Does Obama speaking at Notre Dame=Warren speaking at Inauguration?

[jenmito]

So many Dems. here were very upset that Obama chose Warren to give the Invocation at Obama's Inauguration because Warren is very much against gay marriage and says so. Now many Catholics are very upset that Obama has been chosen to give the speech at Notre Dame's commencement ceremony because he's pro-choice which is murder in the eyes of those people. For those of you who thought Warren should've been dis invited to speak, do you think Obama should be dis invited to speak at Notre Dame?

[lamp_shade]

1. You make a very good point. Hmmm.

[jenmito]

3. Thanks.

:hi:

[QC]

21. When you figure out the point, could you share it with the rest of us? n/t

[lamp_shade]

29. Nothing to figure out. Please read all of OP's post.

[QC]

34. I read it and I still think it's a half-baked false analogy. n/t

[Hanse]

2. Obama speaking at Notre Dame = Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus.

Pisses off the same people.

[cali]

37. ridiculous. it doesn't piss off the same people at all.

[Hanse]

70. Sure they are.

They're the worst sort of bigots this country has to offer.

[Captain Hilts]

50. Today's STUPIDEST ANALOGY. nt

[RoadRage]

4. No... not even close

About 2% of the people who voted for Obama liked Warren.

About 50% or more of the Catholics he'll be talking to at Notre Dame voted for him.. he split the catholic vote. There is the "I hate Abortion" Catholics and the "I hate war" Catholics. He won the "I hate war" Catholics with ease.

Him speaking at ND is hardly a rub - and anyone who doesn't wish to see him speak can easily sell their ticket(s) for a profit and move along.

[Vanje]

42. Thank you, RoadRage..

for making sense.

[BlooInBloo]

60. Good counterpoint.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Does 'Notre Dame Commencement' = 'Inauguration'?

Are you equating Obama to a bigot like Warren? I seriously do not get this question.

[jenmito]

36. Being chosen to give the commensement speech is a high honor and to many Catholics

it's a "travesty" and they are against it since Obama's for "the killing of babies" in their minds. On the other hand, Obama chose Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration and many people considered it a "travesty" because he's so much against gay marriage. Of course I'm not saying Obama is a bigot. I'm saying many RWers consider him a "murderer" for his views on abortion (which of course I disagree with(.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

44. Most Catholics are pro-choice and Dems

[Starry Messenger]

45. Warren was chosen to speak at a rather large event.

International in scope. Warren is not just "against gay marriage". He endorsed Prop 8 and it passed with his help. That was why I considered it a travesty. He also has disgusting views on women and Jewish people.

Warren helped remove rights from American citizens. The only thing these fringe Catholics want is to remove rights from women. I fail to see the equivalent you have tried to draw here.

edit: typo

[FreeState]

6. I was not aware youth are killing themselves over abortion

but sadly Im fully aware that youth in our nation are killing themselves over their sexual orientation. Warren runs an ex-gay group at his church.

Apples and oranges.

[frazzled]

11. Many women died before abortion was made legal

Botched back alley or homemade abortions killed many women desperate to control their lives. Maybe that was before your time. But if Roe v. Wade were to be challenged, we'd be back to a lot of dead women.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Warren is not pro-choice either.

He's an unpleasant tub of guts all around. :)

[frazzled]

23. That's not the point

You were trying to compare the issue of gay rights and the issue of abortion rights, implying one was more important than the other because desperate young gay people have killed themselves. I pointed out that desperate young women killed themselves during the time before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.

They are both important issues. Desperately important. And I fervently support both types of rights.

That said, I never cared whether Rick Warren gave the three-minute non-topical invocation at the Inauguration. Just as I don't feel that anti-abortion Catholics should care about whether Obama gives the 45-minute commencement address at Notre Dame's graduation ceremonies (where he certainly won't speak about abortion).

[Starry Messenger]

28. I wasn't comparing anything actually.

I was trying to agree with you. Anyway, I don't think Warren and Obama belong together in an equation, so I will just leave it there.

[FreeState]

19. Oh I see Obama is against abortion?

Really what is the connection here? Obama is not anti-Abortion - he is pro-choice.

Warren actively preaches hate that kills gay youth. Obama does not.

Apples and oranges.

[frazzled]

26. Huh?

I think you need to have someone explain things to you. Or perhaps you could sign up for a logic course?

[FreeState]

31. I was pointing out your logic is not working

No one in the Obama administration is trying to take away Abortion rights. Rick Warren on the other hand is actively promoting programs that are proven to be a danger to the lives of GLBT Youth.

[frazzled]

35. Lordy, lordy

Let me explain.

The OP is putting forth a hypothetical argument for comparative purposes. The assumption is that we all think Obama should rightfully speak at Notre Dame, even though some Catholics (for whom Notre Dame is the preeminent Catholic institution of higher learning) feel that his support for abortion rights should preclude him from speaking there. We disagree, and think he should be allowed to speak despite his divergence from Catholic dogma. The OP then poses the question as to whether Rick Warren should have been allowed to give the opening invocation at the inauguration, even though he does not support gay rights, which we believe in. Most here thought he shouldn't be allowed, though some thought that it should not preclude him from speaking in that context. The OP was questioning whether or not the situations were parallel. Got me so far?

One poster said the situations were NOT parallel, because kids have tragically killed themselves over the question of their homosexuality ... suggesting, thereby, that the issue was far more dire. I reminded that poster that the question of abortion was equally important, since many women died before abortion was made legal. That's all I was saying to him/her. Your crackpot comment that Obama was not taking away abortion rights has absolutely nothing to do with the price of eggs.

Obama supports abortion rights. To some Catholics that is anathema. They think he is killing babies by this stance--taking away the rights of the "unborn," in their parlance. They believe that, and think he shouldn't speak there. We don't see it from that perspective, but apparently some of them do.

The OPs question is about whether people you disagree with should be able to speak ... especially when they are not speaking about the topic you disagree with them about.

Is there something you don't get about parallelism? Or do your ideological blinders make you fail to see though structural arguments?

[FreeState]

40. Just and FYI

I am the "one poster" your referring to in your post - so I dont know why your talking to me like there is some other poster - it was me that said kids have tragically killed themselves over the question of their homosexuality.

I think this thread is so off kilter we are confusing our selves. I agree with you about abortion - however comparing the two have very little in common - and that was my point - a point I now think you were trying to make as well but somehow our wires are getting crossed...

[dmallind]

7. Yes - the purist extremes of both groups are equally silly

Neither Obama speaking at ND or Warren at the inauguration have anything but fleeting symbolism and utterly impotent "influence" on the larger concern. Obama will still push the same agenda far different from Warren's in almost all facets, and traditional Catholics will remain pro-life.

[dsc]

9. Please site just one Presidential statement in favor of ENDA

hate crimes, or ending DADT. Really I would like this sitation of either Obama saying or the White House releasing since he took office.

[SpartanDem]

25. here you go

a response to a question on the Web site Change.gov asking whether Obama would get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.'"

Gibbs on Wednesday expanded on his answer, saying, "There are many challenges facing our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy.

"So not everything will get done in the beginning but he's committed to following through" with ending the policy against being openly gay in the military.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/

[dsc]

27. which has since been contermanded by Gates

and Obama's budget neither of which envision any change at all in DADT until at least 2010.

[SpartanDem]

33. You asked for a statement

in favor DADT you got it. Now whether you like their timetable for ending it is another matter.

[QC]

12. Yes, I guess when viewed from the lofty heights of heterosexual privilege,

our anger at Warren and what he stands for must seem very picayune indeed.

[dmallind]

24. Nope - Bi guy here and not even relevant.

I recall plenty of GLBT folks, even those with far more impeccable credentials than mine since I'm sure that's where you will go next, agreed that the Warren speech was not a significant trouble to them. What did it do to change law or policy or even public opinion?

[QC]

32. And many people did consider the speech important.

Why do you dismiss them as being nothing more than the moral equivalent of anti-choice extremists?

[Runcible Spoon]

48. The speech was a wink-nudge at anti-GLBT bigots.

And lo and behold, Obama can't even muster any happiness for the Iowa ruling and takes the opportunity to reassure anti-equal rights bigots that he won't rock the boat on this one:

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law"

[LooseWilly]

62. It was a slap in the face for Californians...

... after the Prop 8 passage in the same election in which Obama won.

The fact that Warren had been active, at least amongst his "followers", in support of Prop 8, and that Obama then had him speak at the inauguration was tantamount to "pissing in our Wheaties". It was a visceral linking of California liberal victory & simultaneous defeat on November 4.

Maybe, if I lived on the East Coast, I wouldn't be so viscerally offended by Fat Fucking Rick. In terms of cold political calculations, obviously it didn't make a huge difference. On the other hand... had many many of us not raised unholy hell over the issue- maybe Fat Fucking Rick would've been able to trade on that appearance to leverage himself into even greater prominence... rather than having to go into a virtual media blackout over the reaction to his presence.
So maybe a bunch of pissed off Californians ought to be thanked by more GLBT peoples from other parts of the country, rather than dismissed...

[jenmito]

39. Thank you...

that's my point. :hi:

[Starry Messenger]

43. I still don't get it.

Are you saying that those of us who protested Warren are the equivalent of anti-choice protesters?

[jenmito]

54. I'm saying the situations are similar. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

59. Well, I'm saying they aren't similar.

And so are several others. So I hope you will consider an alternate viewpoint.

[dsc]

8. Problem is they don't actually always follow that

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/6549-notre-dame-commencement-speakers

Canadian Prime Ministers Lester Pearson (1963) and Pierre Trudeau (1982), the president of El Salvador (and Notre Dame alumnus) Jose Napoleon Duarte (1985), Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds (1994) and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (2000)

? Former Yale University President Kingman Brewster, Jr. (1972), former Harvard University President Derek Bok (1987), UCLA professor Rosemary Park (1974) and Stanford Provost (and now national security adviser in the Bush administration) Condoleezza Rice, a Notre Dame alumna

? Urban League Executive Director Vernon Jordan (1976)

? Actor Bill Cosby (1990) and former commissioner of baseball Peter Ueberroth (1989)

? Cardinal Joseph Bernardin (1983) and Bishop James Malone (1986)

?Journalists William F. Buckley, Jr. (1978), Tom Brokaw (1993) and Mark Shields (1997)

end of quote

Pierre Trudeau pro life? Duarte pro life?

Oh and has Obama said anything remotely as anti Catholic as Warren said anti gay?

[QC]

14. Well, they can't say the real reason why they hate him. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Ummm... no? I do not think he should be dis-invited

If I were a practicing catholic and believed my church's teaching that abortion is something akin to the Holocaust then of course I would want him dis-invited.

But I'm not and I don't, and I don't consider the speakers schedule at a private religious university at all equivalent to the speakers schedule at an official function of the US gov't.

Do I think Notre Dame should dis-invite Obama? That's like asking whether my neighbors should have pizza for dinner. What possible affair is it of mine?

:shrug:

[polichick]

13. I don't think those things are equal. One was a national event, the other a Catholic school event...

My question is, why would the President want to speak at Notre Dame?

That said, imo it's up to the students and faculty there who they invite or disinvite.

[Jamastiene]

15. Nice post, Stretch Armstrong.

Talk about a major stretch. :eyes:

[genna]

17. I think you have it right on how personal each issue is to the affected group

Abortion is an anathema to church doctrine. I personally believe free choice reigns regardless of the area concerned. But I know it is difficult to tell women to have children they can't afford especially when the church is not going to fund raising children. I think the issue bites the church where it is vulnerable.

Notre Dame being a reflection of the church is directly in the center of an issue that bites the church where it is vulnerable.


I also think Obama reaching out to a pastor who has no hesitation in announcing how loathsome he finds GLBT practice (reality? I'm not sure how to label it) bites the left. I think the left as a whole finds tolerance one of our common interests. Obama in embracing an intolerant clergyman bites the left right where we are vulnerable. How do you embrace tolerance for the intolerant if you firmly believe in constitutional rights for GLBT?


Regardless of whether church and state divisions are invoked or whether the Inauguration for all can be compared to the celebration for some matters not.

I think it both requires the people involved to get beyond their dogmatic position especially if talking is a compromise too far.

[damntexdem]

18. No, because when Warren spoke, Obama got to be president.

When Obama speaks at Notre Dame, Warren will get nothing. ;-)

And, actually, I think neither should nor should have been disinvited.

[jonnyblitz]

20. wow you just equated Obama to Warren in your whacked out

analogy. you obviously didn't think this one through and the first response is somebody essentially "high fiving" this mess. :crazy:

[QC]

22. Maybe this is some kind of Zen koan or something. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

38. It must be.

The OP seems to have disappeared into the void.

[QC]

41. Oh well, these things happen. n/t

[LostinVA]

46. As a Zen Buddhist, let me say that never has a koan been so

Whacked.

:wtf:

[Marrah_G]

30. I dont care who Notre Dame invites- They are not the head of our government

[yardwork]

68. Apparently we're supposed to care deeply about Notre Dame - I don't get it.

According to the OP, there's some equivalency between anti-choice people who don't like Obama and gay DUers. I find this insulting on the face of it, but when asked for clarification, the OP disappears.

I've tried getting at the heart of this from several angles but all I get is more confused.

[mwei924]

47. But the student body of Notre Dame is not anti-Obama at all...

It's just the old establishment and clergy folks who've got their panties in a twist. Most of the students are probably really excited for Obama's commencement.

[Captain Hilts]

49. No. Since when is a college graduation as important as an inauguration? It isn't. nt

[yardwork]

51. If you think that Obama is a lying con artist who takes people's money

while pretending to be a man of God, I suppose you might see a parallel between the two speakers. I didn't realize that you thought so poorly of Obama.

[jenmito]

52. If you think I think those things, you're way off. n/t

[Creideiki]

53. Definitely! Obama's not a con-artist taking people's money!

He's an agent for change!

Out of Iraq! Check!

Taking care of people in the recession! Check!

No more invasions of privacy! Check!

Transparency in government! Check!

Uh, what did he stand for, again? At least he hasn't missed an opportunity to remind us all that gay people being married to the person they love makes him queasy.

[jenmito]

55. You're way off:

" At least he hasn't missed an opportunity to remind us all that gay people being married to the person they love makes him queasy."

Link?

[Creideiki]

69. The statement after Iowa.

Couldn't restrain himself from saying yet again, that gay people don't deserve the same marriage rights that he has with Michelle.

[yardwork]

56. Then I'm afraid I've completely missed your point.

Please explain why I should be concerned about Obama speaking at a university. I consider him to be an honorable, intelligent, thoughtful man. Why would there be a reason to protest his speaking at Notre Dame?

I'm puzzled as to why you would think that there is any comparison between Obama and Rick Warren, who is a lying, conniving, thief who pretends to be a man of God. Why would you consider their speaking engagements to be equivalent?

[jenmito]

61. You sure did...

I don't think you should be concerned about Obama speaking at a university. And I don't think Obama is anything like Warren. What I DO think is that those who opposed Warren giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration felt as angry towards Obama as those who oppose Obama giving the commencement speech at ND feel angry towards ND.

[Starry Messenger]

63. Well we were angry for a good reason.

And most people here agreed that Warren was a bad pick. I'm not sure why you felt the need to share this opinion with us all today, but thanks...I guess.

[yardwork]

67. That's the point of this thread? I'm still struggling with understanding it.

Let me try again.

You don't think that I should be concerned about Obama speaking at a university. But isn't that what you said in your OP - that we should be concerned? Or is it somebody else who should be concerned about Obama's speaking? Someone else on DU?

Who is angry at ND? People who don't want Obama to speak? What do they have in common with DUers?

Why are you asking us to be sympathetic toward people who don't want Obama to speak at a university?

[SoxFan]

57. Not an accurate comparison

Obama's invitation to Rick Warren was intended as an olive branch to the more reasonable evangelicals out there. While Warren isn't my cup of tea politically or theologically, I can understand where Obama was coming from as a political matter.

Notre Dame is a different matter. First, your question seems to presume that Notre Dam is an inherently Catholic institution, and that is not accurate at all. While there are some Catholic schools with a conservative inclination (Steubenville) and some are too cozy with the GOP establishment (St. Anselm), Notre Dame doesn't fall into this category. It's a school with a long and proud history of vigorous intellectual debate, on matters national, international, and spiritual. They aren't jesuits, but they damn sure act like them out in South Bend.

[jenmito]

64. Thanks for your response...

From what the conservatives on tv were saying, I thought ND WAS a Catholic institution. But even so, those protesting Obama speaking there feel it's giving a "baby murderer" and "the most pro-abortion president ever" legitimacy that he shouldn't have because he "stands against everything they stand for." (I don't believe it, but THEY do.)

[SoxFan]

65. It is a Catholic institution

Most Catholic colleges don't buy into to the Vatican I, Pius X paleocatholicism of Buchanan, Brownback, EWTN, and Opus Dei. There are a couple of exceptions (Franciscan University of Steubenville, Tom Monaghan's Ave maria vanity project, and a couple of schools with Opus Dei ties), but the major Catholic universities, such as Notre Dame, Boston College, St. John's, Georgetown, and the assorted Loyolas, have a proud history of vigorous debate, and a committment to the totality of Catholic social teaching, not just pelvic politics.

[izzybeans]

58. delete

[LooseWilly]

66. If you are willing to grant equal consideration

... to both those who would take rights away from women as well as those who would like to extend more rights to the GLBT community- then and only then could these two speaking engagements be equated.

If you are willing to take the anti-choice Catholics (including the Pope, I assume) as a perspective that is deserving of respect and more consideration than the Catholics who disagree, then you would have to move on to consider the weighing of Free Speech ideals vs. "Hate Speech".

In this case however, I personally don't feel like according that perspective with the consideration of a position of being judge of anything. I, personally, rather prefer to go ahead and push them to the margins, and judge their point of view from that perspective. And, once that presumption of "validity of point of view" is dismissed in their case, then the OP is simple to answer: No, not in any way equatable.

Of course, that's really the implicit point of your post, isn't it? You want put people on the spot over whether or not they're willing to acknowledge the anti-choice movement, specifically the Catholic portion of that movement, is legitimate?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and not presume that you're trying to equate those trying to maintain oppression of GLBT rights with Bat Shit Anti-Choice asshats. If that was your intention, that would make you an asshat, and, like I said, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, let me make it clear. I am perfectly willing to publicly say that the Anti-Choice movement, Catholic or otherwise, is not a community whose point of view I am willing to give any due consideration, any more than I'm willing to give any due consideration to neo-Nazis, or a number of other groups that I won't name here, as it might set of a tangential flame war.
I leave it to others to decide for themselves if they're willing to give Anti-Choicers', or even neo-Nazis', opinions any consideration.

[Solon]

71. It offends the Catholic Church, most Catholics in this country don't care about...

what the Church teaches about contraceptives or abortion. Great way to make an unfair generalization there. :eyes:

Not to mention Obama got at least half the Catholic vote, so I don't see a comparison.