Dear Senator Obama: This is not a CHURCH/GAY paradigm

[ruggerson]

There are many religious gay people.

There are many religious, African American, gay people.

There are many churches and religions that embrace gay people.

While religion far too often has been used as the justification for holding
hateful and prejudiced beliefs, and while, yes, there are many black churches
that preach virulent homophoba, this POLITICAL debate, in the secular
world, should NOT be framed as the church vs. the gays, which is a
truly offensive dynamic and one which perpetuates wrongheaded
stereotypes, in and of itself.

This is where the Obama campaign has it wrong. He is not running for
Preacher-in-chief. He is running for President. This should
not be about bringing together two "sides," this should be about forceful
leadership.

The kind of leadership that explains, in no uncertain terms, to the
homophobes, both church attending and non, that their bigotry has
no place at all in civil society or human law.

Do not present this as if there were some kind of moral equivalence
between advancing human rights and opposing them.

There isn't.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Excellent

Rec. #1 :hi:

[NMMNG]

2. K&R

:applause:

[Sapphocrat]

3. K&R

:applause:

[MethuenProgressive]

4. "bigotry has no place at all in civil society or human law"

"a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs."

There's a way to influence that, Barack.
Reinforce it, or repudiate it, it's up to you.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Baloney.

You had me until the "He is not running for Preacher-in-chief..."

First, nobody without an axe to grind ever suggested he is or he wants to run for "Preacher-in-Chief."

Second, if you think he would want to frame this issue in terms of *the church vs. the gays*, you don't understand what he's about. Actually, that is the very frame, and the resulting stereotypes, perpetuated by many here on DU.

Third, Obama would never suggest a moral equivalence between advancing human rights and opposing them. Have you not been paying attention?

Sorry. Your rant makes no sense.

[ruggerson]

6. The only axe I have to grind

with Obama is on this issue. So your inference is meaningless. And if Obama "would never suggest a moral equivalence between advancing human rights and opposing them" why, when confronted with what the gospel singers publicly advocated about gay people, was his reaction to stick a gay person up there to share the stage with them? Instead of just removing them?

[sniffa]

7. i'm reaLLy fucking tired of these asshoLes

(and i have no idea who you're responding to) making this a constant candidate vs. candidate thing. i even incLuded that in my thread, and peopLe stiLL showed up there to puLL that shit.

[ruggerson]

9. It's the only strawman they have to fall back on

because theirs is a morally bankrupt argument.

[sniffa]

11. actuaLLy you're wrong

the Latest strawman is that we're racists.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. And yours is that anyone who defends Obama is a homophobe or homophobe enabler

Enjoy your label since you're so eager to pin one on us.

[jefferson_dem]

10. You compared critics of Hillary to Ann Coulter a couple weeks ago.

'nuff said.

EDIT: The "axe to grind" reference only applies to the "Preacher-in-Chief" claim. Thanks.

[ruggerson]

13. I'm not even voting for Hillary

so much for your paranoia. My ire was directed at the over the top Hillary bashers and people who said they woudn't vote for her in the general election, should she be the nominee.

Again, nice try at a strawman, because one issue has nothing to do with the other.

I've criticized Obama once before and it had to do with this EXACT same issue: when he was cozying up to Tom Coburn, his "great friend."

[jefferson_dem]

14. Ok. I stand corrected.

Who are you supporting then, if you have a preferred candidate?

Anyway, the "axe to grind" point was only regarding the one part of your post, not the larger thrust.

[ruggerson]

15. I'm voting for John Edwards

if he's still around when my state has its primary. I liked Obama, and was considering him seriously until the Coburn thing.

[jefferson_dem]

16. Ok.

By the way, i've appreciated your perspectives these past few days.

I just had to take issue with this one.

[ruggerson]

17. No prob

n/t

[jefferson_dem]

12. I can't and won't defend him keeping Donnie on the tour.

On that, i've been clear.

My point is on the larger question of Obama's position on human rights. There's simply no better candidate on that issue (except DK, who seems to always serve as the exception). Sorry.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Neither will I. This is a heinous mistake by his CAMPAIGN

As opposed to the heinous mistake of 4 of our Presidential candidates back in 2002 about the WAR. I wonder how many of the people who are so hellbent on destroying Obama over this will feel about it when Defense Contractor Darling President Clinton is marching us to war with Iran.

[IndianaJones]

8. when did the minority "axe to grind" memo come out? nt.

[killbotfactory]

20. We are forcing bigots to compromise their values, not ours.

That's the bottom line. All of our candidates are strong supporters of civil rights and will work to expand them, which means whenever these guys support our candidates they are doing so despite their personal bigotry. The end result is an advancement of civil rights. If they are willing to compromise for our sake, I think it's foolish to tell them we don't want their votes.