iFN ye aint fur me, yer agin me


,

Be kind of funny if the bible-thumpers turn against him for palling around with Obama. No, make that really funny.

St_Francis_P: Be kind of funny if the bible-thumpers turn against him for palling around with Obama. No, make that really funny.

Well, it would be yet another iteration of who the right-wing politico-religionists really are

.

What we need here is some Gospel Music.

To be fair, Rev. Warren has not specifically endorsed the death penalty for homosexuals. This represents a failure to have sufficient wharrgarbl, so I can see why his erstwhile backers are pissed off.

Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

This is like saying Napoleon never expected to face a down a cavalry charge, or Ghandi never expected to go hungry, or Hitler never expected the Jews to be upset with him.

ninjakirby: Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

This is like saying Napoleon never expected to face a down a cavalry charge, or Ghandi never expected to go hungry, or Hitler never expected the Jews to be upset with him.

To be fair, he made his name more by spouting inane, nice-sounding platitudes than the usual divisive moral authoritarianism. It's not because he isn't a Bible-thumping moral authoritarian, though.

ninjakirby: Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

This is like saying Napoleon never expected to face a down a cavalry charge, or Ghandi never expected to go hungry, or Hitler never expected the Jews to be upset with him.

Nah, he expected to be on one side of a culture war, not in the center, where he gets caught in the crossfire, as it were.

ninjakirby: Rick Warren is in a place he never expected to be: at the center of a culture war.

This is like saying Napoleon never expected to face a down a cavalry charge, or Ghandi never expected to go hungry, or Hitler never expected the Jews to be upset with him.

Took the words out of my mouth.

it's sad that the people upset on the left don't see that they're the mirror image of these people on the right.

burndtdan: it's sad that the people upset on the left don't see that they're the mirror image of these people on the right.

You're too well known to be trolling...

The guy's going to get on a platform and say a few inconsequential words at a ceremony. Why anybody left/right gets butthurt over this is beyond me. What the hell is it about this time of year that makes everyone fell so damned oppressed?

burndtdan: it's sad that the people upset on the left don't see that they're the mirror image of these people on the right.

Well said.

I'm not thrilled with this guy, but I just can't get too upset with him, either. Compared to the douchebags that led the "evangelicals" in the past, he seems OK. Not perfect, not what I would prefer, but OK.

DamnYankees: burndtdan: it's sad that the people upset on the left don't see that they're the mirror image of these people on the right.

You're too well known to be trolling...

i'm not. i'm being serious. i've seen people try to explain that "inclusiveness" means including everyone... except for the people they want to exclude, like rick warren. i've seen people describe how much they hate rick warren for being a hater. i've seen people describe how they can't tolerate rick warren's intolerant behavior.

really, it's like irony is lost on some of these people.

the saddest part is their fellow bloggers are trying to tell them that they're making more enemies than friends by being so angry, and they're turning off people who would otherwise support their causes. and for bothering to try and be honest with them, they get labeled as homophobes and all types of reactionary bullshiat.

burndtdan: i've seen people describe how they can't tolerate rick warren's intolerant behavior.

really, it's like irony is lost on some of these people.

Toleration of the intolerant leads to the end of a free and tolerant society.

burndtdan: really, it's like irony is lost on some of these people.

There is no irony. You don't need to be tolerant of intolerance. Somehow I doubt you'd feel this way about a racist or an anti-semite. But because Warren is only anti-gay its ok?

Why did obama chose this guy? I mean, I was pissed off when he said he wanted to give more money to FBO's so I guess this shouldn't be surprising.

/Voted for Obama
//McCain was a moran

This guy is like the Dr. Phil of the evangelical community.

DamnYankees: There is no irony. You don't need to be tolerant of intolerance. Somehow I doubt you'd feel this way about a racist or an anti-semite. But because Warren is only anti-gay its ok?

This isn't an authoritarian country where we can dictate what people believe. That's why Phelps is able to protest military funerals. Yes, in fact, we do tolerate the intolerant.

I do not know shiat about this guy.

However, if everybody is pissed off at him, he has to be doing something right.

/DNKAARW

SusanIvanova: To be fair, Rev. Warren has not specifically endorsed the death penalty for homosexuals. This represents a failure to have sufficient wharrgarbl, so I can see why his erstwhile backers are pissed off.

Dang lady, this is why you remain one of me favorite farkers. Happy holidays lady.

Cromar: This isn't an authoritarian country where we can dictate what people believe. That's why Phelps is able to protest military funerals. Yes, in fact, we do tolerate the intolerant.

Do we invite Fred Phelps to speak at our national ceremonies and celebrations?

And I didn't say we don't tolerate the intolerance. They are people and we must live with them. But we needn't tolerate their *intolerance* - their beliefs.

Lionel Mandrake: burndtdan: it's sad that the people upset on the left don't see that they're the mirror image of these people on the right.

Well said.

I'm not thrilled with this guy, but I just can't get too upset with him, either. Compared to the douchebags that led the "evangelicals" in the past, he seems OK. Not perfect, not what I would prefer, but OK.

That was my reaction when I heard it too. I rolled my eyes slightly after I asked why and my mom told me the gays didn't like it. I am rolling my eyes slightly now that the right doesn't like it.

Cromar: DamnYankees: There is no irony. You don't need to be tolerant of intolerance. Somehow I doubt you'd feel this way about a racist or an anti-semite. But because Warren is only anti-gay its ok?

This isn't an authoritarian country where we can dictate what people believe. That's why Phelps is able to protest military funerals. Yes, in fact, we do tolerate the intolerant.

If I give Phelps a cock-punch will 12 people convict me? I doubt it.

Sabyen91: If I give Phelps a cock-punch will 12 people convict me?



Maybe yes...maybe no.

One thing they will want clarity on, is why you wanted an excuse to touch his johnson?

Sabyen91: If I give Phelps a cock-punch will 12 people convict me? I doubt it.

Dude, Phelps' whole purpose is to stay just close enough to the line so that other cross it, and then sue those people. I don't know if he really believes the shiat he and his cult protest. They've turned protesting into a business, literally.

Cromar: DamnYankees: There is no irony. You don't need to be tolerant of intolerance. Somehow I doubt you'd feel this way about a racist or an anti-semite. But because Warren is only anti-gay its ok?

This isn't an authoritarian country where we can dictate what people believe. That's why Phelps is able to protest military funerals. Yes, in fact, we do tolerate the intolerant.

But it doesn't preclude us from pointing out how hateful, destructive, and un-American they are. We tolerate the people, yes they are not in prison for their views, but that is no reason not to point out they are spewing ignorant beliefs. There is no need to tolerate the promotion of hateful thinking.

burndtdan: i'm not. i'm being serious. i've seen people try to explain that "inclusiveness" means including everyone... except for the people they want to exclude, like rick warren. i've seen people describe how much they hate rick warren for being a hater. i've seen people describe how they can't tolerate rick warren's intolerant behavior.

really, it's like irony is lost on some of these people.

the saddest part is their fellow bloggers are trying to tell them that they're making more enemies than friends by being so angry, and they're turning off people who would otherwise support their causes. and for bothering to try and be honest with them, they get labeled as homophobes and all types of reactionary bullshiat.


LOL, no dude. It's 2008 and America. People who deny equal rights to teh gheys deserve and need to be marginalized. They are very, VERY wrong.

Should people who disagree with interraciall marriage be included in adult discussions in the name of tolerance?

liberalish: But it doesn't preclude us from pointing out how hateful, destructive, and un-American they are. We tolerate the people, yes they are not in prison for their views, but that is no reason not to point out they are spewing ignorant beliefs. There is no need to tolerate the promotion of hateful thinking.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just question whether asking him to do the invocation is the same as endorsing his beliefs.

Cromar: This isn't an authoritarian country where we can dictate what people believe. That's why Phelps is able to protest military funerals. Yes, in fact, we do tolerate the intolerant.

Not really, we have all sorts of laws against hate speech. But I was speaking legally.

Here, I'll just give you the whole argument:

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
-Karl Popper, Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol.1, 1945

Now I don't agree with his final conclusion, that intolerance should be viewed as a crime in the same manner as murder or kidnapping etc, but we certainly do have hate crime restrictions, and it's certainly true that many folks toe that line (ie Fred Phelps).

But the over all point is simply that Rick Warren has the right to be dick, and I have the right not to tolerate it.

DamnYankees: There is no irony. You don't need to be tolerant of intolerance. Somehow I doubt you'd feel this way about a racist or an anti-semite. But because Warren is only anti-gay its ok?

if you are a racist, and you only talk about it? you don't actually go and hurt someone? then you haven't done anything but use your free speech. and i have absolutely no problem with it. i might have my personal objections to your opinion, but i would generally leave you to your own prejudices.

and if you are going to preach tolerance, it is meaningless if you don't practice it. tolerance means dealing with people who you disagree with. i disagree with rick warren. therefore, tolerance means i tolerate his opinions, even though i disagree with them.

so long as all he is doing is practicing his constitutionally protected right to free speech... well, you know what? deal with it.

Phil Herup: Sabyen91: If I give Phelps a cock-punch will 12 people convict me?



Maybe yes...maybe no.

One thing they will want clarity on, is why you wanted an excuse to touch his johnson?

You gotta be close to hurt someone. Being close is a necessity if you plan on making sure that turd never reproduces again.

John Dewey: liberalish: But it doesn't preclude us from pointing out how hateful, destructive, and un-American they are. We tolerate the people, yes they are not in prison for their views, but that is no reason not to point out they are spewing ignorant beliefs. There is no need to tolerate the promotion of hateful thinking.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just question whether asking him to do the invocation is the same as endorsing his beliefs.

It certainly is not a rebuking of them, but that will come via policy, which is more important anyway. However, I think politically this is a very smart move for Obama, as it will win him at least the respect of many middle-of-the-roaders.

ninjakirby: But the over all point is simply that Rick Warren has the right to be dick, and I have the right not to tolerate it.

sure you have the right, but if you're gonna sit there biatching and moaning about his lack of tolerance in the same breath, then you shouldn't wonder why people stop listening.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Sabyen91: If I give Phelps a cock-punch will 12 people convict me? I doubt it.

Dude, Phelps' whole purpose is to stay just close enough to the line so that other cross it, and then sue those people. I don't know if he really believes the shiat he and his cult protest. They've turned protesting into a business, literally.

I really think he would have a tough time suing. Jeez, people root for the Hell's Angels over that bunch of fark-holes.

burndtdan: if you are a racist, and you only talk about it? you don't actually go and hurt someone? then you haven't done anything but use your free speech. and i have absolutely no problem with it. i might have my personal objections to your opinion, but i would generally leave you to your own prejudices.

And how would you feel if such a person was invited to speak at the inauguration of the President of the United States?

burndtdan: and if you are going to preach tolerance, it is meaningless if you don't practice it. tolerance means dealing with people who you disagree with. i disagree with rick warren. therefore, tolerance means i tolerate his opinions, even though i disagree with them.

You don't need to tolerate his opinions. You just need to tolerate him as a person. Again, please ask yourself if you would feel this way about a racist. I doubt you would.

burndtdan: so long as all he is doing is practicing his constitutionally protected right to free speech... well, you know what? deal with it.

Don't be silly. You're way to smart to make an argument like this. You know - YOU KNOW - the difference between tolerating someone's right to speak and supporting giving them a platform to speak. I have never made a single statement restricting Warren's right to speak, but I will express my disgust at anyone who chooses to give him a platform.

burndtdan: if you are a racist, and you only talk about it? you don't actually go and hurt someone? then you haven't done anything but use your free speech. and i have absolutely no problem with it. i might have my personal objections to your opinion, but i would generally leave you to your own prejudices.

and if you are going to preach tolerance, it is meaningless if you don't practice it. tolerance means dealing with people who you disagree with. i disagree with rick warren. therefore, tolerance means i tolerate his opinions, even though i disagree with them.

so long as all he is doing is practicing his constitutionally protected right to free speech... well, you know what? deal with it.

But that really isn't the discussion. Here we have the president of the US giving much weight and power to his views, when, like racism, he is free to announce them but shouldn't be given a mainstream platform to do so.

Honestly, to me, a straight white hillbilly, Obama inviting this man, who has said Jews and Muslims are going to Hell, and spoken out against equal rights for gays, is an absolutely ridiculous thing in the US in 2009, and I'm really glad I didn't vote for Obama now.

Reaching out is one thing, this is a compeltely different thing. Its the president of the US saying "It's ok to think this way".

John Dewey: liberalish: But it doesn't preclude us from pointing out how hateful, destructive, and un-American they are. We tolerate the people, yes they are not in prison for their views, but that is no reason not to point out they are spewing ignorant beliefs. There is no need to tolerate the promotion of hateful thinking.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just question whether asking him to do the invocation is the same as endorsing his beliefs.

Not to mention it has nothing to do with any political stances Obama would take. I don't like Warren but I am not worried about him doing the invocation. It has nothing to do with Obama's political beliefs.

DamnYankees: but I will express my disgust at anyone who chooses to give him a platform.

But is Obama giving him a platform to promote his beliefs about gay marriage? No. So, is it really wrong what Obama is doing? Is Obama in any way endorsing Warren's beliefs about gay marriage?

John Dewey: But is Obama giving him a platform to promote his beliefs about gay marriage? No. So, is it really wrong what Obama is doing? Is Obama in any way endorsing Warren's beliefs about gay marriage?

Then Obama should have invited David Duke to speak so long as Duke didn't talk about race. We all cool with that?

DamnYankees: burndtdan: if you are a racist, and you only talk about it? you don't actually go and hurt someone? then you haven't done anything but use your free speech. and i have absolutely no problem with it. i might have my personal objections to your opinion, but i would generally leave you to your own prejudices.

And how would you feel if such a person was invited to speak at the inauguration of the President of the United States?

burndtdan: and if you are going to preach tolerance, it is meaningless if you don't practice it. tolerance means dealing with people who you disagree with. i disagree with rick warren. therefore, tolerance means i tolerate his opinions, even though i disagree with them.

You don't need to tolerate his opinions. You just need to tolerate him as a person. Again, please ask yourself if you would feel this way about a racist. I doubt you would.

burndtdan: so long as all he is doing is practicing his constitutionally protected right to free speech... well, you know what? deal with it.

Don't be silly. You're way to smart to make an argument like this. You know - YOU KNOW - the difference between tolerating someone's right to speak and supporting giving them a platform to speak. I have never made a single statement restricting Warren's right to speak, but I will express my disgust at anyone who chooses to give him a platform.

And you are too smart to think that the invocation is a support of anything he may say outside of this.

'Twas the month after Christmas and through cyberspace
The bloggers kept blogging all over the place.

Their musings they'd post on their web sites with care
In hopes that more readers would finally come there.

The kiddies were blocked from the hard core porn sites
Which led them to learn about hacking's delights.

And my spouse with the collar and I with my ear ring
Set back to watch 401(k)'s disappearing.

When out on the Mall there arose such a ruckus
I turned on the TV to see what the f*ck was

About to occur as the camera crews scurried,
The talking heads talked and reporters all hurried

To file the same story across our great nation
And yet keep the viewers from changing the station.

Then suddenly o'er the horizon I saw
A subsidized limo, around it a score

Of minions and lackeys and policy makers,
Lobbyists, lawyers and movers and shakers.

And there in the center, as though riding a donkey,
Was the president! (Yeah, still a guy, but no honky!)

With Republicans writhing in near fatal trauma,
I knew in a moment it must be Obama.

Then he waived at the crowds and shouted by name
At the legions of staffers who also now came:

"On Geithner, on Summers, on Volcker and Richardson!
Daschle and Holder, Emanuel and Clinton!

To the Capitol steps! To the Lincoln Memorial!
To mere Members of Congress and to those Senatorial!"

Then up to each household the Secret Service flew
With a Hybrid full of packages and Obama, too!

And then in a twinkling, across my threshold
President Obama, himself, calmly strolled.

A bundle of promises he had flung on his back,
And the first he withdrew was our troops from Iraq.

Then a good paying job and a low interest mortgage
Free health care and clean air he pulled from that storage.

Some cleaner and greener alternative fuel
Replacing the carbon log burned for my Yule.

For the kids he had boodles of 'free' college tuition.
(All they'd owe in return was a bit of conscription.)

And only 'fair' taxes would now be enacted,
The rich alone to be adversely impacted.

All these promises wrapped up in tissues of change
And ribbons of hope made me feel quite deranged

As they glistened and gleamed in a way quite hypnotic
I felt as though under the spell of narcotics

Then I heard him request as he walked out the door
"Don't open them yet, soon there'll be even more!"

But when he'd departed and I looked at the space
'Neath the tree where the packages were, in their place

Was a month's worth or more of the stuff, if you're able,
That you have to routinely muck out of a stable.

As the sobering stench of it rose from my hovel,
In hopes of a pony, I got out my shovel.

liberalish: It certainly is not a rebuking of them, but that will come via policy, which is more important anyway.

Sadly, it won't. Obama has been very clear that he intends to throw gays under the bus early and often. Obama and McCain had pretty much the stance on gay rights, in fact -- namely, shut up shut up I don't want to talk about it no comment please leave me alone. Obama will do nothing on gay rights.

John Dewey: DamnYankees: but I will express my disgust at anyone who chooses to give him a platform.

But is Obama giving him a platform to promote his beliefs about gay marriage? No. So, is it really wrong what Obama is doing? Is Obama in any way endorsing Warren's beliefs about gay marriage?

Then you would have no problem with a moderate white preacher who disagrees with interracial marriage given this position? It would in no way be Obama endoring his beliefs about interracial marriage since it won't be brought up, correct?

DamnYankees: John Dewey: But is Obama giving him a platform to promote his beliefs about gay marriage? No. So, is it really wrong what Obama is doing? Is Obama in any way endorsing Warren's beliefs about gay marriage?

Then Obama should have invited David Duke to speak so long as Duke didn't talk about race. We all cool with that?

Hyperbole.

ninjakirby: But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

Here's where your quote really steers off the deep end. It essentially argues that irrational speakers need to be stopped with force. That kind of logic has been used by oppressors for thousands of years. Identify the undesirables using rational arguments built from intentionally falsified facts and suppress those undesirables. Your adherence to the sanctity of rational thinking ignores the fact first that most people are not capable of it, and second that rational thinking relies on knowledge of actual facts, which are easy enough to fake.

See: liberal blogosphere. I'm sure if any of the fake Sarah Palin scandals were actually factually correct, you could rationally say she wasn't fit for office or what have you. But that argument rests on facts that are simply manufactured by loud idiots with computers and believed by people who haven't yet learned to filter their sources of information.

Basically, the point is that you cannot be so full of yourself to know you are right enough that you can be allowed to use force to suppress the ideas of those who believe in ideas you think are wrong. There were some guys a couple hundred years ago who figured that out and wrote a constitution about it. Just because YOU think it's wrong, doesn't mean it's wrong, nor does it mean you have the right to suppress it by force.

Sabyen91: And you are too smart to think that the invocation is a support of anything he may say outside of this.

Again, I doubt you would make this argument if it was David Duke speaking.

SusanIvanova: liberalish: It certainly is not a rebuking of them, but that will come via policy, which is more important anyway.

Sadly, it won't. Obama has been very clear that he intends to throw gays under the bus early and often. Obama and McCain had pretty much the stance on gay rights, in fact -- namely, shut up shut up I don't want to talk about it no comment please leave me alone. Obama will do nothing on gay rights.

Citation please.

Sabyen91: DamnYankees: John Dewey: But is Obama giving him a platform to promote his beliefs about gay marriage? No. So, is it really wrong what Obama is doing? Is Obama in any way endorsing Warren's beliefs about gay marriage?

Then Obama should have invited David Duke to speak so long as Duke didn't talk about race. We all cool with that?

Hyperbole.

See my example above them. You would have no problem with it?