On 19-Dec-08, at 5:03 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > At 01:00 PM 12/19/2008, richardsan's fingers tapped: >> http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/kolbert.warren/index.html? >> iref=mpstoryview >> >> i was looking forward to a historic inauguration, i think i'm >> going to find something else to do that day. >> the warren choice, was just not the best...who ever fought for >> that pick should be given the sack. > > You know, Michael might deny that you -- a progressive leftist -- > are unhappy with some of Obama's choices. Perhaps I spoke too soon > and he needed more evidence. > > Be that as it may, a deranged Negro shouting "God d*mn America" > might fill your bloomers, but it wouldn't set a good precedent for > the first (half) black president. > > Rev. Rick Warren shares the views of a vast number of Americans. > Obama recognizes that. It might be time for the rabid gay community > to practice what they preach -- tolerance. > > I would also say that in a democracy you must give others time to > change their mind and share their views. They want an authoritarian > government to impose their views on the rest of the populace. Funny > thing is that such totalitarian governments aren't very tolerant of > gays. --
Tolerance is a slippery slope. Using tolerance so broadly that the oppressed must tolerate being oppressed is really counter to the connotation of the word. Obama knows that half the country elected Bush twice, and a good many of those supporters did so because Bush went so far as to claim that he spoke with God regularly. Any truly representative government must not only uphold religious rights as protected in the constitution, but act in the best interest of all, including the large Christian base. I think he could have chosen a less divisive figure, but he's clearly a notable one. Obama has already stated that he's against gay marriage, but for a legally binding union with similar tax and estate benefits. Given that the separation of church and state would prohibit state pressure on the church to allow a religious union, that seems like the only way to keep rolling with these wheels. Although, many amendments were made to the constitution after it's inception. It's fair to say that even the founding fathers knew that the single document would need to be adjusted over time. It may also be fair to say that the founding fathers would likely not understand the issues of today, and disapprove of many of the amendments made since. Washington's head may have exploded to learn that American elected a black president. (Say half-white all you want, with a name like Barrack Obama, there was no confusion in voter's minds. Even if they'd never heard of the guy, they could be reasonably sure he wasn't white.) -- Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
