersAnd I got nothing to hide
- Amy Ray
I hear ya, but I go along with the invite.
I am of firm belief that the only way to solution is to mix and talk. OK, so a band marches and he never gets within a country mile of them... but Obama silently racks up a yes on caché.
Think of what they teach sales folk, that simple yesses to unrelated matters eases someone to saying yes on other things. There is a psychological template here, and in this case it s-l-o-w-l-y gets both sides into chat with Obama, who can eventually, when he senses a better time, use that to further dialogue.
If we take Obama on his word that legal rights for gay couples, absent marriage, is his goal and belief, then despite my own outlook, consider what this does for him in meeting his goal and promise.
He can go to one side with promise of advancement on rights, while he can go to the other with promise of forestalling a direct challenge to marriage, sort of a firebreak with the flames looming tall and not far away.
I like that he wishes to talk with say... Iran. I hope he tears down the barriers to Cuba, works for Israeli-Palestine and general middle east peace, etc.
And on social matters, hope he gets people in the same room, even if it takes several years to say 'hello.'
Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
I am as well. Confused and very disappointed, too. Warren is not only anti-gay, and a Prop 8 supporter, he's also pretty anti-woman. The women at his church, for example, all have male bosses. Working there, teaching classes - any of it, they aren't allowed in leadership positions. Nonsense.
It's causing so much pain, and I don't think it helps in the cause of understanding one bit. People like Warren aren't likely to be interested in opening their minds, IME.
Now, I'd rather love it if Rev. Lowery made a point of asking for a blessing for the cause of true equality and civil rights during the new president's term in his benediction... THAT'S something I'd surely like to see.
I was kind of disappointed in that decision.
I agree with the mix and talk idea, but as this isn't a mix and talk event, and those chosen to participate are apparently representative of quite a bit, it surprised me that he'd chose someone so horribly disrespectful and harsh about a significant segment of your country.
To me, it's not so much the "contrary views" as Obama put it, but how Warren teaches about us, how he demeans
~It's causing so much pain, and I don't think it helps in the cause of understanding one bit.~
I'm not even American, as you know, but I felt smacked in the face when I heard about it.
I hear ya, but white supremacists have very little (open) support overall, whereas this guy has lots of support. Like it or not, more than half the country still are willing to toss our rights under the bus, and he is of that majority.
I've been tossed under a bus before, so
One more point, rofl... if Obama shut out the right, or pulled the plug on this guy being there, doing so requires a commitment to actively putting forth why that choice is made, and I just do not see this or any potential national administration short of Tammy Baldwin as president actually investing that kind of effort in the issue.
Absent full explanation, the right would make serious mayhem with those inclined to waver, pointing out the left pushing their way into social liberalism. As a social liberal, it isn't just getting it done, it is convincing others why it makes sense to get it done this way. Is this administration prepared to put that effort in? Nope, and I would have said it would be so six months ago - just as it would be true of Hillary, she too would not get it done.
"How does everyone feel about Obama's choice to deliver the invocation at his inauguration?"
This is the sort of thing the import of which cannot be determined until after it has happened. Regardless of the outcome, in months and years to come, there will be those who will say, "See, I told you! THAT result was obvious!"
I'm in favor for several reasons.
1. I want to give the new president a lot of latitude. (And before someone responds with something really stupid, yes, I gave that and more latitude to his predecessor.)
2. Giving this guy a platform isn't so much reaching out to him, or allowing him to reach out to others - but it is reaching out to people who are already following him. A huge problem with that crowd is that they only ever really get information from people who believe as they do. They may watch the evening news, but to them any part they don't like to hear is just zionist, commie propaganda. Could this backfire? Yes. Obama could get bit in the backside on this. But I admire him for trying.
3. We should be giving people second chances. Hagee has a chance here to reform - to rehabilitate himself, to nudge himself ever slightly into the fold.
Yes, I'm sure you were. And there are many, many here who felt the same - GLBT or not.
I have no problem with - in fact laud - the idea of talking with people with whom we have disagreements. But this is more than a meeting, more than agreeing to work together on something - say AIDs issues. This is an honor extended to a man, who as you say, has compared homosexuality to pedophelia. This morning they showed a clip where he said it was basically a mental disease or a character weakness to be overcome.
As you say, that wouldn't have been tolerated should he have been talking about African Amercians in that light.
He's also pretty nasty wrt to the treatment of women - well beyond his anti-choice position. The idea that women cannot be in leadership positions just makes my blood boil. Again, not a position that deserves any sort of recognition at a presidential inaugural.
Meet with him, talk to him - by all means. Honor him? Another story altogether.