lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Someone want to explain to me why a man who believes people aren't equal deserves any respect? I have Sammy you just don't want to hear it. You cannot have the moral high ground by stooping to the same levels as those you disagree with. Warren is an important figure to a large amount of disillusioned Americans. If you want them to work with you you need to show them you aren't going to treat them with the same contempt that they treated you. It isn't a declaration that you believe in everything the person says, it is saying even if you disagree with them you will still hear what they have to say. You cannot be outraged by intolerance by acting intolerant. I'm stoked Obama stuck with an unpopular choice with his base to show the rest of the country that he is their president as well, even if he doesn't agree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I can agree with you until this: It isn't a declaration that you believe in everything the person says Because by choosing Warren, Obama was saying what Warren said was "okay." He was vouching for him. That's the part I don't like. Get Warren to play a minor role, okay, fine but not as major of a one as he did. I'm just not cool with it. Now, that all ignores the idea that Obama somewhat agrees with Warren on the gay marriage issue, which is an entire different discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I can agree with you until this:It isn't a declaration that you believe in everything the person says Because by choosing Warren, Obama was saying what Warren said was "okay." He was vouching for him. That's the part I don't like. Get Warren to play a minor role, okay, fine but not as major of a one as he did. I'm just not cool with it. Now, that all ignores the idea that Obama somewhat agrees with Warren on the gay marriage issue, which is an entire different discussion. I understand not liking it, but it would be like not inviting Billy Graham if he were still rocking the mic. Just because you invite someone doesn't mean you're validating them and throwing a branch to people who you need to win over is something to be applauded. He's acting like the guy we voted for. It's the same reason he had a ceremony to honor McCain this weekend. Because it was classy and because it was telling an important part of this country he is not the enemy. We need less divisiveness in this country. They only agree on one issue of the gay marriage debate and it's one that even I can get behind. That there should not be a law forcing religious organizations to recognize homosexual marraiges. It isn't the government's place, and that's where Obama stands on the issue. He's for giving them marriage rights and having the government recognize them as married couples with full rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No one I've ever heard speak would want to force anyone to do anything. However, we're going to continue to disagree on this issue if you keep insisting inviting someone to do something as important as what Warren did isn't validating them. That's exactly what it is. To me, with Warren's attitude toward a large group of people its akin to racism. There's a lot of details to the issue, its not cut-and-dry but I still hold it was the wrong decision. There are far more ways to speak to people who didn't vote for you then kowtowing to a shmuck like Warren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I thought we were done with this thread . . . but I can agree with you until this:Because by choosing Warren, Obama was saying what Warren said was "okay." He was vouching for him. That's the part I don't like. Get Warren to play a minor role, okay, fine but not as major of a one as he did. I'm just not cool with it. Now, that all ignores the idea that Obama somewhat agrees with Warren on the gay marriage issue, which is an entire different discussion. They only agree on one issue of the gay marriage debate and it's one that even I can get behind. That there should not be a law forcing religious organizations to recognize homosexual marraiges. It isn't the government's place, and that's where Obama stands on the issue. He's for giving them marriage rights and having the government recognize them as married couples with full rights. So you are taking the Plessy v. Ferguson route? What are those black people complaining about? They can use their colored water fountain. They can sit in the colored train car. Gay people can get a civil union but they can't get married because that is a religious institution? Is that what you are saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I thought we were done with this thread . . . but They only agree on one issue of the gay marriage debate and it's one that even I can get behind. That there should not be a law forcing religious organizations to recognize homosexual marraiges. It isn't the government's place, and that's where Obama stands on the issue. He's for giving them marriage rights and having the government recognize them as married couples with full rights. So you are taking the Plessy v. Ferguson route? What are those black people complaining about? They can use their colored water fountain. They can sit in the colored train car. Gay people can get a civil union but they can't get married because that is a religious institution? Is that what you are saying? Nope. I don't think Government should pass laws telling churches what they have to think. You aren't married by a church. You can be married and not recognized like the church. See Catholics who have been married more than once without having the previous marriage annulled. The Catholic church doesn't recognize that union and the Government shouldn't pass a law saying they have to. When I get married in June I'm not getting married in a church, but I'll still be married, even without the Church's bless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 So then why can't gay people get married? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 No one I've ever heard speak would want to force anyone to do anything. However, we're going to continue to disagree on this issue if you keep insisting inviting someone to do something as important as what Warren did isn't validating them. That's exactly what it is. To me, with Warren's attitude toward a large group of people its akin to racism. There's a lot of details to the issue, its not cut-and-dry but I still hold it was the wrong decision. There are far more ways to speak to people who didn't vote for you then kowtowing to a shmuck like Warren. Again, I just wonder what would have been more effective? People are invited to do things all the time without the inviting organization endorsing everything they believe. I suppose this issue is like the Weather Underground issue for me. To say that Barry is endorsing everything Warren says is like saying he was endorsing everything William Ayers did and said by working with him. And it isn't a matter of scale. If you work with people that you disagree with on the little things it is just as big a moral issue as on the big things. And it's pretty much impossible to get anything done only working with people you agree with. I know Barry won with a mandate but it would be politically suicidal to assume all of those people are pro gay marriage. He still has to respect the people who voted for him who don't share his views. He's everyone's president. Not just ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No one I've ever heard speak would want to force anyone to do anything. However, we're going to continue to disagree on this issue if you keep insisting inviting someone to do something as important as what Warren did isn't validating them. That's exactly what it is. To me, with Warren's attitude toward a large group of people its akin to racism. There's a lot of details to the issue, its not cut-and-dry but I still hold it was the wrong decision. There are far more ways to speak to people who didn't vote for you then kowtowing to a shmuck like Warren. Again, I just wonder what would have been more effective? People are invited to do things all the time without the inviting organization endorsing everything they believe. I suppose this issue is like the Weather Underground issue for me. To say that Barry is endorsing everything Warren says is like saying he was endorsing everything William Ayers did and said by working with him. And it isn't a matter of scale. If you work with people that you disagree with on the little things it is just as big a moral issue as on the big things. And it's pretty much impossible to get anything done only working with people you agree with. I know Barry won with a mandate but it would be politically suicidal to assume all of those people are pro gay marriage. He still has to respect the people who voted for him who don't share his views. He's everyone's president. Not just ours. But YOU aren't pro gay marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 So then why can't gay people get married? Because of an insane amount of history where society didn't except homosexuality. Because as a nation it's only within the last 60 years that blacks and whites could marry one another in every state of the nation, and we're still moving along, even if it is slowly. We need to separate Americans from the idea of Marriage being a spiritual issue and make them understand this issue is about social rights. Most Christians think this is about changing what the bible says, and don't ever think about it as a tax and rights issue. Honestly if we could convince them it isn't about taking away their right to hate on gay marriage we might be able to get the fucking thing passed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Again, I just wonder what would have been more effective? People are invited to do things all the time without the inviting organization endorsing everything they believe. I suppose this issue is like the Weather Underground issue for me. To say that Barry is endorsing everything Warren says is like saying he was endorsing everything William Ayers did and said by working with him. And it isn't a matter of scale. If you work with people that you disagree with on the little things it is just as big a moral issue as on the big things. And it's pretty much impossible to get anything done only working with people you agree with. I know Barry won with a mandate but it would be politically suicidal to assume all of those people are pro gay marriage. He still has to respect the people who voted for him who don't share his views. He's everyone's president. Not just ours. But YOU aren't pro gay marriage. Where the fuck do you get that? I've spent years donating and working the streets for gay marriage. I've taken part in gay weddings. I just don't think the government should become a part of religious institutions. It sets a scary standard and could easily be used by administrations like the one that just left to shutdown ideas they didn't like or agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No one I've ever heard speak would want to force anyone to do anything. However, we're going to continue to disagree on this issue if you keep insisting inviting someone to do something as important as what Warren did isn't validating them. That's exactly what it is. To me, with Warren's attitude toward a large group of people its akin to racism. There's a lot of details to the issue, its not cut-and-dry but I still hold it was the wrong decision. There are far more ways to speak to people who didn't vote for you then kowtowing to a shmuck like Warren. Again, I just wonder what would have been more effective? People are invited to do things all the time without the inviting organization endorsing everything they believe. I suppose this issue is like the Weather Underground issue for me. To say that Barry is endorsing everything Warren says is like saying he was endorsing everything William Ayers did and said by working with him. And it isn't a matter of scale. If you work with people that you disagree with on the little things it is just as big a moral issue as on the big things. And it's pretty much impossible to get anything done only working with people you agree with. I know Barry won with a mandate but it would be politically suicidal to assume all of those people are pro gay marriage. He still has to respect the people who voted for him who don't share his views. He's everyone's president. Not just ours. Like I said, you and I aren't going to agree on this. I think Warren was the wrong choice and as I'm not prez I'm not privy to all the information. I have to imagine there's an equally respected pastor somewhere who would have been more middle of the road. Maybe that Joel Osteen dude? I don't know. But its not my job to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Again, I just wonder what would have been more effective? People are invited to do things all the time without the inviting organization endorsing everything they believe. I suppose this issue is like the Weather Underground issue for me. To say that Barry is endorsing everything Warren says is like saying he was endorsing everything William Ayers did and said by working with him. And it isn't a matter of scale. If you work with people that you disagree with on the little things it is just as big a moral issue as on the big things. And it's pretty much impossible to get anything done only working with people you agree with. I know Barry won with a mandate but it would be politically suicidal to assume all of those people are pro gay marriage. He still has to respect the people who voted for him who don't share his views. He's everyone's president. Not just ours. Like I said, you and I aren't going to agree on this. I think Warren was the wrong choice and as I'm not prez I'm not privy to all the information. I have to imagine there's an equally respected pastor somewhere who would have been more middle of the road. Maybe that Joel Osteen dude? I don't know. But its not my job to know. Hey dude it's all good, thats why I like this board. I can be chill with folks and disagree on stuff. Yeah Osteen would have been worse. He's a crook and a bigot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Good to know. To be honest had Obama taken a hard-line stance on Bush's horrid behavior I would have been more tolerant of Warren. Its both those issues, together that really upset me more than either one on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Good to know. To be honest had Obama taken a hard-line stance on Bush's horrid behavior I would have been more tolerant of Warren. Its both those issues, together that really upset me more than either one on their own. I totally agree with you on that. At the same time it would have been the worst possible thing to do on a national unity front. There are a lot of people that hate Bush who would've seen that as a classless action Obama's front and would have turned on him for it. Personally I wish his speech consisted of little more than "Got to keep this short so we can start talking about war crimes..." but hey thats why I'm not president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Good to know. To be honest had Obama taken a hard-line stance on Bush's horrid behavior I would have been more tolerant of Warren. Its both those issues, together that really upset me more than either one on their own. I totally agree with you on that. At the same time it would have been the worst possible thing to do on a national unity front. There are a lot of people that hate Bush who would've seen that as a classless action Obama's front and would have turned on him for it. Personally I wish his speech consisted of little more than "Got to keep this short so we can start talking about war crimes..." but hey thats why I'm not president. Its true but its tough decisions that make good men great. I say something needs to be done or said in a formal way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I totally agree with you on that. At the same time it would have been the worst possible thing to do on a national unity front. There are a lot of people that hate Bush who would've seen that as a classless action Obama's front and would have turned on him for it. Personally I wish his speech consisted of little more than "Got to keep this short so we can start talking about war crimes..." but hey thats why I'm not president. Its true but its tough decisions that make good men great. I say something needs to be done or said in a formal way. I think you and I will both be stoked on this front in eight months. There is no way there isn't official and public condemnation of the SOB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moraleclipse Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Actually Jews should be pretty stoked about it, he cited scripture that is all about them. And he never mentioned Jesus once. I'm not a fan of Warren, but considering there will always be a prayer before the inauguration he did a non-religiously specific a prayer as you could do. And any atheist who is honestly ostracized because the president has a traditional and ceremonial prayer before his inauguration is a fucking idiot, and should remember that part of having people except your beliefs is respecting theirs. If he makes it so everyone has to go to church, yeah they're ostracized. But otherwise they're just being grouchy about living in the culture they live in. Praying isn't discriminatory and its frustrating that it's viewed that way, exceptionally since dude isn't talking about converting anyone. A Muslim or a Jew could have read the same prayer and had the same impact. Also, I am not a fucking idiot. Bigot. Just an FYI, as I don't want to pick sides in this ridiculous argument (If you truly want to call yourself progressive, you probably shouldn't bash another person's core beliefs/characteristics like religion (or lack thereof), race, sexual orientation, etc.). Point being, you may want to do a little more research before you use this word in the future. big·ot NOUN: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Also, I am not a fucking idiot. Bigot. Just an FYI, as I don't want to pick sides in this ridiculous argument (If you truly want to call yourself progressive, you probably shouldn't bash another person's core beliefs/characteristics like religion (or lack thereof), race, sexual orientation, etc.). Point being, you may want to do a little more research before you use this word in the future. big·ot NOUN: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Run this by me one more time. What are you telling me here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Was I watching a different prayer, or did he not specifically say "Jesus"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 He said Jesus in like 5 languages and then he said the Lord's Prayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-inaug-warren21-2009jan21,0,6331849.story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Was I watching a different prayer, or did he not specifically say "Jesus"? He did. Go back and you'll see I acknowledge that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-inaug-warren21-2009jan21,0,6331849.story I'd say that about sums it up for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Full disclosure: I don't hate religious believers or anything. I went to Notre Dame, so most of my best friends are Catholics. I have probably come across more scornful than I really am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.