A Reader Asks That I Reconsider Obama-Warren

I stopped publicly answering reader mail quite some time ago -- I generally only did it years ago to make fun of right-wingers sending me hate mail -- but I got a note from Michael Rapaport of Brooklyn, New York who had some interesting comments on me and much of the Progressive media jumping Barack Obama for selecting homophobe Rick Warren to give the opening prayer on Inauguration Day.

Yes, I have Michael's permission to use his name and his full message and, no, I'm not going to make fun of it -- I thought he gently raised a point worthy of discussion and it's representative of many e-mails I received yesterday.

Here's Michael:

Bob, I understand your sentiments when you wrote that article asking what was Barack thinking with the selection. I am a 61 year old individual who can't believe I lived to see the day when someone like Barack could be elected. It made all the dreams I've had since I worked in Bobby Kennedy's campaign come true.

However, please look at what Barack's selection is really saying. The first task our new POTUS will have is to bring us all together after our beloved nation has been purposefully rendered apart for the past eight years for the most nefarious of reasons. It is why I wonder how truly progressive those who call themselves "progressives" really are. No POTUS has ever entered office facing the humongous challenges facing Obama and instead of criticizing him I think it is time we get behind him.

Fair enough, Michael, and I agree to some extent with the spirit of what you're saying. I've spent no time at all criticizing some of President-elect Obama's cabinet selections that may have raised my eyebrows, including retaining Robert Gates as Defense Secretary. While I'm inclined to say Obama should start fresh as he moves to end the Iraq debacle, I'm willing to concede that Gates is undoubtedly clear on Obama's intent to leave Iraq and will follow the Commander-in-Chief's directive. I also give Obama credit for wanting to begin the withdrawal with as little upheaval as possible at the Defense Department.

I'm also mindful of the huge challenges Obama is inheriting and the extent to which he needs support and not sniping from his own side of the political divide and, the fact is, I donated money and worked hard to help elect the man. I believe in him and I believe he will be a great president.

I say all of this to point out that I'm as far from an Obama basher as you'll find and hated even having to write my piece yesterday -- and I strongly considered not posting it precisely for the points you raise.

But this situation is different and his choice of Warren does anything but bring us together as a people.

Obama is not including someone from the other side of the aisle who has a mere philosophical difference with Progressives/Liberals and who, for example, may take a different stance on Iraq or stem cell research than we do. On this day of national pride and celebration, he's chosen to include someone who believes that a certain portion of our population should be demonized and deprived of the same rights enjoyed by other Americans.

The President-elect has picked someone to share center stage with him on January 20th who is, tacitly, a self-proclaimed bigot, who strongly supports discrimination against the gay community and who believes gay folks are something less than the rest of us.

It is as simple as that and, the last time I looked, that kind of bigotry was considered downright un-American.

What Warren believes is not exactly the same as the ugliness we saw during the Civil Rights struggle but it's damn close. And Rick Warren is someone who essentially takes the same approach toward gay people, based simply on their sexual orientation, as George Wallace, Bull Connor and that whole Cracker Brigade took against African-Americans in the 1960s.

So I appreciate what you're saying, Michael, and the support you believe we should all show for Barack Obama as he charts some incredibly tough waters ahead. As I said, I believe he will be a great president and that as the next few years unfold, I will feel far more pride and solidarity with him than I will disappointment.

But that doesn't make choosing a known bigot to speak on Inauguration Day something we can ignore. Barack Obama will be taking that oath of office on January 20th because the majority of Americans, as Dr. King longed for, looked at the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

Our gay family, friends and neighbors deserve nothing less than the same standard of decency.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Comments

[AlienNationRefugee]

On Proposition 8 he was silent.
On the US Veto of the UN Resolution for decriminalizing homosexuality he was silent.
On Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he says, "Wait."
And now associating with someone who compares me to a pedophile?
Where is the leadership?

[GrangerWebb]

Excuse me. The selection of Rick Warren to give the Inaugural invocation is nothing short of repugnant. His views on gay marriage and homosexuality in general are more in keeping with the cold-hearted rants of the Pharisees of old than the way of Jesus. Warren’s support for Proposition H8 alone should have been reason enough to pass him by in favor of someone else. It’s a deliberate and profound insult to those who fought so hard to elect a President who was supposed to represent all of us instead of a select few special interests. It’s also a flat out wrong choice. We’ve had quite enough of the views of the religious right and their hate mongering. If this is Obama’s idea of "Change" and inclusiveness, God help us all. The bottom line is that Fundamentalism and its literalist view of the Bible is actually heretical to the teachings of Jesus. The Right wing "Moral Majority" is encumbered with its own sense of bigness and power instead of spreading grace and love as Christ did. Folks like Warren have no place of legitimate authority in God’s Kingdom because they put their own political and ideological agendas ahead of the core of Jesus’ teachings. In doing do, they end up being servants of evil and hate. The last eight years have demonstrated what happens when that kind of power is politicized and unleashed in our country & around the world. For the sake of the common good, It must stop now.

[KBinIA]

I'm sort of uneasy about the Warren pick myself...wasn't he the guy who assured everyone that McCain was in a "cone of silence" when McCain was actually in traffic on his way to the debate? Seems like even that small incident speaks to his credibility (or lack thereof). On the other hand, Obama stands by his record and I believe his administration will be amazingly inclusive and open. In any event, your argument here is well made. Best wishes and happy holidays!

[klondiker]

Bob, thank you for this eloquent response! It highlights a key point that I've been trying to make rather unsuccesfully, since this whole thing was announced:

How would people feel if David Duke were a speaker at the inauguration?? A lot of people immediately jump on this and say, "You can't compare David Duke to Rick Warren!" But the point is that both of them are peddling a different kind of bigotry.

Thankfully, we as a society have decided that David Duke's brand of bigotry is completely unacceptable. However, it seems that we think that Rick Warren's brand of bigotry is sort of okay. When people say that we should talk to people even if we disagree with them, I am all for it. But, this isn't a matter of us simply disgreeing with Rick Warren. Isn't there a point when someone's views are so repugnant that we shouldn't have to entertain them?

[dbartenstein]

Not that it is any more acceptable, but bigotry seems to get a layer of protection when you couch it as a religious "belief".... especially when that same "belief" is held by a very large segment of the population.

[klondiker]

Right, exactly. When Obama frames this issue in terms of, "I will reach out to those I disagree with," he is essentially saying that both arguments (i.e, homosexuality is natural VS. homosexuality is akin to pedophilia) are equally valid, and reasonable people can fall on either side of this issue.

How about some courage to stand up and say, "No. This isn't a point on which we can agree to disagree. Equating homosexuality to incest and pedophilia is deeply offensive wrong, hateful, and absurd. And, we will not give platform to people to spread this kind of hate."

[ParaplegicNomad]

"Isn't there a point when someone's views are so repugnant that we shouldn't have to entertain them?"

Absolutely, there is. But our country is NOT THERE YET with regards to homosexuality. Sad but true.

Our country models its social structure around the crown jewel of its governmental structure: Democracy. The good thing about democracy is - in theory - all of the people are involved.

The drawback of democracy - one we would all do well to recognize - is that "rightness" is not determined by logic or reason or the strength of an emotional appeal. It is determined by majority.

Achieving a victory in logic or emotion is not the endgame. It's just a tool towards convincing a majority. When we get there, men like Warren will have no place in the world. But until we get there, men like Warren should be "entertained."

If he is to be used as just another tool - which I believe is the case here - then I can accept it. If using him brings the opposite camp to the table in good faith - perhaps not to fight the civil rights battle, but to fight the battle over education, or over the economy, or over religious tolerance (does anyone here still think of the Muslims Americans?), or over just the greatest and first hurdle Obama must clear, that of being accepted as the President Elect by the "center right," then I accept it.

Disappointed by it? Yes. Understand it? Yes, again.

[klondiker]

I appreciate your comment - thanks for your thoughtful response.

The one thing I'd like to add is that every great stride that we've made as a country on social issues were made against the wishes of the majority. If we had waited for the majority of the country to vote on giving women the right to vote, or giving African Americans the right to vote, we might have not gotten there, or at least not after much longer.