Some issues are absolute

[Yotun]

Its that simple. Bringing people together does not include people who have stances against issues you should have absolute positions on. I can agree with working with people and including people who may have different stances on, say, immigration laws, or on deficit spending, or on taxes, or on the role of the state and the market, on the size of the military, on foreign policy.

But on issues that involve fundamental human rights, that are supposed to be inalienable you do not include people with different views. The equality of everybody regardless of skin, colour, religion, sex, sexuality, should be one such issue, or at least, you'd expect that it would be from your president.

I like how Obama says that Warren invited him to talk to his church even though he knew Obama had different views than him. As if that is supposed to make things better. It only digs Obama into a bigger hole, for accepting to go! I remember a time when McCain was criticised for speaking at Falwell's. Shouldn't Obama be held to the same standard, for legitimizing these people?

Would it be as acceptable if it was somebody preaching inequality for blacks? For women? For Catholics? Would Obama be preaching inclusiveness, and go and talk at the KKK, or invite a neo-nazi to come and talk at his inauguration? Or would we rightly say that the view these people represent is against an absolute position, on an absolute issue?

There is no room for subjectivity here- you cannot be supportive of Obama in this, unless you do not support fundamental human rights. Inclusiveness cannot be used as an excuse.

[IndianaJones]

1. what are you talking about....KKK spoke at Kennedy's inaug. nt.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. huh? nt

[IndianaJones]

5. maybe it was LBJ's. they were reaching out. nt.

[CTLawGuy]

9. I don't like Rick Warren either

but does he lead an organization whose purpose is to commit acts of violent intimidation?

The KKK hates gay people too you know. So you know, he could have actually invited THEM.

I'm sure there were southern segregationist Dems SOMEWHERE in Kennedy's administration; and you didn't hear MLK loudly calling Kennedy a racist over them.

[Solon]

10. He's not that stupid, he leads an organization that works to strip GLBT people...

of their civil rights. Also, Just an FYI, but MLK was NOT a huge fan of Kennedy, and indeed criticized the political establishment of both parties quite often.

[CTLawGuy]

12. so Rick Warren is not the SAME

as the KKK. He is hateful like they are, but his means are not as objectionable as the KKKs.

Even if MLK wasn't a huge fan of Kennedy's, at least he wasn't loudly calling Kennedy a bigot at every turn.

[Solon]

14. Actually, he's more dangerous than the KKK, the KKK was objectionable on a personal level...

and violence level, but there actions were limited. Warren's aren't nearly as limited, he can, and has(with help I will add) adversely affected the lives of MILLIONS, he helped to destroy the civil rights of MILLIONS. He's much worse than the KKK because YOU think he's less objectionable.

As the Magistrate said, he's the David Duke of Homophobes.

[cali]

15. oh please. That's patently fucking ridiculous.

And demonstrates a real lack of knowledge. The KKK were terrorists who committed violent and horrendous acts.

Horrible as Warren is, to say he's far worse than the KKK is just absurd.

[Solon]

16. The Klan, even at its peak in membership, had wasn't able to extend its influence...

very far, or for very long. I'm not comparing like with like here, the KKK is objectionable, they are a terrorist organization, like you said, and are dangerous, in their own right.

Warren is a bigot, but one who puts a nice face on it, he's a guy who can make reasonable people hate, he's a guy who can influence millions, and yes, even some of those people will devolve into violence, but he's not like that. Instead he uses the pulpit and the ballot box as his weapons, are you honestly going to say that's any better?

[HamdenRice]

20. Your dog whistling continues to be duly noted, recorded and circulated

When you are deep in a hole, it's a good idea not to keep digging. Unless you want to keep digging until you get to bedrock, like a piece of granite.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. K & R! You've explained it perfectly. There are no exceptions for certain things....

civil rights being one of those things.

[NYC_SKP]

3. 15 minutes of peace...7 minutes to go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8012326

So far, so good. Sort of.

[dflprincess]

6. Warren does preach inequality for women

and he has said Jews will go to hell because they don't pray to Jesus (which begs the question of where Jesus is spending eternity).

[RiverStone]

7. I can hate the decision and still support the man...

Even with this royal clusterfuck, he is FAR better for the GLBT community (and the planet) than the alternative.

Critical of the crazy choice, but I will not abandon the man!

[CakeGrrl]

8. I challenge you to find ONE poster who likes the choice of Warren.

I've not seen anyone support the choice to have Warren speak, myself included.

But I'm not yet going to say I was duped or misled by Obama when his administration hasn't even taken office to make any decisions that will actually impact the lives of the American people.

If Obama has taken an active step to deny LGBT rights, please indicate where he has done so. As far as I'm aware, he's not yet in the position to sign any legislation.

[Solon]

11. Hmm, here's one who doesn't have a problem with it, does that count?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8003501

Oh, and look at the responses.

[Blarch]

13. yawn.

[Sex Pistol]

17. And some are not...

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I will simply point out

that you have just described the position held by many "pro-life" Americans toward "pro-choice" Americns.

[HamdenRice]

19. Thank God you weren't a politician in the 60s. We never would have gotten Civil Rights passed

nor the Voting Rights Act nor the Fair Housing Act, all of which had to be intensely negotiated with southern Senators and Representatives who were opposed to civil, voting and housing rights.

If the Democrats had taken your absolutist, purist position in the 60s, we'd still have separate but equal facilities and poll taxes.