What I'm reading in here: Pure Intolerance for the Other

[Writer]

Habermas' idyllic, but naive, "ideal discourse theory" said that people will reach consensus and transcend their already held opinions by, essentially, talking to each other. It's one of the fundamental elements of democracy, but many Americans refuse to embrace other opinions.

Are you one of those Americans? Are you close-minded and unable to befriend your ideological enemies?

Barack Obama can do that. He can look a gay-hating man in the face and say, "I don't agree with you one iota, but I still think you're a decent person." His lesson to all of us is intellectual maturity - what we've lacked for a few decades (at least!) as we've swung the pendulum between the Eisenhower and Nixon-ites and the mop-headed hippies.

"Get over it," Obama seems to be saying to all of us. "So what if a person believes in a different ideology than I do? How is that going to fix our economy? Fix health care? Remove us from Iraq?"

For some Americans, the answer to Obama is venom. For some Americans, to disagree with someone means to completely remove him or her from their sight - to treat them not so much as an ideological enemy than as a persona non grata. To banish the Other so that no opportunity to engage their differences exists. Habermas (and democracy) be damned.

Sociologist Emmanuel Levinas believed that not embracing the Other is akin to sacrilege. You are not only cheating the Other out of any opportunity to listen to your opinion, but you're also cheating yourself out of your opportunity to provide it, and vice versa. Are you an American who inhibits the free exchange of ideas? Are you an American who prohibits the practice of democracy for the sake of maintaining ideological demagoguery?

Barack Obama isn't such an American, and he doesn't care what impression his actions create for those Americans who will see nothing other but their own venomous hatred for contrary opinions. He still fights for gay rights while he embraces a gay-hater. He is mature enough to separate a person from his belief system, because he understands that personalizing politics to this degree does little good for anyone.

Pure intolerance for the Other - it's time for the nation to grow up.

[wryter2000]

1. I sincerely hope Obama isn't saying "get over it."

I have a good deal more faith in him, despite this mistake on his part.

[crappyjazz]

2. Obama does agree at least one iota with Warren

and he sure cared about the impression he was making when he was asking for our money

[ananda]

3. There's nothing decent about Warren.

Not one single thing.

[regnaD kciN]

50. Thank you for proving the OP's point...

:eyes:

[DJ13]

4. Im sorry, but after the last 30 years I refuse to have tolerance for the far right

They dont negotiate, and we should stop being suckers.

[glowing]

5. Do we tolerate hate? Some things are intolerable. This doesn't mean that

I think Obama isn't going to be a good president or help move the country forward. I think he looks at being gay and equal rights as a perspective rather than what it is.. intolerance, bigotry, and un-equal rights for Citizens of this country. Sometimes you stick with the issue.. or do you think Rosa Parks should have moved from her seat?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Dispensing honors isn't a conversation, it's ass-kissing

Rick Warren is being HONORED, not engaged.

Nobody is saying Obama shouldn't TALK to people like Warren. They are saying he shouldn't give his imprimatur to Warren's scene.

That's a meaningful difference.

[JohnnieGordon]

13. A meaningful difference that is always ignored by Obama's apologists...nt

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Obama is afraid to speak up for what's right. He's afraid the evangelicals won't like him.

Obama will not speak up and denounce the misguided harmful anti-civil rights anti woman rhetoric of his good buddy Rev Warren.

Cowardly. We need to collectively get Obama some courage.

[Neecy]

9. but...but...

If this guy was a raging anti-Semite, could Obama say, "I don't agree with you one iota, but I think you're a decent person"?

If he was a racist, would Obama say, "I don't agree with you one iota, but I think you're a decent person"?

So why is it okay if he's a vicious homophobe for Obama to give him a pass and consider him a "decent person"?

[gravity]

17. Have you heard Obama's speech on race about his grandmother?

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Actually he is a raging anti-semite

He thinks all Jews are going to Hell, and that the Holocaust wasn't any worse than Roe vs Wade.

I'd say that qualifies.

[jberryhill]

30. Just curious....

Do you think it is unusual for a member of any of quite a few Christian sects to believe that non-Christians are going to Hell?

To be clear: Warren believes that anyone who does not have faith in Jesus Christ as savior is going to Hell.

I'm surprised people are surprised by that one. I would have thought it was a given.

Religions which have an afterlife of reward and punishment are pretty uniform in their belief that non-adherents of that religion are going to be punished.

Yes, there are many exceptions, but they are minor compared to a quite common belief in Christianity that faith in Christ, of varying degrees, types or expressions, is necessary to avoid going to Hell.

Without that fear as a cudgel, not nearly as many folks would bother with it. And again, yes, I know there are substantial exceptions - they are not the majority of any official Christian creed, and certainly not the biggest one (Catholicism) constituting 1/6 of the world's population.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. In order for a Christian to believe that all Jews deserve to go to Hell

They would have to believe that every last person in the Old Testament - Abraham, Moses, David, and the whole damn 12 tribes that sprang from Jacob's loins are currently burning in Hell. Because they obviously couldn't have accepted Jesus as their Savior.

And if the Old Testament is entirely the writings of heathens, then how can it be the Word of God?

Therefore, if the Old Testament is not the Word of God, then they can't take a verse out of Leviticus to condemn homosexuals.

So by saying that Jews will burn in Hell, Prick Warren invalidates his own entire fucked up theology.

Praise the Lord! O8)

[jberryhill]

39. Yes, I understand all that...

Regardless of whether common doctrine of any number of Christian groups is logically consistent, there is remarkable consistency on faith in Jesus as a pre-requisite to getting saved.

The way they deal with people before Jesus varies with the group, but they've got various rationalizations for it. One of the reasons for the early appeal of Mormonism was the idea that Jesus came to America after the resurrection, which satisfied some Christians notion that it wasn't fair that Native Americans had no way of knowing Christ before white folk showed up. For obvious reasons, that fact didn't really bother a lot of white folk.

But the reason I ask is that I guess I just don't get the "shock factor" of the headline "Christian Says Non-Christians Will Go To Hell, Film At Eleven".

Warren has said some astoundingly disturbing things. But a Christian minister who thinks non-Christians go to Hell is usually a bet you won't lose.

The "polite" answer these preachers usually give is "It's not for me to judge" - because they know better than to give the right answer in mixed company.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. I'm a bigot to Nazis, KKKrs, homophobes, etc.

[polichick]

11. The "others" we're embracing are gays and women...

Barack can embrace Warren for his own political games at another time.

[DevonRex]

12. All my relatives are fundies. And I speak to them gently, but firmly.

My fundy relatives say the blessing at all our gatherings. Honestly, I don't see them as evil people, but that's because they don't understand that their views ARE evil.

I even got my brother-in-law to admit that the gay guy who was in the Army with him in Korea was a really good soldier and never did or said one thing to make him uncomfortable. To understand how huge that admission was, you have to understand that my sister reads all of James Dobson's books and thinks that Christians are more prejudiced against than any other group in the country.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidneyCarton]

15. Oh, Writer, I hope your underwear is made of asbestos, you'll need it.

K&R for what it's worth, your arguments are sound and wise. And will be wholly unappriciated by those who most need to hear it.

[Solon]

16. Why is it that when we call people like Warren bigots, that we are the ones who are intolerant? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

19. It is a well learned lesson in argument by deflection and inversion.

Shit flows downhill and the lessons have been learned in how to spin anything anyway you like.

[Solon]

29. Well, they may know how to shit downhill, but they always do it while upwind...

don't they? The stink has a tendency to stick then.

[redstate_democrat]

37. Some folks are reaching awfully hard, here.

People are being called "bigots" for not having any tolerance for bigotry. :crazy: That would make every single person in America a bigot to some degree. Being a so-called "bigot" against a homophobe should not be equated with homophobia. It's just fucking stupid and dishonest.

I think some people are just defensive, believing that people who question this Warren thing are attacking Obama, mostly. I know some people may be primarily motivated by that, but a lot of other people aren't. Some of Obama's strongest supporters disagree with the decision. I was one of Obama's strongest supporters and worked hard for him. I haven't thrown Obama under the bus. I just disagree with the decision. That shouldn't be considered out of bounds. We all have our disagreements. Even Obama says so repeatedly. "We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable." Isn't that what he says all the time?

[Solon]

38. I mean, I am a bigot, by dictionary definition, I have an intolerance for Warren's dehumanizing...

views on Women, GLBT people, and Choice. But not all bigotry is equal, and quite a bit of it is justified.

[eleny]

18. Maybe Obama "can look at a gay-hating man in the face"

But I don't appreciate Obama shoving that gay-hating man up my nose.

[jobycom]

20. He isn't inviting Warren to a conversation, he's giving him a pulpit.

I'm a big supporter of tolerance even of people I disagree with, and have made quite a few enemies on DU calling for tolerance and even respect of people with views I and others here despise.

But this isn't Obama calling for a discussion. This is Obama giving Warren a stage with Obama's name on it. If an African American and a KKK member sit down and discuss the weather or politics or anything else, lines may be crossed and things learned. But that's not justification to invite said KKK member to give an invocation at the Capitol in Jackson, Mississippi.

[Control-Z]

21. Does tolerance = glorifying?

Which is what Obama is doing. It's fine, I'm sure by many, that he speaks to and works with Warren. It is even good. But to hold him in high esteem, as it appears Obama is doing, sends a completely different message, imo.

[Maven]

22. HATE is not an ideology. It's not a "point of disagreement."

That is a dangerous lie that legitimizes those who hate.

And Rick Warren is NOT a decent person.

[mojowork_n]

24. If yours in the minority position, Writer, I'm glad to stand with you on this one.

Progressives are the first to complain about 'those single-issue wingnuts' voting against their own interests because of (pick one):

• guns
  
• abortion
  
• "national defense" (xenophobic paranoia)
  
• "family values"
  
  
• some other form of "identity politics"
  

But when our side indulges in that sort of thing, we're supposed to be "respectful."

Can I be respectful and still think it's kind of stupid, to get so bent out of shape about an essentially symbolic (and possibly, very politically motivated) selection?

I mean, I was tremendously pissed off, myself, when Rev. Wright was so unfairly targeted for a few words taken out of context, in 3 second sound bites that were then repeated over and over and over again, in the Big Media.

I see the Warren choice as a sideways attempt to restore some balance to that whole line of discussion. It's another way of saying that when it comes to "spiritual values," or "religious belief," Barack's "tent" is big enough to encompass several different points of view. (And if that's percieved as a back-hand slap at some single-issue types, I'm down with it, because I don't think it was ever all about them, in the first place.)

I don't really expect Rick Warren to have any influence at all, on this administration. (How can he, he's a fat, slack-jawed, slow-witted moron?) But if he helps Barack to repair the "damage" that fundies inflicted on him, when the views of perfectly good people like Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Pfleger, were distorted, I'm not going to mind.

[jberryhill]

25. Pull!

[AZBlue]

26. This is a beautifully written post. Thank you.

I'm bookmarking so I can refer back to it in time.

[Neshanic]

27. You need to grow up. There are people that hate us, now witha gentle delivery.

[Skittles]

28. I don't tolerate the embracing of HOMOPHOBIA

and YOU shouldn't either

[Odin2005]

31. This pretty much What I have been trying to say through this whole Warren fracas.

I find this enormous explosion of hate and vitriol over a 2 minute prayer to an imaginary being just plain shocking. It's like DU turned into Free Republic, reason completely disappeared, replaced with hate, demonization, dehumanization of the other, etc., and other sicking stuff we rightly criticize the other side for using.

Some so-called "progressives" are no better, and act no better, then the Freepers. The have become what they claim to hate, bigots who are bigoted against anyone without the same puritanical beliefs as they do.

[pecwae]

32. How much & how many need to 'get over it'?

Between that and 'grown ups' I'm not sure which phrase gags me more.

[NJmaverick]

33. Well said! Well said!

:applause:

[Solon]

34. So basically your argument is that Warren is a decent man, and that we should exchange ideas with...

him?!?!

:wow:

[Marrah_G]

36. Gotta say Writer, I usually like your posts, not this time though

Exchange gay with black. Then write a post saying the same thing.

Warren worked to strip some of our very own DUers of their marriages because of how they were genetically formed.

[JuniperLea]

46. And remember... "genetically formed" can also mean...

"The way God made them."

If any Christian thinks gays are lesser people, they need to read what Jesus said about that.

'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Matthew 25:40

"Judge not, lest you be judged yourself. And the measure that you use shall also be put to you." Matthew 7:1-2

[Neshanic]

40. Well if you can send this to the 18,000 Californians that are having their marriage challenged..

you may have a starting point so they can know your feelings.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

41. The venom,...even by those who have held themselves out as advocates of human decency is,...

,...stunning. They know not what they do, I reckon.

I sincerely appreciate your post.

I just do not get the off-the-cliff emoting because no one can thrive in life doing that. Don't we all come across people who express beliefs/opinions we find distasteful or aweful and find a way to work around those differences? I come across it, ALL THE TIME, living in an entrenched "bible belt". Sometimes, I just give a dumbfounded look; other times, I'll say, "well, I don't agree,...but, I still think highly of you". I've flat out objected without spraying venom on others. They are people and believe what they believe because they feel they must just as I feel I must,...just as we feel we must believe in certain things.

The differences in beliefs doesn't make us less human or deserving of respect. I am pretty sure we can all agree that, when one person or group of people attempt to IMPOSE their beliefs upon others, that behavior is ethically and morally, legally and democratically unacceptable. I completely understand why most (if not all) of us have been and ARE offended by that preacher's advocacy against gay marriage and women's right to possessing their own bodies.

However, that preacher is not our dictator: he is merely a member of a multi-cultural community, apparently figuring his own set of beliefs are threatened merely by virtue of the fact he is IN a multi-cultural/ethnic/religious/racial nation. Why NOT give ALL OF US a sense of security within our belief-sets? The line drawn is simply "do no harm to others" in exchange for freedom to live and believe as you please? What is wrong with that?

We are talking about some principles learned in kindergarten: share, tolerate, follow rules, do not harm others. Yet, when I come to this discussion board, I often feel like I've plunged into a place of fitful 4-year-olds not getting what they want when they want it, pounding their fists and turning blue in the face and hating on everything and one,...as if behaving in such a way will get them what they WANT not knowing that kind of behavior will never get them what they need.

It IS time for a nation of people to grow up if they want a form of democracy that negotiates in such a way ALL are free to BE but prohibited from denigrating or oppressing others, simultaneously. But, perhaps, we are going through a transition from BEING OPPRESSED and having to defend against that type of rule to a completely different governance and people.

[Solon]

43. WARREN DOES NOT WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH GAY PEOPLE!

Jesus fucking Christ, are people really this dense, do you even realize what this guy has done, he helped to deny GLBT people their civil rights in California, he compares them to pedophiles and incestuous couples, and you call this a legitimate point of view?

[EFerrari]

42. LOL!

So, the gay hater gets a hug but ideologue of the venomous hatred gets ignored?

The Obama of your projections really needs to make up his mind about how he responds to "hatred". And you need to figure out how to manage the poor paradigms you abuse,

"Get over it" is a term of dismissal, so according to you, Obama is banishing us. Are you saying he needs to grow up, too?!
Is he one of those Americans or, more likely, are you? Fyi, Obama is not in psychoanalysis with us. He is a politician with a narrative that he pitches.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

45. It's time to stick to the Constitution

And get religion OUT of our government.

So, I guess you think all the gays up in arms here today are immature. That's what you are saying, that they need to grow up.

He can embrace a gay-hater all he wants on personal terms, and I support his sticking to his religious principles on that issue. But he needs to get religion out of our government. This isn't just his inauguration... it belongs to the people... and not all of the people are Christian.

[depakid]

47. Posts like this so miss the point

People like Warren and the fundies he represent don't believe in "live and let live." Instead, they believe ferverantly in cramming their dysfunctional beliefs down everyone else's throats- and passing laws to imprison or otherwise punish people who won't comply.

They'd also endanger the public health- and willfully degrade the nation's educational system.

Bottom line is that it's not "the other" that reasonable people are concerned about- it's "faith based" public policy- it's the exclusion of science and reason from the process. It's the rapture ready folks itching for a fight in the Middle East that will lead to the return of Jesus.

If the past 8 years have taught us anything, it's that fundamentalists need to be kept far away from political power- or even the appearance of it- otherwise, it ends up to the ruin of us all.

[Neshanic]

48. So true. You would think the past years would be a lesson.

[marimour]

54. they are. Bush only engaged w/ those who held his viewpoints. Glad Obama is becoming the anti-bush

[EFerrari]

55. The post misses the point because the Other cannot banish you

since it is your construct.

The OP got it exactly backwards.

[TripleKatPad]

49. Writer, right on

You put into your post exactly how I have been feeling. We need to grow up.

[Mass]

51. So, he should embrace racists, sexists, antisemits, ... or does it only apply to homophobes?

I never thought that DU would have threads asking for tolerance of bigots like Rick Warren.

[Jim Sagle]

52. 'Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

[BigBearJohn]

53. Let's test our resolve. Give a big shout-out to Rev. Fred Phelps

C'mon now. Let's test our resolve to reach out the hand of friendship to those on the other side.

Don't remember the loving Rev. Fred Phelps?

Then, read this:



On October 3, 2003 Anti-Gay Preacher Fred Phelps' announced intentions to erect a "monument" to Matthew Shepard, a college student brutally murdered five years ago. The following is an article published October 3, 2003 by 365Gay.com's News Center.

(Casper, Wyoming) Anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps has announced intentions to erect a monument to Matthew Shepard the gay college student brutally murdered five years ago near Laramie.

But, the monument will be no memorial. Phelps says the monument would be 5 to 6 feet tall and made of marble or granite. It would bear a bronze plaque bearing the image of Shepard and have an inscription reading "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

Source: http://www.petitiononline.com/mrphelps/petition.html

:sarcasm:

[madmadmad]

56. would you ask obama to tolerate someone who professes hatred for blacks? get real.

this is the stupidest argument i've read tonight on the DU, and i've read some pretty stupid things. no reason to embrace bigots EVER.