Am I the only one who is seriously conflicted about Warren?

[Danger Mouse]

Like, I'm not outraged over it, but I am upset, because I know why people are upset about it. Yet I can also understand Obama's reasons for doing so.
What it comes down to is...I'm not entirely sure how exactly to feel. Somewhere between sympathy, disappointment, understanding, interest, frustration, resignation...
Does anybody else feel this way?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Yes, and your conflict indicates that you think things through and...

..are able to hold conflicting concepts at the same time, and that you are then able to weigh them one against the other, and that sometimes it's difficult.

You, Elrond Hubbard, are a thinker, not a reactor, and I salute you. :patriot:

I, too, am conflicted.

The only thing I don't feel is irrevocably sure that my point of view is the only correct one.

Recommended.

[Alexander]

2. Yes. I am conflicted as well.

I really hope Warren keeps his mouth shut about what he thinks of gay rights while he's speaking.

[Critters2]

63. But he's free to launch into that if he wants. I mean, why the hell not? nt

[AlCzervik]

3. Not really conflicted, i know exactly how i feel about Warren but i am conflicted

about why he was invited, i've heard the arguments already about how it supposed to be good politically for Obama and maybe that is true but i don't like it, not one bit. The only one i think wins here is Warren, it gives him a much larger audience when i think he should be marginalized.

[democrattotheend]

4. I'm conflicted too

I see what Obama is trying to do and part of me even respects him for it, but I can also see why some people are upset and view it as a slap in the face. I'll write more about it later.

[Swede Atlanta]

5. I am outraged....

As a gay man that supported Obama both financially during his campaign as well as with my time and limited influence over others, I feel betrayed. I understand that Rick Warren is a friend of the president-elect and accept that this pastor, misguided as he may be, may be a likable fellow. But on the day when we inaugurate the first black man to be president of this great nation, to have a black man choose a man who likens gay relationships to bestiality, incest, etc., is truly sad. Blacks were, and still are, discriminated against in this country. Why would Obama choose someone who chooses to discriminate against another minority to be in his inaugural party? This has the effect of bestowing credibility and approval on Mr. Warren and his divisive and un-christian beliefs.

I am now less optimistic that Obama will be an agent for change. I am certainly closing my pocketbook and my mouth in support of him until he "shows me the money". So far on issues that are of importance to me as an individual person and who I am he gets an F. Hopefully he can redeem himself but this is not the way to begin a presidency that at one time glistened with home and aspiration.

[alsame]

23. I absolutely

agree with you: "This has the effect of bestowing credibility and approval on Mr. Warren and his divisive and un-christian beliefs."

I understand why Obama would want to reach out to the evangelical community and try to build cooperation on common issues such as the environment, poverty, AIDS, etc. However, I find it impossible to believe that Obama (or the inauguration team) was unable to find ONE evangelical pastor in the entire country who cares about such issues and is not also fostering hate and discrimination.

I am old enough to remember when 'preachers' such as Falwell, Robertson and Dobson started becoming 'credible' political forces and I fear Warren is simply the next generation.

Participation in an inauguration (especially this historic one) is an HONOR and should not have been awarded to someone who wants to discriminate against any segment of American society.

[LostinVA]

71. Jim Wallis

[alsame]

74. Yes, n/t

[Solon]

6. I really don't understand Obama's reasons for this...

That's the crux of why I'm pissed, there was no reason for this.

[Danger Mouse]

8. When you say that, do you mean that...

you disagree that Obama's possible explanations are legitimate, or you don't think those were Obama's motives?

[Solon]

13. I disagree with his explanations...

frankly I think they may be excuses, or Obama is truly that naive, in either case, it doesn't bode well.

[Danger Mouse]

16. Why naive?

[Solon]

18. That reaching out to people like Warren will have any constructive effect...

The simple fact is people like Warren will not rest until the GLBT equality is forever banished from the public sphere, and then he'll probably focus on attacking Women's rights next. People like him belong on the FRINGES of society, not front and center.

[Radical Activist]

25. You don't think people can change.

That's what it comes down to. That's really disappointing and every struggle for civil rights proves you wrong.

[Solon]

26. I think people can change, but Obama is not the man who's going to make them change...

Warren isn't either. Obama is now the head of both government and state, its simply not his job to try to "change hearts and minds". His job is to implement policies, despite what some bigots may think. He can worry about changing hearts and minds later, after he's president, right now he should concentrate on solving this country's problems with the economy and civil rights.

[Radical Activist]

30. One of the most powerful tools the President has is to change hearts and minds.

That's what the whole concept of the Presidential bully pulpit is about. Having a basic understanding of history and the powers of the Presidency doesn't make someone a bigot.

[Solon]

33. Well then Obama shouldn't reward bigotry, but rather shun it instead...

What type of message is Obama sending to people when he invites Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration? I see a message where Obama legitimizes Warren's point of view, that its just a "disagreement", even when its outright bigotry. In other words, Obama is legitimizing bigotry. Is that really a message that will change hearts and minds? I don't see it.

[Radical Activist]

43. I agree that

it should have been done in a less prominent way than the inauguration. I don't want Warren to be set up as the next Billy Graham.

But I do believe people can change and that never happens without an open dialog. Calling everyone who disagrees with gay marriage a bigot and turning our backs on them isn't going to accomplish anything positive.

[Solon]

54. A dialog can take place without legitimizing their point of view...

That's my biggest problem with this, there is little common ground on this issue, because frankly the other side's point of view simply isn't legitimate. To give it legitimacy actually strengthens their arguments and bigotry. I don't want to give them an inch, for they will take a mile.

[donco6]

37. Not when they don't want to, no.

In Warren's mind, he's right. What's to change?

[Danger Mouse]

39. Warren is just one man.

And minds can be changed, but it takes time.

[donco6]

45. You're speaking to a former fundie.

Religion has a way of inhibiting change . . . it's inherent.

[Danger Mouse]

46. Religious indoctrination is very difficult to overcome...

it will take time, patience, and compassion...
it'll be hard.

[donco6]

52. Personally, we'd have a better shot at converting the Taliban.

But knock yourself out.

[Danger Mouse]

53. We can't change every mind, of course...but I think we can change some.

I hope.

[PVnRT]

67. But why at inauguration? Why not at an interfaith meeting in January?

Why shove him out there like this, knowing his beliefs and the work he did for Prop 8?

That's the problem - it's a symbolic slap in the face to the LGBT community, and just a plain weird move. A two-minute prayer will not convince fundies that Obama is OK any more than it will convince Obama to push for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but it will piss off a good chunk of the base. This is a massive strategy fail.

[Radical Activist]

40. Warren probably won't change.

But there are many people who could see this and realize that it's OK for a Christian to be a Democrat, or be gay, or that Christians can vote based on some issue other than abortion.

If Obama wants to reach out I think he should have done it in a less prominent way than the inauguration. But I disagree with anyone who says it isn't worth making the effort.

[donco6]

49. I think he should have considered the cost.

Which he evidently didn't feel was very high at all. Disappointing.

[Danger Mouse]

51. Heh, what are we gonna do? Vote Nader next time?

Stay home and let a repuke win?

[donco6]

55. I gave Obama $2,000.

You don't think I'm wondering why about now?

[Danger Mouse]

57. I understand I'm just wondering what alternative we have..

until there is a viable third party in this country.
If only the Republicans weren't so damn EVIL that it's imperative that we keep them out of power at all costs.

[PVnRT]

65. No, not really

Civil rights laws in the 1960's were rammed through by sheer force of will, courtesy LBJ. Once in place and enforced, people's attitudes started changing. If they had waited for national consensus, and hope that the racists would change their minds, we would still have Jim Crow today.

Leadership is getting people to swallow the bitter pill, not feeding them sugar until they decide it's OK.

[Radical Activist]

75. No. That isn't how it happened.

Everyone had this discussion during the primary and a lot of people were seriously offended at Hillary's suggestion that LBJ is responsible for the Civil Rights movement. He wasn't, and the act only passed after years of hard work by others. It only passed after King and many others did so much to change how people thought.

[Danger Mouse]

31. A thoughtful analysis...

and a good point.
Thank you.

[KittyWampus]

7. the word that describes my reaction= ambivalence.

[Seen the light]

9. There shouldn't be any conflict about it

I assume you're letting your love of Obama cloud what you know in your heart to be the right thing. Ask yourself, if it was John McCain's inauguration, would you still be conflicted or would you be upset? Why should it be any different just because it's Barack Obama being inaugurate?

I'll give you credit though for at least attempting to see it from the point of view of those of us that are very angry with this.

[Danger Mouse]

15. If it were John McCain, I wouldn't be upset because I wouldn't be surprised.

I'd expect him to have a hateful bigot giving the invocation.
The reason I feel conflicted is because I can sort of understand why Obama would do this.

[ladjf]

10. I can assure you that gays and lesbians aren't the only ones

disappointed by this terrible decision to allow Warren to speak. nt

[Danger Mouse]

11. Of course. I know that.

I am disappointed as well. There's just a number of emotions involved.

[sandyj999]

12. Sure I'm somewhat conflicted but not angry. Anger is a waste of energy.

I believe Obama has his reasons and that is good enough for me.

[DevonRex]

14. Yes. Exactly. All of those things.

And that is all I will say.

[glowing]

17. He could reach across to evangelicals by having them to the WhiteHouse for dinner.

It feels wrong putting a bigot in the inaugural proceedings. His victory was too many years in the making of overcoming divisivness and hate. It seems odd he'd chose someone who openly opposes gay people like they are an aboration. Its not right. Its very hurtful. Its a slap in the face. There are other ways to bridge the divide.

AND I feel sorry for Warren that he preaches hate and that someone who is supposed to help with spirituality would be so spiritually dead.. that hate and fear trump love. Sad.

[Danger Mouse]

19. I wish Obama would make a statement about this publically.

It's a bad idea for him to remain silent on the issue.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. Didn't he make a statement today at his press conference?

[Danger Mouse]

34. What'd he say?

[glowing]

42. The same ole' same ole' when he wants to shut people up..

Crossing lines and disagreeing without being disagreeable.. same shit he always says when he's wrong.

[Critters2]

64. Screw you. I'll do what I want.

What'd you expect him to say?

[marylanddem]

21. I'm not conflicted at all, I'm mad as hell.

I gave $ to Obama, canvassed for him - as did my lesbian daughter - and now I feel fucking mad as hell.
Like a fool. Clinton for SOS. Gates for DOD. Fucking Ray LaHood for something else, etc. etc. Well, he'll be gone in 4 years unless he seriously backtracks.

[mnhtnbb]

22. No. I'm thoroughly outraged that he would give such a misogynistic bigot

a place in the inaugural. And I'm straight.

[Connie_Corleone]

24. I do too.

With the way some people are acting around here, I'm afraid to even write anything or I might get called a bunch of derogatory names.

One person acted like I couldn't even ask him a question. The question was "Did you email change.gov?" That was it.

[Danger Mouse]

61. It's an emotional issue so tensions are very high.

[Radical Activist]

27. It's a dumb thing to do and I'm disappointed.

But I'm far more interested in what policies he works for as President.
I hope doing things like this allows him to pass more progressive legislation, including equal GLBT rights, by making it harder to paint him as being anti-Christian.

[Danger Mouse]

36. Yeah. The big picture.

[Radical Activist]

28. dupe

net fart

[ecstatic]

29. Yes, and the reason is due to disagreeing with the Warren pick, yet having to defend Obama from

trolls and/or people who can't wait to pile on anytime there's a controversy.

It's been a long 8 years. This was supposed to be the happiest political day in 8 years. Some of the excitement has been diminished now that so many people are going to be upset.
So that's where the frustration with Obama comes in--I understand completely where he is coming from in trying to unify the country... but why WHY choose a day like Inauguration to make such a statement?

So that is my reaction, but then there are so many trolls on DU who get excited at the thought of bashing Obama at every turn. It never fails. You see them instigating or smearing Obama, and you can't help but lash out at that person in response. So then the entire situation just becomes ugly. It makes it look like people are choosing sides or being pro or anti-gay.

[Radical Activist]

32. And that's the power of trolls.

They poison the entire debate for everyone.

[Danger Mouse]

35. Thank you.

Interesting thoughts.

[KittyWampus]

38. It isn't just trolls though. That's what freaks me out. You either whole-heartedly condemn Obama

and call any gay person who serves in his Administration a house-gay or you yourself are labeled anti-gay.

Even if you don't like Warren's message or having him speak at the Inauguration.

[PVnRT]

69. Oh, bull

Two many martyrs around here, not enough crosses.

[Bucky]

41. I think you should snuff those feelings of ambiguity.

I think most of us are feeling conflicted (we love Obama & we loathe homophobia), but DU is simply not an appropriate forum for expressing nuanced feelings or thoughtful insights on the day's controversies.

I appreciate what Obama is trying to do with bringing Warren up onto the podium. It's just that I know Warren isn't out gunning for my civil rights. He doesn't want to oppress me. I can't have an abortion and I don't want to marry a dude. My lack of outrage is a bit moot here.

There's certainly got to be a way to make conservatives feel less threatened that doesn't involve giving a unique place of honor to a man who's gone to war against the equal rights of millions of Americans.

[Danger Mouse]

44. It's the only way.

:P
I feel largely the same as you do.

[QC]

47. That's one of the smartest, most thoughtful posts I have seen on this subject. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

50. +1

[AlCzervik]

68. yup. Ok Bucky now just cut it out.

i'm starting to feel like more Bucky and less rucky is how it should be.

[PVnRT]

70. Very well said, that about sums it up for me

Of course, now you're a "whiner" who wants Obama impeached and will vote Nader in 2012.

[CakeGrrl]

48. I don't like this choice, and I understand why people are angry

but I also think that Obama's in uncharted waters when it comes to actually trying to amass a wide range of support for common goals that are never reached because Congress and special interests are too gridlocked and pitted against each other.

Let this guy do his 5-minute stint and be done with it. It is what it is. He's not part of Obama's cabinet nor do I think he'll be influential in shaping GLBT-related legislation.

[Bucky]

59. He'll get his five minutes. But, by God, my president is gonna get an earfull from me

Freedom of speech all around. Obama invited him and I can't stop it. But I'll be damned if I won't object and do so loudly. Obama is our public servant, an honored position, but still a servant. He's taking an oath to uphold the Constitution of a country founded with the words "all men are created equal" and "unalienable rights".

It's not my rights under attack, but it's still my fight.

[Danger Mouse]

60. He's got a hard road ahead of him.

As we all do.
This is uncharted waters for many of us.

[uppityperson]

56. Me too. It is good reading this thread, the thoughts here. thank you.

[Danger Mouse]

58. I think so far this is one of the most thoughtful and polite threads on the matter so far.

So it shouldn't be long till somebody pisses in the pool and ruins it. :P

[mopinko]

62. i'm not conflicted. this is what i voted for. common humanity.

i am so saddened that so few here really heard the message that obama ran on. it is about finding the common humanity in all of us imperfect human beings. it means sitting down with those we hate. and those that hate us. because you don't have to make peace with your friends.
we all have loves and hates. hopes and fears. they should not define us. to ourselves or others.
that is what it takes to make peace. i thought that the people here believed in peace. :shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

66. it's too bad you are conflicted over how to feel about bigotry.

it's a no brainer to many of us. :eyes:

Obama's "reasons for doing so" speak volumes about Obama and it ain't fucking pretty. :puke:

[Danger Mouse]

72. oh ffs.

that kind of attitude turns me right off.

[Prism]

73. In roughly the same boat

There is a difference, I think, in mindset that's materializing in this Warren brouhaha.

There are some people who see only enemies, hate, opponents to be crushed into dust. This is a war, and our political opposites must be destroyed, shown no quarter, tolerance, nor mercy.

Which is nice as far as that goes, except our opponents aren't going anywhere. Shouting at people never won them over to anything. Screaming does not persuade. Hatred is not a justifiable response to being hated. (Understandable, just not justified). At some point, people become that which they hate. That saying didn't become a cliche without reason - it's far too often true.

I understand Obama. He's trying to have a conversation with Rick Warren. That heartens me. Some want exclusion, screaming, intolerance, and rejection to be the order of the day. Obama is choosing to use persuasion, reason, engagement, and inclusion to win people over to his side - no matter how small their numbers. It's an admirable quality in the man, a serious breath of fresh air, and it's not something that's going to earn much denigration towards him from my end.

Did Obama need to give Warren such a prominent position on a historic day? No, and that's the source of my discomfort/conflict. I wonder if he's going just a bit too far and being insensitive to us GLBTers who supported, voted, and donated to his campaign.

But that uneasiness isn't putting me in the red. Prop 8 was a reason to flip the amps to eleven. This might rate maybe a four. Unfortunate, but certainly not the end of the world. Let's see where this goes.

I do understand why people are angry. But within that outrage I see a lot of anti-religious bigotry, intolerance, and, yes, hatred coming out for a public airing to coos of mutual approval.

That makes me uneasy, too. I don't like seeing outpourings of hatred, no matter who's doing it or where it originated.