2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread 13: Victory Lap - Page 49 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-18-2008, 06:26 PM   #721
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it's a familiar feeling.

what would you have me do? it was never alright. am i going to vote for McCain? what else do you expect the gay community to do other than support politicians who at least mouth support? are we to support Republicans who sleep with the very people who'd cheer our social death? are we to support Republicans who've made their opposition to gay people the very center of their social policy?

it seems to me that the positions you've outlined above are easy to say when you, yourself, don't have to actually live them out. in the real world, we have to make choices. and we also know that we're going to get thrown under the bus because more work remains, and because unthinking religion holds a preposterously central place in the lives of many Americans.

so we deal with it. the best we can.
I never said you should vote for the worse evil, but spreading the contempt between both sides could be a nice start.
Quote:
i agree with you here -- you're preaching to the choir. simply because i know why Obama chose Warren (it was shrewd and calculating) doesn't mean i support the decision. it means i'm able to hold more than one thought in my head at one time. i have never been comfortable with Obama's religiosity, but i also have to accept that a president has to have some pretense of religiosity to be elected. for chrissakes, go back and look at how much i mocked the Democratic "Faith Forum" silliness. but what else are we going to do? at least Obama's religious leanings are inclusive and empowering and generally non-exclusionary, and not the spiteful, hateful, white evangelical protestantism of GWB. though each man claims a strong spirituality and professes Christ as his savior, there are world's of difference between the kids of Christianity each practices.
GWB has justified his AIDS spending with faith, his public language is not the same as Buchanan or Falwell, and the more recent statements have been pretty damn middle of the road. Why is it that GWB playing up his faith for a base "spiteful, hateful, white evangelical protestantism", while Obama is inclusive, empowering and generally non-exclusionary (in spite of his pastors hip, down with whitey, rhetoric).
Quote:
i'm every bit the secularist you are.

but, again, as i said earlier, "they" are not all the same.
I recognise that most Christians are middle of the road, I know there is a difference between a social conservative and someone who wants to drop walls on people, but that shouldn't matter when it comes to keeping religion out of politics.

It's not as though we were asked to contextualise Falwell, to understand where he came from and have some sympathy for his wretched genesis (like we were for Jeremiah Wright); why should Obama's religious pals be rationalised but George W. Bush's be open to derision?
Quote:
i don't think this paragraph was aimed directly at me. but if it was, it missed the mark.
Not entirely.
Quote:
what consensus position have i argued? i've said that i'm not interested in simply labeling people a bigot and that's that. that isn't productive. it's not consensus building -- that's the GCU position, one i am very clearly against. i just don't think we're well served by provoking people in the middle, and i think we are well served by engaging, say, a nathan1977, where as a diamond is probably best left to humor.
A consensus position would be getting evangelical leaders to a point where they can agree that gay marriage is alright for state sanction, and they won't mobilise their voters against it.
Quote:
and the more we argue with those who are equipped with actual skills, and the more we watch them twist their arguments and strain for something resembling coherence and consistency, the more discredited they are to the mainstream.

that's always been the point.
This only actually works when their being challenged, gritting teeth while they are given backstage passes to a presidential inaugurations doesn't count.

Rick Warren is mainstream, recognising the pragmatic bipartisanship of Obama picking him doesn't challenge that at all.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 06:42 PM   #722
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
do you read the gay marriage threads? who spends hours dealing with the opposition?

you're so eager to try to find elements of "the Left" excusing Obama's shortcomings -- in the same way in which "the Right" apologized for George Bush running the country into the ground, and they still do, "he kept us safe" revisionism and whatnot -- that it's clouding your ability to actually see what's going on in here.

are you now the new Deep? is now your mission to antagonize the Obama folk in here without actually closely reading what they post and going by media stereotypes and using what you wish they said because it better fits whatever zingers you've been plotting?
But who else is there to antagonise?

FYM Republicans can be counted on one hand, and I already go after them in god-bothering threads, and gay rights threads for that matter.

Deep actually voiced his opinion even when it annoyed the majority of posters, he was treated like a racist right wing death beast because he was cold towards the change candidate. He took the most measured attitude, and ended up voting for Obama, without dabbling in hagiography along the way.

I know you don't believe Obama to be a faultless man-god, and that you have reasonable reasons not to be fickle about your politics, but that doesn't make the US president palling around with perfidious pastors alright to me.

Look at Australia, we booted out Howard and brought in Kevin Rudd; and his social positions are more or less the same; he injects his Christian faith into policy decisions and the party is aggressively pursuing conservative policies like an internet porn filter. More and more I feel that arguing the moderate and conciliatory position only lets the other side steal the middle ground.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:49 PM   #723
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 03:27 AM
I don't think Obama has to entirely shun Warren and other promiment people with bigoted views. I just think having someone like him give the invocation is going too far. It sends the wrong message. Talk with them, engage with them - that's not a bad thing. But why spit in the face of the gay community by having him speak at such a huge, historic moment?
__________________
Bono's shades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 09:02 PM   #724
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but, again, as i said earlier, "they" are not all the same.
That's true.

I don't think Jim Wallis is one of "them."

I guess the difference between us is that I don't believe Warren is really different, he's just managed to cloak himself in some nouveau evangelical style. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, just repackaged to be a little more palatable.

Look, I don't even understand why you need preachers at these things, I have no idea if we have them in Canada at equivalent events, then again I can't name a single influential Canadian preacher anyway. Does such a thing even exist? BUT I understand that the US is culturally different so OK, have your preachers at the inauguration. So while I wouldn't want Jim Wallis there in principle either, I guarantee if he were the choice, you wouldn't hear the protests this loudly.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 09:08 PM   #725
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:27 PM
I would accept John Shelby Spong.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 09:51 AM   #726
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:27 AM
No one said smoking was "cool" all of a sudden

I just think the pictures are great, it's fun to see a President like that. Just like this is fun



Jaysus..let's just have some holiday FUN. Nitpicking moratorium..
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 10:35 AM   #727
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
GWB has justified his AIDS spending with faith, his public language is not the same as Buchanan or Falwell, and the more recent statements have been pretty damn middle of the road. Why is it that GWB playing up his faith for a base "spiteful, hateful, white evangelical protestantism", while Obama is inclusive, empowering and generally non-exclusionary (in spite of his pastors hip, down with whitey, rhetoric).I recognise that most Christians are middle of the road, I know there is a difference between a social conservative and someone who wants to drop walls on people, but that shouldn't matter when it comes to keeping religion out of politics.

herein lies the point. religion motivates some to do good things. Bush 'n AIDS is a great example. the fact that Wallis and, yes, Warren are moved to act on AIDS is something that Falwell and Robertson and Dobson would never have done. there is a difference there. sure, they're far more sympathetic to heterosexual AIDS, but is this not progress? do we not acknowledge the baby steps the religious right are making as they adjust to the modernity that the rest of us really have very little problem with?

the flip side of this, of course, is like the flip side of religion itself -- my god is better than your god. this gets translated into "my sexual intercourse is holy and yours is an abomination." and so on and so forth. and this is, sadly, a more powerful motivator than the "Save Darfur" impulse. so that's what Bush & Co. used to mobilize their base, who, like most people, respond much more quickly to fear and loathing than anything else.

what we have to do is deal with the fact that there are religious people out there, they outnumber us, and we have to deal with them while at the same time remaining absolutely steadfast in maintaining the walls that have always separated church and state. i don't see where i've not done this. if perhaps i am harsher on Bush's religiosity than Obama's religiosity it's for two reasons -- 1) i don't find Obama's lefty Christianism any sort of threat to my personal welfare or rights, and 2) it seems to express itself in ways that are far less interested in social control -- the difference between, say, Christians who want to save the rainforests because they are part of God's beautiful earth, and the Christians who want to make sure i don't see any of that nasty pornography. i find a gulf of difference there, and to me it is the difference between "a religious person in politics" vs. "religious politics." one pushes a policy that might come from a religious place vs. one creates a policy to advance a specific tenet of one's religion. a great example is civil marriage equality.



Quote:
This only actually works when their being challenged, gritting teeth while they are given backstage passes to a presidential inaugurations doesn't count.

i agree. i don't know what else i'm supposed to do. i'm not excusing this. i've said i don't like it, particularly on the heels of Prop. 8. i've also tried to understand why Obama did this.


Quote:
Rick Warren is mainstream, recognising the pragmatic bipartisanship of Obama picking him doesn't challenge that at all.

and i'd rather Warren to Fallwell/Robertson/Dobson. but i'd rather Wallis to Warren. though i'd rather no one at all.

but i understand that i'm outvoted when it comes to this stuff.

but, hey, i like modernity.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:31 PM   #728
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:27 AM
this is what i'm more worried about than Rev. Rick.

this is what matters.

and this makes me embarrassed to be an American.


Quote:
In a First, Gay Rights Are Pressed at the U.N.
By NEIL MACFARQUHAR

UNITED NATIONS — An unprecedented declaration seeking to decriminalize homosexuality won the support of 66 countries in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, but opponents criticized it as an attempt to legitimize pedophilia and other “deplorable acts.”

The United States refused to support the nonbinding measure, as did Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Holy See’s observer mission issued a statement saying that the declaration “challenges existing human rights norms.”

The declaration, sponsored by France with broad support in Europe and Latin America, condemned human rights violations based on homophobia, saying such measures run counter to the universal declaration of human rights.

“How can we tolerate the fact that people are stoned, hanged, decapitated and tortured only because of their sexual orientation?” said Rama Yade, the French state secretary for human rights, noting that homosexuality is banned in nearly 80 countries and subject to the death penalty in at least six.

France decided to use the format of a declaration because it did not have the support for an official resolution. Read out by Ambassador Jorge Argüello of Argentina, the declaration was the first on gay rights read in the 192-member General Assembly itself.

Although laws against homosexuality are concentrated in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, more than one speaker addressing a separate conference on the declaration noted that the laws stemmed as much from the British colonial past as from religion or tradition.

Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, speaking by video telephone, said that just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality “are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and as inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion and respect for all.”

The opposing statement read in the General Assembly, supported by nearly 60 nations, rejected the idea that sexual orientation was a matter of genetic coding. The statement, led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the effort threatened to undermine the international framework of human rights by trying to normalize pedophilia, among other acts.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference also failed in a last-minute attempt to alter a formal resolution that Sweden sponsored condemning summary executions. It sought to have the words “sexual orientation” deleted as one of the central reasons for such killings.

Ms. Yade and the Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, said at a news conference that they were “disappointed” that the United States failed to support the declaration. Human rights activists went further. “The Bush administration is trying to come up with Christmas presents for the religious right so it will be remembered,” said Scott Long, a director at Human Rights Watch.

The official American position was based on highly technical legal grounds. The text, by using terminology like “without distinction of any kind,” was too broad because it might be interpreted as an attempt by the federal government to override states’ rights on issues like gay marriage, American diplomats and legal experts said.

“We are opposed to any discrimination, legally or politically, but the nature of our federal system prevents us from undertaking commitments and engagements where federal authorities don’t have jurisdiction,” said Alejandro D. Wolff, the deputy permanent representative.

Gay-rights advocates brought to the conference from around the world by France said just having the taboo broken on discussing the topic at the United Nations would aid their battles at home. “People in Africa can have hope that someone is speaking for them,” said the Rev. Jide Macaulay of Nigeria.
this might need it's own thread.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:52 PM   #729
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Nice company your country is keeping.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 02:37 PM   #730
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Nice company your country is keeping.


and the christianist and the muslimists think they have nothing in common ...
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 07:55 PM   #731
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Obama continuing the horrible faith based initiatives solidifies them as the status quo, if he keeps them around for two terms they will be a permanent part of the political landscape. It may be that there are some prohibitions against proselytisation in the contracts; but I would have a problem with my tax dollars being used to funnel money to religious groups that support the ruling party, effectively mobilising religious blocs.

When it is George W. Bush injecting faith in politics people rightly howl, now Obama is doing it they either fall silent or insist that it makes him shrewd. Irvine, I don't think that you are objective when it comes to the president-elect (nor should you be, or anyone for that matter); the nature of your posts since the primaries have sometimes seemed like talking points to me, projecting the image of Obama as the deeply reflective pragmatic liberal who compromises some minor positions in the short term to actualise the important changes once he leaves the gates.

My position is that religious belief is ultimately justified by supernaturalism, that it makes claims about the universe and morality which aren't substantiated, and that it shouldn't be a guiding hand on public policy. The pragmatic lying of George Bush about his religious convictions, and his use of ambiguously prophetic language, are some of the worst parts of his character. I feel the same towards Obama and his Christian base. His public declarations about the power of faith come across to me as an atheist or agnostic (not a bad thing) who has co-opted a religious base in Chicago and has integrated the same types of principles into his public policy (outsourcing charity to religious groups). The man may respect the first amendment, make wonderful appointments (see energy secretary), and begin to undo some of the damage wrought by Bush, but I don't think it is right for him to bring religious leaders into the fold and to offer them olive branches at the expense of your secularism.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 08:22 PM   #732
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Obama continuing the horrible faith based initiatives solidifies them as the status quo, if he keeps them around for two terms they will be a permanent part of the political landscape. It may be that there are some prohibitions against proselytisation in the contracts; but I would have a problem with my tax dollars being used to funnel money to religious groups that support the ruling party, effectively mobilising religious blocs.
In an economic downturn you'll only see more of it.

There is a reasonable argument to be made for employing these services as far as the costs are concerned. They tend to be able to deliver certain services very cheaply and efficiently because they have a history of doing so.

Interestingly before Quebec's Quiet Revolution, the Church was funneled a lot of money by the government, thus becoming a co-oppressor, which eventually saw Quebeckers turn almost wholly secular in response. But one of the reasons the corrupt governing of Duplessis continued for so long is because they managed to keep their budget down to nothing since the Church delivered almost all essential services to the citizenry. This, of course, is a huge political issue as you point out. But I do wonder how much we will start to rely on faith-based initiatives in a depression, and what the longterm consequences of that will be. I do blame the conservative parties for this largely because they tend to ally with the religious right and because they are responsible for stripping social services funding to such a degree that faith-based initiatives actually become almost necessary alternatives.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:32 AM   #733
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:27 AM
Kucinch would not have invited a homophobe to give a speech.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:36 AM   #734
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:27 AM
Also, this guy Warren is a complete charlatan. I can smell the bullshit a mile off.

I predict, within the next three years he will either be done for sexual or financial impropriety.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 02:41 PM   #735
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Also, this guy Warren is a complete charlatan. I can smell the bullshit a mile off.

I predict, within the next three years he will either be done for sexual or financial impropriety.
I am not sure he will be undone.

but, a couple of years back, when everyone was just gushing about his "Purpose Driven Life " book I gave it a quick once over. and reading between the lines, I saw him for what he was then.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com