DU is not a pillar of tolerance.

[Renew Deal]

The Warren episode is the latest example that DU is not the pillar of tolerance. There are many here that believe they are all-tolerant, kind, and open-minded, but they're not. The Warren episode is the latest clearest example.

It was announced that Warren would do the invocation at the inauguration which set off mass-hysteria. And like any Democratic organization, there are competing interests. There are those that hate Warren for his homophobia. There are others that hate him for his Christianity. Many of those screaming about "homophobes" are anti-religious bigots. Hypocritical? Yes. Surprising? Yes. One would think that at a Democratic community there would be tolerance and understanding of many view points. One would expect that with understanding there would be somewhat calm and sane discussion over the issues. But when it comes to gods, gays, guns, and abortions the veneer of tolerance is stripped away to show the very ugly inside. Many are no better than the freepers they claim to despise.

So lets have at it. Watch the person calling you a homophobe call you a fool for believing in God. And watch the believer who missed the point of their religion treat people different from them unkindly. Just don't expect the combatants to understand that they are part of the problem.

[Kalyke]

1. But Warren doesn't tolerate me.

I'm female and I'm not subservient.

:shrug:

[WillParkinson]

2. And this is part of the solution?

If Mr. Obama wanted to have a personal chat with Mr. Warren I'd have no issues with it. I do, however, have a problem with giving him center stage. His attitudes toward gays and lesbians and his work for passing Prop 8 do not deserve to be rewarded with a national audience.

[Renew Deal]

3. This is really not about the invocation at all.

It's about DU.

[WillParkinson]

4. I will not disagree that tempers are high...

But can you agree that, perhaps, it's with reason?

[Renew Deal]

12. There is a good reason why people are upset.

I wouldn't pick Warren because of his views on gays. That would be a disqualifier for me. There are more tolerant religious leaders out there. On the other hand, Warren represents the views of many in this country. Obama wants to know that they are welcome. I get what he's doing, though I'm uncomfortable with it.

[WillParkinson]

21. Wants them to know they're welcome...

And this intelligent, well-educated man could not think of any other way to do this?

Giving this man center-stage will serve to enforce the views of many in this country. It does not lead to an attitude of change.

[Renew Deal]

24. I agree.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. For the national audience, it does just fine. It is NOT center stage.

The invocation, at the very start of it all, will be 2 minutes of platitudes mixed with ceremonial god-talk. Much of the audience will miss it entirely.

After that 2 minute nothing comes the inauguration, and Obama's speech, and ending with Lowery's benediction - and Lowery is 180 degrees away from Warren.

Warren will be a forgotten footnote - what will be remembered will be Obama and, because of the final placement, Lowery.

All that Warren is is a sop to the megachurch nutjobs. It mean butkis.

[Sugarcoated]

57. That's how I see it, too.

Well put. I give the President-elect the benefit of the doubt. He said in his victory speech that he wanted to win the trust and support of those who didn't vote for him. Throwing those people a two minute bone, or even a few more here and there over the next eight years is politically savvy. President-elect Barack Obama is a very smart man who wants to get things done, and what matters is the policies that get signed into law and the Supreme Court justices he appoints. I'm willing to wait and see, but he has to be the president of all the people. If he does a Shrubaya 'only take care of the base' style he won't get nearly as much done.

[WillParkinson]

68. So the GLBT community is a bone?

Because we are the ones being tossed.

[Sugarcoated]

74. Not even close

President-elect has got your back. He's thinking big picture. I understand your anger, but if he doesn't reach out here and there and gain some support and trust from the other side, GLTB folks, and frankly, people who's needs are life and death, folks who need heathcare and jobs, will be less likely to get the policies signed into law that so many of us want, some desperately need. Like several Democratic President's in the recent past have found, the bull in a china shop approach isn't the way to go. It's the same approach the President-elect will use in talks with hostile leaders. When you stop seeing red think about it.

[WillParkinson]

79. When I stop seeing red...

First off, I'm not seeing red. I disagree with Mr. Obama on this choice, I've made it know, and I questioned his reasonings for doing it. I also asked why THIS man? You see, people like Mr. Warren have a polarizing effect. You put him up on a stage and regardless of what he is doing - giving a speech or an invocation - you are making him more legitimate. And you are linking yourself to him and his belief. Mr. Obama can say he doesn't agree with it but just like in California during the ads where he said he disagreed with the proposition they still used his words of being against gay marriage against him.

Secondly, this is not the first time Mr. Obama has done this. Donnie McClurkin was the first I know of. But when you put Mr. Warren on stage you are putting on a man who says that gay and lesbian marriage is like pedophilia. These are the things that will come out. These are the things that people will see. Not a person of love and kindness. A person who spits vile and venom.

And Mr. Obama does not have my back. Mr. Obama operates in his own interests. This, to me, is proof of that.

My friends act as a shield against those who would do me harm. They do not put them up on stage and say "look what I did".

[Sugarcoated]

81. Let me ask you this then

if gay marriage, or all the rights of gay marriage get passed in the next four years, will you still think Obama doesn't have your back? Is it possible that you could look at the Warren appearance, or others like it as a political move that was necessary, politically speaking, to give him the political capital to get it passed? From past history on Obama, this is what it looks like to me.

[WillParkinson]

103. No.

Why? Because bigots like Mr. Warren will not step aside because their religion says so.

Do you honestly think one invocation will suddenly give Mr. Obama clout with these groups? I do not honestly believe that there is a snowballs chance in some really warm place that gay marriage will be passed in the next four years. And I will not be satisfied with separate but equal. Something Mr. Obama seems to have glossed over in history is that it did not work then, it will not work now.

[WillParkinson]

67. It means...

That people will feel validated in their bigotry because the lead bigot is on stage. It will make Mr. Warren a celebrity no matter how you look at it. People will flock to him. Will the same happen with Mr. Lowery? Quite possibly. But which is worse? Someone who promotes love for all or someone who promotes hate for a few?

[jakem]

5. DU is tolerant of only those that agree with DU.

all others be damned.

[Posteritatis]

6. DU doesn't agree with DU as to what DU agrees with, though

*dodges thrown objects*

[Renew Deal]

13. That's for sure.

I think that's the big picture view that people are missing. We don't need everyone that disagrees with us (on DU) banned. There's a lot of common ground here.

[jakem]

15. Yes, it does.

In the event of disagreement, 'I' and DU. 'You' are not.

:hi:

[quakerboy]

69. No joke

Its just beautiful when people act like there is a consensus here on DU. On pretty much any topic.

[BlooInBloo]

96. I disagree.

I can't believe I was first! :P

[snowbear]

113. huh?

.
.
.

"DU doesn't agree with DU as to what DU agrees with...."

Man.. It must be LATE!



~~~~~~~

[bunnies]

9. DU doesnt even agree with DU.

ouch. My head hurts.

[Posteritatis]

34. No it doesn't.

;)

[bunnies]

44. Liar.

:rofl: :hi:

[AZBlue]

127. Ding, ding, ding!!

It's a shame really. Certainly not what you'd expect from "progressives."

[Justyce]

7. Agree, the hypocrisy can be pretty stout around here. nt

[nichomachus]

8. I nominate this for stupidest OP of the week -- maybe the year

Objecting to someone who was instrumental in taking away my civil rights makes me "hysterical?"

I'd like to see your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

[Renew Deal]

16. Did you just prove my point?

:shrug:

[Maven]

19. No. He didn't. What he showed is the proper indignation. Which is what you'd show

if you had a spine and some principles and actually gave a shit about people who are different from you.

How dare you fucking BLAME people for objecting to a POS like Warren? How fucking dare you?

Right out of the Rove playbook.

[Renew Deal]

26. Show me where I blamed people for objecting to Warren.

Go ahead, because you can't.

[Maven]

That is exactly what you're doing. Calling people "intolerant" because they don't

accept people with "different views." Like the view that I'm not a human being who deserves equal rights, which I happen to object to. How intolerant of me.

[Renew Deal]

33. No...

I'm saying that the intolerant have no right to call others intolerant.

[Maven]

36. What you posted was indefensible.

It's amazing how the same people never change the pattern. You didn't give a fuck last year, and you still don't give a fuck, and you're still here to tell everyone why they're "hysterical" for giving a fuck.

You know what that opinion is worth, oh tolerant one?

Nothing.

People like you shout change, but you don't change anything, you stand by and shush everyone while standards are lowered and injustices happen. That's all you're about, because the truth is, you're not part of the "out" group so why does it kill you to be "objective" from your ivory tower?

Step aside, no one's interested.

[Renew Deal]

38. At what point to do you turn the outrage off?

Calling hypocrites out for being intolerant is "indefensible?" I gladly live with that.

EDIT: My OP wasn't directed to you specifically. Maybe you identify with it.

[Maven]

40. When the outrages end.

Lauding Rick Warren is a major insult that deserves a proportional response.

[Renew Deal]

42. I agree

:shrug:

I try to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on stuff. He has such a good track record from the campaign for understanding the big picture. The Vilsack choice is absolutely confounding. The Warren choice is as well. I understand he wants a big tent. I can't get past the idea that promoting Warren specifically promotes his fucked up ideas. I'd love to know why Obama thinks it makes sense.

[nichomachus]

29. Maybe it was this line

It was announced that Warren would do the invocation at the inauguration which set off mass-hysteria.

You're saying that those of us who find Warren objectionable are just in some mindless kind of "mass hysteria" instead of a principled response. That is an extremely offensive charge.

[Renew Deal]

37. The response has not been wholly "principled."

The FU Obama types are hardly principled. But I can change the word hysteria to panic, excitement, emotion, etc. It makes essentially the same point. I chose hysteria because it best suits he response. Not all of the response has been against this. And not all of the response has been reasonable.

[nichomachus]

41. I don't think you are the proper person

to tell people how they should respond when they think their rights are being marginalized.

Your arrogance is offensive.

When Obama invites David Duke to speak and the African American community applauds the choice, I will agree with you. When he invites someone from the PLO to speak and the Jews applaud him, I will agree with you. When he invites an atheist to give his point of view at the inaugural and the Christians say it's a good thing, I will agree with you.

Until then, your OP is still the stupidest and most offensive thing I've seen in a long time.

[Renew Deal]

45. You're making stuff up again.

Where did I tell people how they should respond? But lets take this a different route. When I see you outraged that Obama invites Duke to speak to African Americans, I will agree with you. When I see you outraged that Obama had the PLO speak to Jews I will agree with you. When I see you outraged that Obama invites atheists to speak to Christians, I will agree with you.

[nichomachus]

23. Your point, unfortunately, is unprovable

It's just the discussion board equivalent of bowel gas.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

110. Yeah I second this OP as the stupidest post of the year

Get a fucking clue before you post please.

[MadBadger]

27. Ever heard of Proud2BAmurkin?

[Rebubula]

10. Tolerance

This does not mean 'acceptance' it means that I disagree with you - but will let it pass for the greater good.

However, some viewpoints do not deserve tolerance. Anti-gay is one of them. Fuck anyone that bases their opinions of a person based on who they sleep with - and fuck their apologists.

[dmallind]

11. bullshit - look at the atheist group

You'll find by and large the non-religious are the least bothered by this. We all knew Obama was a believer. Most of us realize that he's just picking a celebrity preacher for a pomp-filled event. Whining about this outrage, which I as a rather outspoken atheist find frankly silly, being the product of "anti-religious bigots" is just another example of an 80%+ majority with all the power at every single level of government crying like fucking babies about being "oppressed". And you have the gall to call the nonreligious hypocrites?


Almost all the whining about Warren I've seen comes from GLBT folks (who at least have a point, although again the number of pro-gay celebrity preachers is pretty limited to choose an alternative from) and the liberal believers who wanted one of their own to get prime time. And if the damned liberal believers ever get around to putting their money where their mouths are they'd have a couple of celebrity preachers themselves who might have a chance to get picked next time. But no they're too busy trying to convince people that most Xians are not like the "minority" of fundies who they allow to speak for them to actually DO anything about it.

[Renew Deal]

20. There's one good point in there.

There actually is another competing interest. Believers that want one of their own. That's true. Show me where I said that "nonreligious are hypocrites." You can't because I didn't.

[dmallind]

55. So who exactly would the anti-religious be?

who you DID call hypocrites? I suspect I can take it for granted that believers wouuld not be anti-religion so that would leave......?

[Renew Deal]

73. Being an atheist doesn't make you anti-religion

Just because you don't believe doesn't mean you oppose. It's like saying that Christians are anti-semites or jewish people are anti-Christian. It's oversimplifying.

[dmallind]

82. I understand that - but not what I asked

YOU said "anti-religious bigots".

Are they believers or not in your mind? How can they possibly be the former?

So just because not all atheists are anti-religious bigots, doesn't change the fact that all anti-religious bigots can be assumed to be atheists, hence it was these people - all atheists, you accused of hypocrisy.

[kwassa]

58. um, there is another major thread here started by an atheist.

Atheists as more tolerant? Please. I've been around here toooooo long.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7995362&mesg_id=7995362

"As an atheist, I'm offended that there even *IS* an invocation or benediction....

[dmallind]

60. Yes - but are MOST of us bothered

Sure we'd all prefer the godbotheriung to disappear but since we presumably all know it won't any time soon, and all know Obama is at least outwardly way into the sky daddy, I don't see why this is anywhere near to the top of the list of things atheists should be bothered by.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rebubula]

18. Makes...

....my head spin...this sort of logic.




:crazy:

[nichomachus]

25. I have a feeling any kind of logic makes your head spin

[Renew Deal]

22. No, I'm chiding the intolerant that think they're tolerant.

Big difference.

[noiretextatique]

102. that pretty much sums it up: being tolerant of the intolerant

:hi: KKK folks, i know you hate my black ass, but i am going to tolerate your hatred to prove how tolerant i am :crazy:

choosing warren was a stupid political ploy and i hope it blows up in his face.

[Bjorn Against]

17. There is no reason we should have tolerance and understanding for bigotry

I am sick of people using religion to justify bigotry, there are plenty of religious people who are not bigots. There is no reason we should be tolerant of bigotry, people choose their religious beliefs no one is born a bigot they are taught to be bigots. If a religious institution teaches bigotry, then that is a bigoted institution. Not all churches are homophobic, and I am more than happy to embrace those churches who reject bigotry but I am not going to defend those that spread hate.

[Renew Deal]

31. And not all believers are homophobic.

Most religous institutions are intolerant of one thing or another (gays, women, non-believers). That doesn't mean that the followers agree fully. You make a good point that there are more tolerant institutions within faith, and people should choose to be there. I wish it were so easy.

[Bjorn Against]

46. I never said all believers were homophobic.

But Warren is homophobic and he is the issue here.

[Renew Deal]

47. I know.

I wasn't saying that you were. :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Is he? Really?

You know, there is a sound political reason for inviting Warren to give the invocation - How many people who are fundamentally against Obama will tune into the inauguration just to hear what Warren has to say, then keep watching and listen to Obama possibly for the first time? I know people who have NEVER heard Obama speak, because they wouldn't listen to ANY Democrat during the election. If opening with Warren draws in a few hundred thousand viewer to listen to Obama who otherwise would not, that's fine with me.

Obama has made it clear, in his speech and actions, that his opinions are not the same as Warren's opinions. He wants to increase the audience for his own speech.

Remember, diplomacy is the art of speaking with people you fundamentally disagree with. He's starting out opening that dialog.

[Bjorn Against]

59. Yeah, I'm sure if he invited David Duke he might get some racists watching as well.

I don't believe in reaching out to bigots, and anyone who opposes equal rights is by definition a bigot.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. So every person who goes to Warren's church is a bigot?

And no bigot ever changed his mind?

You know as well as i do that many supposedly hopeless bigots have an epiphany when they find out that the object of their bigotry impacts them directly - for every homophobe who banishes his son upon learning he is gay, there is another who completely re-thinks his prejudice and embraces the difference.

Without reaching out to them, how do we change their minds?

[Bjorn Against]

63. I never said every person who goes to Warren's church is a bigot.

I said Warren is a bigot, and all those who oppose equal rights are bigots. Giving Warren a platform is not merely reaching out to him, it is considered a great honor to get a spot at the inauguration and there is no reason to honor a bigot. I do want to try to get bigots to change their minds, but you don't change their mind by honoring bigotry and giving it a national platform.

[mwb970]

111. Error. Error. Too logical. Too logical.

Dispatch the DU Police immediately! Logic will not be tolerated on this topic. You must be outraged. You will be outraged! Or else you can just get your logical butt off this board. We don't need your kind here. We want to be mad and outraged, so leave us alone!

[Barack_America]

28. I am prejudiced against fundamentalist Christians.

I don't understand them and I don't trust them.

It's not something I'm proud of, but it's something I will admit.

But I'm trying very hard to put my prejudice aside and give both Obama and Warren the benefit of the doubt here that they will use this opportunity to do something good to reconcile fundies and liberals.

Hope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7996922&mesg_id=7996922

[hlthe2b]

30. DAMN IT PEOPLE!......

you're gonna make me have to log off and actually go back to work if you don't stop all this fracas! Lordy, please don't make me do THAT! ;)

[ROakes1019]

32. intolerance

I have to express my opinion, as practically everyone has done. When I see these vitriolic outcries against just about everything Obama does, I picture petulant teens or children throwing temper tantrums. That is not a picture of what I think of as the typical liberal. About the Warren outrage: It's just a prayer at the inaugeration; he's not being made minister-in-chief of the US. We saw Obama go on his show and, yes, I thought Warren was biased for McCain but Obama did participate. Could we just wait and see how Obama governs and get over this petulance at everything he does, as though we were elected to decide his every act?

[Maven]

39. Is it Renegade08 come to grace us with his presence again?

[cboy4]

78. Oh no.

(In Seinfeld's voice)

[mwb970]

112. Another logical post. Why do you bother?

While you're at it, try spitting into the wind.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. Hear Hear!

:applause:

[mmonk]

35. I don't pretend to be tolerant of the intolerant and the political following

they bring to the table. There does exist people whose ideas are best rejected to protect those they can damage. That's reality. It's fantasy to pretend all positions can be bridged.

[bahrbearian]

128. Sounds like you read George Orwell

[a la izquierda]

43. ...

:popcorn:

[Jennicut]

49. I don't think I am tolerant enough

I think I need to remake my life.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Tolerance is a fucking fraud

The worst fraud perpetrated on Left politics, really.

[phleshdef]

51. Nail meet HEAD

[WinkyDink]

52. I think you are a bit confused. Democrats are not, nor ever claimed to be, "tolerant" of bigots.

[Marrah_G]

53. What an ignorant post- welcome to ignore

I'd rather hang with my "hysterical friends"

[Renew Deal]

75. Ignorance is bliss.

At least it is for you.

[Cleita]

56. I've had enough posted removed on women's issues to know that

first hand and some of them from alerts from my fellow self-described feminists. I have also been attacked for my beliefs, not my religion as I don't have one, by atheists who think they have all the answers and no room for any other. I know how Galileo felt when his sun as center of the solar system opinion was derided by his fellow scientists. We at DU are no different and I guess that does make us human if not freepers.

[SidneyCarton]

62. Give it up man, the steamroller is rolling, they're not going to stop until they run out of gas.

Anyone who gets in the way with rational thought will be crushed.

[baldguy]

64. It's not a sin to be intolerant of intolerance.

[Solon]

65. Tolerate the intolerant if you wish, I won't stand with you, for surely you stand against GLBT...

people.

[Renew Deal]

76. You have no idea where I stand,

And from reading your posts, you have no idea where you stand either.

[grantcart]

66. Warren is an apostle of virulent anti-intellectual Christianity

It is possible to be tolerant of Christianity even of conservative Christians who are still uncomfortable with homosexuality and reject Warren.

Warren in fact rejects Christianity, at least peer review Christian community.

He goes to renegade seminaries and establishes Churches without denomination ties.


These self promoting mega churches are corrupting Christianity in North America and dooming it to a faith based community that elevates both isolationism and rampant consumerism.


I think we should be tolerant of people who disagree with us, but we don't have to be tolerant of stupid.

[LeftyMom]

70. The difference is that gay people exist. nt

[billyoc]

71. The most radical revolutionary is a staunch conservative the day after the revolution.

Just sayin'...

[bridgit]

72. Hypocritical? Yes. Surprising? No, not to me; DU can be a place where...

single issue police maraud the forums rubbing everyone else's nose in their brand of tolerance...everyone else's nose they don't already have on 'ignore' by way of a feature they use too often if not when even the wind blows against their notion. Others clamor to be cool so they fly a rainbow flag as though that becomes their free pass to sidle up beside the cool kids. So they won't get their nose shoved in someone else's intolerance, no...

Rick Warren is not merely a fundamentalist duuph, he's a multi-million dollar danger to a more perfect union. But it is imo as well the case that DU can be a myopic mess with an equally dangerous pretense to what is cool.

Further, it is simply the case; that on occasion there are more of 'them' than there are...well *you* in this case, the reader; and feel free to write yourself in there, write yourself out of there, others in, others out of there, etc, etc, etc, review your ignore feature as I am sure the wind will be changing at some point future, your buddy list whatever, your inbox, gang up, form a posse, ride rough shod giddy up; or more of them than *us* for that matter if that makes the medicine go down, however...

With that being the case and it is: sometimes there being more of them than us; isn't it time to stop flinging monkey shit on not just each other but on all four walls and the floor and the ceiling and start to find ways to work these things out?

Is there nothing can be said to Rick Warren that is able to showcase our humanity in such a way as to afford him a kindlier view of our concerns? Or is this insatiable, back & forth haranguing the only arrow in our quiver?

Cause if that's the case they win/we're fucked!

[Renew Deal]

77. Great post!

:thumbsup:

[infidel dog]

80. what's so funny 'bout peace, love and....

Gee, I can't help thinking a harmless post concerning tolerance or perceived lack thereof on DU might not, in a perfect world, receive such vitriolic attacks from people who generally consider themselves in some way liberal. Would a little respect for difference of opinion(and yowza, do we ever have differences of opinion around here)hurt in some way? Please be kind, people. There is enough evil and nastiness to fight against in the outgoing administration to keep us all busy. As Saint Kurt Vonnegut would probably remind you: "Goddamnit, you MUST be kind!"

[Neshanic]

83. No indeed, as the scramble to man battlestations for the Obama/Warren gaff

turns into a free for all for the deeply closeted "I have a gay friend" Democrats.

[bigwillq]

84. Fuck Rick Warren.

And fuck the people telling me I have to accept this or I am not open-minded.

Warren doesn't tolerate me. Why should I tolerate him?

[Odin2005]

85. The people bashing Obama seem to think hate and intolerance is cured by more hate and intolerance.

That is what is disgusting me. The ones complaining about hate have and intolerance become the ones filled with hatred and intolerance

[QC]

89. And some people here are drawing false equivalencies between bigots and their victims.

It's like a cop walking into a domestic violence scene, finding a woman beaten to a pulp, and saying to the couple, "You two need to quit beating up on each other."

[Odin2005]

94. No.

Se post #92.

[Lyric]

86. It's not intolerance to denounce bigots.

"Tolerating" bigotry is appeasement, plain and simple, and it's flat-out wrong.

[Odin2005]

87. Hate doersn't cure hate, it just creates more hate.

[Lyric]

90. Calling bigots on their bigotry ISN'T hate.

Are we trying to deprive them of THEIR Constitutional rights?

Stop using right-wing bullshit arguments. The other side loves to paint us as intolerant "haters" too, but they're wrong. I don't give a damn WHAT religion they practice, but when they start advocating making their religion into national and state laws that govern EVERYONE, that's when it's time to stand the hell up and say NO.

If you can't see a difference, then you are willfully blind.

[Odin2005]

92. "Right-wing arguments" my ass/ I call 'em as I see 'em.

Screaming "BIGOT, BIGOT!!!" doesn't solve the problem. It's the cultural equivalent of Israel refusing to talk with Hamas and *Dumbass saying "you are either with us or against us" and "we don't talk to terrorists."

[Lyric]

97. There's a big-ass gulf of difference between the extremes you mentioned

and the realities here. You are drawing false equivalences.

We're not talking international warfare, where thousands upon thousands of people are at risk of immediate and horrible death if an agreement is not soon reached, and we are NOT talking about a situation where both sides of the issue are partially right. We are talking civil rights, and there IS NO RIGHT SIDE other than the one we we espouse here.

Israel and Palestine both have valid grievances against each other. What fucking grievance does the right-wing have against gay people, other than that they exist AT ALL and want their Constitutional rights respected?

You may "call 'em as you see'em," but if that's the case, I have serious doubts about the acuity of your vision.

[Odin2005]

100. I know the analogies weren't perfect, but I think you missed the larger point.

What I was trying to say is that ignoring and shunning your enemies doesn't always work, and can often make things worse. sometimes you HAVE to have to have to talk to your enemies in order to make progress. In fact, I think Obama may be using Warren to show that the Left is more tolerant then the Right, the Pukes would of never had a gay pastor pray for them after all, and that he is a gracious winner and not a sore loser like the birth certificate morans.

[davidpdx]

109. Unfortunately, that's exactly what people have been doing today

So I understand what you are saying.

[ZombieHorde]

88. Maybe you should learn to tolerate other people's intolerance.

[Deja Q]

91. Hear hear!

Especially that final paragraph. Often are the militants raining down told that they too are being militant and it flies right over their heads. (Never mind how the militants raining down are responding to any original post, which may or may not deserve scorn but is more likely asking valid questions about valid points and some people have so little in their lives that they have to take their militant beliefs as being their whole existence. And they are the saddest people of the lot.)

(Even giving them a taste of their own medicine doesn't do anything either; they just find another empty excuse. Perhaps they are the ones who should be left out.)

[Liberalboy]

93. That's not the point...

Rev. Warren's beliefs go against the core values of the Democratic Party. Id we cannot hold President-Elect Obama accountable to the values of his own party then how will we ever hold him accountable on other issues. If the rebuttle is that he has to represent ALL Americans then why on earth have political parties to begin with. I vote Democrat because of it's ideology and values, and now the leader of that party and the country is endorsing and providing a high profile position to a person who is the very antithesis of the party. A person who does not respect me enough to let me have my rights...his chosen religion has more rights then my biological orientation.

[Renew Deal]

114. First we should consider what the core values of the Democratic Party.

Just look at the party platform.

"We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections."

"We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us."

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

No where in the platform does it say that the party supports "same-sex marriage." People that voted for Obama also know full well what his positions are on civil rights. So people shouldn't be that surprised.

[Liberalboy]

118. You're right...

but Rev. Warren does not reflect those values, and his very presence is a slap in the face to those values.

Again, actions are louder then words, when/if President Obama passes ENDA, Hate Crimes and ends the ban on gays in the military I'll happily eat crow and say that he puts his money where his mouth is. If he goes a step further and creates a National Civil Union law, allows gay couples to file joint federal taxes, and ensure hospital visitation and social security spousal benefits then he will show a true commitment on civil rights and be one of the most progressive presidents ever on gay rights

[BlooInBloo]

95. Not smart. Not even clever....

Those who maintain that tolerance requires the tolerating of the hateful.

It's really 3rd grade level stupidity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

98. not tolerating homophobes is not considered intolerant? how stupid. nt

[Renew Deal]

115. Who are you calling homophobes?

Because I never said you should do any such thing.

[Solon]

99. Your damned right about that, too many people here tolerate homophobia!

I don't give a shit what excuse is used, its unacceptable to tolerate this hatred.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

101. I don't care about his religion, I care about his homophobia and sexism.

This idiot compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, for fuck's sake. He is a bigot, no matter what religious argument he hides behind.

[depakid]

104. You fail to see a most basic point in all of this

So long as no one is getting hurt- or the public health- or education of kids K-12 in arts and sciences are being adversely affected, most folks on DU don't give a rats ass about what fundies do in their own lives.

The reverse however is anything but true.

[Chovexani]

105. What is the point of this asinine thread except to further stir shit?

You do realize that many of the people who are against Warren are themselves members of the clergy, even here on DU? Mainline Christian DUers, evangelical Christian DUers, several flavors of Jews and Pagans and Buddhists and at least one Sufi?

This is not about the bullshit atheist vs. believers threads in R/T that seem to seem into GD every once in a while. This is about principled people who actually believe in liberal ideals vs. the same old homophobic fauxgressives that always crop up in these threads and are too chicken shit or economically distressed to vote Repuke.

I have problems with bigots, no matter what bullshit excuse they hide behind, whether they call it "family values" or "God".

Pardon me if I'm finding it hard to have calm, sane discussion with people who think I'm subhuman.

Thanks for your concern trolling, though. I'm not really surprised.

[EFerrari]

107. Warren reminds me of Larry the Cable Guy.

Only with a nicer website.

:hi:

"All will be well, all manner of thing will be well". -- Julian of Norwich, optimist.

[Renew Deal]

116. This thread is not about Warren at all.

It's about DU and DUers. There are people here that like to call others bigots in one context while being bigots in another. Somehow they find that acceptable.

[Solon]

119. Yeah right, I have not heard people condemn him for being a Christian...

in general, but for using his Christianity to further his homophobic beliefs. You have created a strawman to knock down.

[Behind the Aegis]

106. Tolerating intolerance shouldn't be a pillar of DU.

I think many people have made that very clear. Of course, there are others who are willing to say that "some are more equal than others."

[noamnety]

108. You know what I hate about oppressed people?

They are always so intolerant of their oppressors.

So silly - history has shown again and again that the way oppressed groups win their rights is by playing nice and inviting their oppressors to take leadership roles more often.

(Today IS backwards day, right?)

[undeterred]

117. I'm irrational because I believe in god.

I am out of step because I find the use of the perjorative "douchebag" on DU demeaning to women.

Although I am offended by the invitation to Warren, I am not offended enough.

I'm nuts I believe that "choice" should apply to everyone, including those who choose large families.

[Solon]

120. Why the hell are you conflating a bunch of unrelated issues with Warren? n/t

[undeterred]

124. Forgive me.

I forgot I am only allowed to speak about the issue which concerns you most when discussing intolerance on DU.

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

121. If the Warren matter is a harbinger of how Obama will bring this country together

He is well on his way to total failure!

[Mass]

122. I do not care what you believe as long as you do not try to force these beliefs on me.

This is my definition of tolerance and the one of most on DU, I think.

You can go to your church of choice as much as you want. You can believe whatever you want. What you do not have the right is to force your beliefs on me or on public policy. That is called the separation of Church and State.

You do not have to marry a partner of same sex. No advocate of same sex marriage will ask you to do so. However, opponents of same sex marriage will prevent you to do so.

You do not have to have an abortion or use birth control methods. No pro choice people will ask that of you. However, pro life people will try to prevent women to have a choice, and in many cases to have access and information to birth control.

So, do not call me intolerant. Call those who want to impose their beliefs on me intolerant.

[apocalypsehow]

123. Good, balanced post. I am very much against the Warren invocation but I have seen a level of vitriol

leveled at innocent bystanders for merely discussing the issue in any terms other than 300 decibel screaming about how wrong it all is.

Good post, and I'll rec and since recs aren't private anyway (we find out now, without a single indication of it anywhere on the site), everyone should always publicly announce their poll votes and recs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Hypocrites Abound.

Good post. It's amazing how ignorant some of the vitriol here is. Some real intolerant scumbags out lately.

[RiverStone]

129. Damn good thing we DON'T walk in lock-step like the freepers

"Shoulding" on anybody never works - even if it makes sense.