"Evil Cannot Be Reasoned With, It Can Only Be Defeated"

[Prophet 451]

I've been trying to figure out for a few days now, what President-Elect Obama hoped to achieve with the invitation to Rick Warren. Even now, I honestly don't know what the intention was and I think, in the hullabaloo (rightly) surrounding the Warren pick, that question needs to be asked: P-E Obama, what the hell do you hope to get out of this?

Do you imagine that Warren is an olive branch to the Religious Right? Sorry to disappoint you but the Religious Right can't stand Warren. You make the common mistake of assuming that the religion of the Religious Right is Christianity; it is not, it is Republicanism. The Religious Right do not follow Christianity as you or I would understand it. Rather, they have created a new faith which melds extremist Christianity with extreme-right political views. To them, their faith has not become entwined with politics, their faith is politics. They believe wholeheartedly that all of the Founding Fathers were fundementalist Christians who intended a "godly" nation. No, don't bother trying to reason with them. Like the anonymous source who spoke to Suskind (Kuo?), they do not live in the reality-based community but in a world they alone inhabit, where the way things are becomes "The Way Things Ought To Be". They already detest Rick Warren. The fact that he admits the reality of man-made global warming makes him anathema in their eyes. He violates one of their core doctrines of faith.

Even if it were not so, the Religious Right are not interested in compromise with you. The quotation I used as a title here is how they feel about you. You are a Democrat and therefore evil. They are not interested in compromise, only in capitulation. Their idea of compromise is the same as that of George Bush: The left abandons most of it's principles, the right doesn't budge one iota and we'll call the result a compromise. Mr Obama, SIR, you will not win these people over, stop trying.

Do you believe that Rick Warren will be an olive branch to the religiously moderate? I'm afraid, sir, that I have to disappoint you there as well. Firstly, Warren isn't a moderate. On social issues (gay marriage, creationism, abortion, etc), he is identical to Pat Robertson (or Sarah Palin, which should scare everyone). Secondly, religious moderates are not the sheep that the Religious Right are, they are unlikely to be swayed by such symbolism. Finally, the religious moderates are likely to have voted for you anyway. They may or may not agree with all your policies but they probably voted for you anyway. Rick Warren has spoken of the spirit of inclusion (an especially unfunny joke) in your inviting someone you "do not agree with on every issue". Sir, forgive me stating the obvious but you barely agree with him on any issue.

And speaking of symbolism, sir, what the hell kind of signal are you sending here? In your books, you wrote eloquently and movingly on the power of symbolism, you clearly understand and appreciate the uses of symbols and signs so what on earth is this pick going to say? Many gay people voted for you, volunteered for you, gave you money. No-one is suggesting that you should now be indebted to those people but it would seem sensible to avoid actively pissing them off for no good reason. We already knew that you were against full marriage equality but Rick Warren actively campaigned to snatch that equality away from couples in California, he has compared same-sex marriage to paedophilia and incest, he has argued that the definition of marriage has been universally constant for five thousand years (which is just flat wrong, he's entitled to his own beliefs but not his own facts). He has argued, in so many words, that 8-12% of the population, most of whom voted for you, should be second-class citizens. These things matter.

Sir, what were you trying to achieve with this pick? Your explanation that Warren had invited you to Saddleback makes no sense at all. As candidate and president, you have been and will be invited to numerous functions, are they all to have the favour returned? Rick Warren wasn't your only choice here. Even if you were determined to have the invocation be delivered by someone of your own faith, there are numerous tolerant, uncontroversial Christian preachers who would have been delighted to oblige. If Warren were a personal friend, it would be easier to understand. We all have friends with some whacko views but as I understand it, you barely know the man. So really, Mr President-Elect, we come back to the same question: What are you trying to achieve here?

[scarletwoman]

1. Excelllent questions. And I think he owes the people who worked so hard to get him elected

the answers to these questions. Otherwise, he's just another "decider" -- not really the change we were looking for.

sw

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Just another "decider". Yes and his remark that not all Americans will

agree with his decision to invite warren, knowing how upset a large segment of the public is, kind of proves that. He might as well have said, "I'm the decider". Actually he DID say that, while not really using those exact words.

[Kahuna]

2. Warren's pick is as simple as saying, Obama is the president of ALL Americans.

Even if you didn't vote for him and even if you don't agree with him. :shrug: And btw. on edit, as president, it's not Obama's job to judge what is in the heart of any American. If you've been watching and paying attention to Obama you would have seen, that just isn't how he rolls.

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. out of curiosity

do you think we should fighting for same sex "marriage" or something like universal civil unions?

I ask because you very correctly (I think) point out that the religious right is not interested in compromise and that winning them over isn't going to happen.
Trying to convince these people that their religions are teaching them the wrong definition of marriage is equally doomed to failure.. it's just not gonna happen.

[Prophet 451]

5. I'm ok with either

I think there are two equitable solutions to this:
1) Full marriage equality in the legal sense. I'm not going to stand up for forcing churches to marry people they detest but, as far as I know, no-one's suggested that anyway.

2) Universal civil unions carrying the exact same rights. We already have this here (England) although we call it Domestic Union (it was going to be "marriage" but that was dropped for political expediancy). In fact, in the ideal, the state should not get involved with marriage at all. The state should register civil unions with the full package of legal rights and duties and the churches should perform marriages. If some want to have both, that's fine but it should be the legal union which carries the legal rights. I've been arguing this for years, ever since first year of law school. Incidently, france already does something similar and for the sake of fairness, we could say that everyone currently in a legally recognised marriage is granted civil union status on the date the law becomes effective.

I'm interested in the package of legal rights and duties. If that is extended to all people, I don't really care if it's called marriage, civil union or Bob, so long as it is equal. No, the religious right are never going to be convinced but the nice thing is, they don't have to be. They are, at most, 20% of the population (probably the same 20% that believe the sun orbits the earth). Elitist it may be but the wilfully stupid and unreasonable should not be allowed to hold back everyone else.

[tsuki]

10. I like the idea of Domestic Partnerships. Let's just jettison the terms

"civil unions" and "marriages" from the discussion. I understand that in England every couple, regardless of sexual orientation, can register their Domestic Partnership.

If you want to take it further and have tribal rites, that's fine. It's optional.

[Prophet 451]

12. More or less

What happens here is that anyone can marry if they can find a church to marry them but that has exactly no legal status. To gain legal status, you have to register your union (a few very popular marriage sites have a registrar on site for convienience). If you're straight, it's called Civil Marriage; if you're gay, it's called Domestic Partnership but the difference is simply which box you tick on the form and everyone has referred to it as "marriage" from the start anyway (it was going to be "marriage" but that was dropped for political reasons). The law is expressely written so that, with the exception of a few very technical aspects of minor law (such as the exact definition of "consummated"), the two are to be treated as utterly identical.

[dipsydoodle]

11. Dear Bob

We don't call it a Domestic Union : it's called the The Civil Partnership Act 2004.

Black Adder.

[Prophet 451]

13. Can I be Lord Flash?

"We" includes me, I'm British. I just got confused on the title (and I hold a bloody Law degree! I should know this stuff!).

Yeah, I'm going to call that one a senior moment.

[Clovis Sangrail]

18. you make far too much sense.. you're obviously not american ;)

I think, though, that you might be underestimating the sway of the religious right in this country.
The overwhelming majority of american's consider themselves christians and while most of them aren't fundies, a good chunk of them sit in the pews every Sunday and listen to somebody who is a part of the religious right.
So even though they're not fundies their religious views are often being shaped by the religious right.
This is how 8 passed in Ca.

I really wish we would do something like the system described in England and finish with this stupid debate.

[truedelphi]

28. You say:

the wilfully stupid and unreasonable should not be allowed to hold back everyone else.
The past has caught up with the present. The future is NOW.

That is a grat premise. I'd lvoe to see it become law and start top be enforced.

[dipsydoodle]

7. same sex "marriage" or something like universal civil unions?

I reiterated your phrase with the question mark only for convenience to denote subject.

Part of the issue in the USA relates to use of the word marriage for whatever reason.

In the UK , and I don't know the exact background so pleased on't ask me, the marriage is termed Civil Partnership and that's written into law. http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/

Gays have exactly equal rights to the marriage of couples of different sex in every respect other than finer points of law with regard to reasons for divorce - non consumation etc. I've concluded that those who are gay considered it to be expedient to accept the term Civil Partnership to get the law they needed passed in order to give them the rights they deserved.

[Prophet 451]

9. That's exactly the case

The original intention was for the term "marriage" to be used. The House of Lords made it clear that if it was, they would block the legislation. So, for political expediancy, the word was dropped but every other part was passed unaltered and the law is expressely written that in any case where there is any doubt, Civil Partnerships are to be treated as identical (save for a very few minor technical differences, such as you mentioned). Virtually everyone, even registrars, have referred to it as "marriage" from day one anyway.

Incidently, the 15-day waiting period was waived for one couple as one partner was in the last stages of terminal cancer (this is routinely done for straight couples in the same position) which made them the first same-sex couple to be legally married in the UK. He died the following day but hopefully, the fact that he died as a married man is of some comfort to his grieving husband who wrote that as his partner was dying, he held him through teh night and tried his best to comfort him. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I thought that was what a marriage was supposed to be.

[Cid_B]

4. So...

Every other group on the face of the earth deserves chance after chance after chance of negotiotion and diplomacy and "working together" but for the other side of the political spectrum in our own nation...? pfft.. a big zilch?

Do we really need 4 or 8 more years of "We're in charge now. Nyah nyah, na na na? Love it or leave it"

[Prophet 451]

6. So...

We are not talking purely about "the other side", we are talking about a small subdivision of them who will never be reasoned with. They have had endless chances at negotiation, diplomacy and working together and on every single occasion, they have refused to budge an inch. One may try reasoning with the violently unstable, negotiating with them, coming to an understanding but when they reject all of that, eventually, they must be locked up for the safety of all.

Conservatives, we need. Conservatives are a vital part of the political process and can be talked to, reasoned and negotiated with. What we do not need are those who consider obstruction their, literal, god-given duty and can never be reasoned with. You cannot reason with the fundementally unreasonable.

Further, do you honestly believe that an attempt to compromise with them would achieve anything? Of course not, the second they had the power to make it stick, they would be straight back to "our way or the highway".

[Cid_B]

16. What I am saying is...

... that there is no reason for those currently in power to apply the same rule of "our way or the highway."

Logically it is impossible to weed out those who are totally intractable and unwilling to compromise from the larger group of those who can see both sides of an issue (even if they have their own firm opinion). I also believe it is equally impossible for those on the left to objectively decide who can be won over and who can't. Most especially in this time of transition and "change."

Olive branches and efforts at bipartisanship must be extended to all in an attempt to reach common ground with the majority of "them" and the end result is the wheat being seperated from the chaff. It is a never ending process though but results can be had.

[BeFree]

23. Y'know

Bush said pretty much the same thing about Iraq as you are saying here about the RR.

Of course, both of you are blinded, so it's not surprising to see the similarities.

Short of all out war, we must do everything we can to get the wrong to see the error of their ways, and thank Gawdess we now have a president who will do just that.

[Lyric]

30. The difference is that Bush was wrong. We are not.

Do you honestly think that there's a legitimate comparison to be made with Bush--a warmongering, bloodthirsty murderer--and innocent, loving gay families and allies who are standing firm about their rights?

I mean, if we take your logic at face value, then there's no such thing as "right" and "wrong" AT ALL. We were all absolutist in our protest against Bush. Should we have compromised, for the sake of unity? Instead of standing firm and saying "NO MORE DEAD IRAQI INNOCENTS!", should we instead have said, "Well since we want to be unified, we'll compromise. We'll tolerate Bush's point of view that some of these Iraqi children are just 'collateral damage,' because maybe appeasing him a LITTLE bit will eventually lead to him changing his mind! And in the meantime, well, sorry dead people. We gotta be unified."

Seriously--this argument is total bullshit, and it makes me want to puke. Should black people have been content with just a little bit of Jim Crow, or only being enslaved for a few weeks a year rather than a lifetime? Should women have accepted a compromise that they would only get to vote every third election, or that their votes would only count for half of a man's vote?

Even if we argue about what's Right, it's obvious that there IS such a thing as absolute Wrong, and it can be identified by observing whether or not someone's human rights are being violated. If they are, it's WRONG, and we should not compromise on it. If they are not, then compromise is a possibility. Gay people have a human right to be treated equally by the law. Bush did NOT have a human right to go murder children in Iraq. The comparison is fucking absurd.

[BeFree]

32. I pretty much agree

And while I was much too harsh, I stand by my comparison of the WORDS and TONE.

The words we use and the tone in which they are expressed make a big difference.

Thing is we have to make peace, or we are left only with war, and that is what I was trying to say.
And is precisely what MLK taught us.

[BlooInBloo]

14. While I tend to agree with you...

What about a comeback of the form: "yah, he'll never win THEM over, but he might just win their KIDS over, who would otherwise stand a high chance of being just like their worthless parents."

I'm not completely sure what to say to a comeback like that, though I have a few ideas.

[Prophet 451]

15. Well, there's several answers to that

The first, and most likely, is that PE Obama's actions will have little effect on them. Some will follow their parent's path but the majority won't. They will leave that path and in all liklihood, they will do so regardless.

The second is that, if we are concerned with the message being sent to those kids, what kind of message are we sending? Warren has almost the exact same views on social issues as their parents do so what are those kids going to learn from that? That gay people are one of the last social groups it's acceptable to demonise (along with my own faith and ethnicity)?

EDIT: Finally, how long is gay marriage likely to be an issue? Is this really going to be relevent by the time those kids have reached adulthood? I doubt it.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Fair 'nuff.

[stray cat]

17. That was McCain's answer during Saddleback to the question of evil

Obama's answer was nuanced that we had to be careful of how easily we designated someone as evil. McCain had no qualms - anything labeled evil you defeat.

[Prophet 451]

20. I know

Hence the reason I found it a useful title.

[OnionPatch]

21. So if the "Religious Right" hates Rick Warren

Is it possible, then, that Obama is NOT trying to "woo" them, as you imply? :shrug: Rick Warren has a huge following. If the extreme, rightwing, fundies hate Warren, we have to assume his followers do not include them. His followers must not be as far gone. Maybe Obama believes some of them are reachable.

[Prophet 451]

25. I don't know but that's a decent guess

Intersting way of looking at it that hadn't occured to me.

[hlthe2b]

22. I agree that we won't change Warren & his ilck, but here's a question

Does Obama really think he can or is the "appearance of working together" all he expects to achieve? Is it possible that he believes that this reaching out is enough to fulfill a goal, whatever that might be, in terms of moving his agenda?

Is there some neutralizing effect that may be achieved by his "reaching out" to the likes of Warren and his minions? Is he splitting off the lethal RW fundy base, since many do not like Warren to begin with, given his differing views on climate change and poverty?

Just thinking aloud.....:shrug: The question of WHY is the big one left for me...

[CTyankee]

24. I'm curious to see how this plays out myself.

What I am more interested in is how Obama's administration is going to govern. This whole religion issue has ramifications for just about every department of the federal government, from science to health to education to our system of justice. And on and on. How will his administration's people handle all of the issues that will and indeed have already arisen?

The proof of the pudding will be here and while taking a stand on this one preacher is necessary in a free society, the real test or tests will be down the line where decisions are made on such things as comprehensive sex education for kids, global warming and a myriad other environmental issues, strict enforcement of civil rights protections, and economic justice.

[ShortnFiery]

26. This sounds reminiscent of a post 9/11 George W. Bush sermon. "Good vs. Evil"

:thumbsdown:

[Prophet 451]

27. Opinions vary n/t

[Joe the Liberal]

29. Good read nt

[Prophet 451]

31. Cheers n/t

[HamdenRice]

33. Oh, really?

[Prophet 451]

34. I promise I'm not Bill-O n/t

[treestar]

35. That sounds like something right wingers would say about

Muslims.

[tjwash]

36. Using evil to fight evil always means that evil will win.

Of course, Christ had that philosophy and they nailed him to a tree for it.

[Prophet 451]

41. never been too good at turning the other cheek

Jesus had a much longer temper than I do.

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Thanks for telling us Warren is not a member of the religious right!

So, it is ok to invite him to join the Kumbaya circle jerk as long as he does not object to having a man on one side?

Seriously, you are telling us that since including him will not bring the RR to the table, we should not include him. Who would you prefer? Dobson? Warren is coming because in the middle of the Bush regime, when no minister got points for being anti-poverty, he started an anti-poverty initiative.

I am beginning to wonder if some people are so angry at the state of California for passing Prop 8 that they are going to take it out on everyone and everything else forever. A matter like this would usually last about 2 days and then we would be on to the next outrage du jour. Hurry up, California Supreme Court and overturn Prop 8 so we at DU can talk about torture and war crimes and the intolerance of someone besides Rick Warren who is not ultimate evil no matter how many people on this forum insist that he is.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. You defeat evil by recognizing that it does not exist. "Evil" is an attachment.

When we free ourselves from attachments, we are able to act gracefully, compassionately, easily, without fear. We do what is best for ourselves and others---- and we achieve results . Those who call anyone ultimate evil--gay bashers and Christian bashers both---will not be able to effect positive change.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Have you been watching Uwe Boll movies?

[Prophet 451]

40. Not when I can avoid it

I mean, seriously, how the hell do you fuck up a premise like Bloodrayne?