Rick Warren?! What Is Team Obama Thinking?
Even through my utter euphoria at Barack Obama being elected president, I knew there would be times in the coming years when I would disagree with certain decisions and policy stances taken by our new Democratic president. That's a natural thing -- I just didn't think one of those moments would come a month before he's even sworn into office.
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, has announced a good program to usher in the Obama presidency on January 20th that, most unfortunately, includes rabid homophobe Rick Warren giving the opening prayer.
Warren is a prominent evangelical and founded the Saddleback Church in Southern California, strongly supported California's ugly Proposition 8 and has long fought against gay rights saying that "this is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."
He will give the invocation after Inaugural Committee Chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) calls the event to order.
My friend Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend has some excellent coverage going on at her site and brings us some failed spin control from the Obama transition team from spokeswoman Linda Douglas: "This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history," said Douglas. "The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] issues. But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues."
Please also check out AMERICAblog for what will certainly be outstanding coverage of every aspect of this nonsense.
My take on this is that President-elect Obama and his staff are being incredibly disrespectful to Progressives who were a major part of getting the Obama-Biden ticket elected and having Warren anywhere near the festivities on January 20th is just flat-out stupid politically.
People in the Religious Right will never support Barack Obama or his agenda, so giving a homophobic bigot like Warren such a prominent place on such a special day for our country will do absolutely nothing to gain Obama support from that lot. Meanwhile, he will piss off a lot of his supporters before he even takes office and will be going against what the mainstream of America thinks by boosting someone who is anti-choice, for continuation of the Iraq occupation and who clearly hates gay people.
And, of course, Warren's also at least a partial nut job, as shown in things like the episode on Sean Hannity's show in which he responds to Hannity saying we need to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by saying that stopping evil "is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers."
Here's Warren's who-would-Jesus-bomb moment:
This isn't change any of us can believe in and Obama needs to find a graceful way to have someone else -- anyone else -- do the opening prayer on his big day. He also needs to remember that this isn't just his big day, it's also a huge occasion for our country and he has a responsibility to present people who represent the best of American life, not the worst.
This isn't a prime-time television special, so it isn't even necessary to pick someone who is well known -- how about a community-organizer member of the clergy who toils with silent dignity and doesn't support and defend discrimination? How about giving one of them a place on the national stage?
But a confirmed bigot? No way.
You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.
Update: If you haven't read John Aravosis's piece, he does a beautiful job inventing a dialog that explains why the Warren choice is so awful far better than I ever could. Go here to see it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
i learned a while ago when someone does something a person does not understand or is new or different the 1st thing they do is lash out due to ignorance.
unfortunately as Americans we have have so many years of a non thinking President who thinks outside the box because their minds cannot conceptual what he is trying to achieve they immediately believe something bad is happening to them instead of opening their minds.
i voted for Obama and realize he is doing exactly everything so far he has promised. the problem is everyone heard what they wanted to and didn't listen to what the man said. he isn't even elected yet and everyone is getting unglued at the seems. just chill out all will be ok, what is your alternative at this point?
Most here are missing the point.
It is simply not true that most of us who think Mr. Warren should not deliver the inaugural invocation do not want a dialog with him. You don't have to honor Rick Warren with the inaugural invocation to have a dialog with Warren. I support and encourage Obama to have that dialog.
But, inauguration day is a time for all Americans, not just those who already have full human and civil rights.
Until 1967, when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional because marriage is a fundamental human right, Mr. Obama's parents were breaking the laws of many states by having sexual relations. Had they obeyed those laws, Mr. Obama would never have been born.
As an American, I support equal human and civil rights for all people and I don't want the inaugural stage defiled by honoring anyone who does not support equal human and civil rights for all. The U. S. is far from perfect on civil and human rights, but we have worked to be more just and inclusive over the history of our country and that principle should be on display at the inauguration.
Mr. Obama will have many opportunities to dialog with Warren and many others who oppose equal human and civil rights for all.
Inauguration Day is a time for our ideals and aspirations, not a time to honor those who oppose equal human and civil rights for all people.
If you knew anything about California law, and most any state law. Homosexuals under Domestic Partnership laws have all the same rights and privlages as married couples. Fundamentally there is nothing different between domestic partnerships and heterosexual marriages. The only difference is the title. And the title of marriage belongs to the religious sect. As it is historically a religious institution. So when a homosexual couple basically has all the same rights as a maried heterosexual couple does all we are talking about is what the title of that relationship has on it. And religious people see marriage as theirs since it is something they basically own. Then why the push to have the same title. It's not at all a civil rights issue in reality. And I am tired of hearing homosexuals compare what they have gone through with what blacks went through in the past. Because there ABSOLUTELY no comparison.
"And I am tired of hearing homosexuals compare what they have gone through with what blacks went through in the past. Because there ABSOLUTELY no comparison."
I didn't realize that we don't defend and protect civil and human rights unless the group under attack has suffered at least as much as blacks.
"Sexual orientation is the functional equivalent to race for the purposes of civil rights law." - Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Jimmy Carter
As for the word "marriage," in the U. S., marriage is both a religious sacrament and a status recognized in law. When I was married 37 years ago, I had to get a "marriage license" from the government. Thousands of benefits accrue to heterosexual married couples which homosexual do not receive. Not all states offer domestic partnership or civil union licenses to same-sex couples, nor do they have legal equivalency to marriage licenses. Homosexuals are discriminated against in the U. S. Armed Forces. Homosexual couples cannot participate in each other's Social Security like heterosexuals. The inheritance and tax laws are different for homosexual and heterosexual couples.
The Supreme Court was correct when it ruled that separate is not equal in Brown v. Board of Education.
The Supreme Court was also correct when it struck down miscegenation laws, stating that marriage is a fundamental human right.
Before you spout off, perhaps you should get your facts straight.
I am White, heterosexual, male, religious and DISGUSTED by the choice of Rick Warren as a symbol of spiritual leadership on what was supposed to be one of the greatest days in history for the American conception of liberty.
Equality for gay and lesbian Americans is a fundamental civil and human rights issue. It is no more the type of issue that we can "agree to disagree" on than were universal suffrage or desegregation.
What is TEAM OBAMA thinking?
That we are a bunch of fools who will get down on our hands and knees to kiss the Great One's feet, no matter what Obama says or does.
I haven't trusted Obama since Donny McClurkin, but until now I was willing to take a wait and see attitude. No more.
This life-long Democrat is now in sabotage mode. I plan to do all I can to assure Obama will be a failed one-term president with a lower approval rating than George W. Bush.
Change we can believe it? I don't believe in you Obama. Rick Warren would not have approved of your parent's bi-racial marriage. Our new President-elect is enabling discrimination. Hillary was right, the guy is all talk.
Geiger - grow up. This is the most ridiculous made for TV drama ever. I thought it was a joke and then I realized that wait . . . it isn't. A prayer for cripes sake. Over a prayer???? Not a policy issue, not a position in his cabinet . . an offer to include the evangelical religious right to participate in this historical event because guess what -- PE Obama is their President too.
Stop it already. It doesn't look good.
Obama helped lead the charge against discrimination of gays in housing and employment in Illinois as a state senator. Moreover, while a state senator, he co-sponsored a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Though the measure became law less than a year after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate).
He has pledged to review close to 1000 federal laws to make sure they are updated to include gays and lesbians. He has hired and vetted a record number of openly gay men and women for his staff.
Obama is not trying to be The President of "True Progressives", or The President of Blue America, or The President of Black America, or The President of Only Democratic Consituencies. Remember, on Nov. 4th, he was elected PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES. The 50 States. RED & BLUE. Gay and Straight. Secular and Religious. Urban and Rural...he has to represent all of us. And if that means building a "coalition government" to get crucial pieces of legislation through, then what's wrong with that?
thank you Sean
"Remember, on Nov. 4th, he was elected PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES." So then tell me -- where are the anti-Semites, white supremacists, and misogynists in his inaugural festivities? Like you said, he's their president too.
It is being said that Obama is sending a message by having Rich Warren perform the invocation. What is the message? It is fine to exclude a segment of society from their civil rights and no problem if that is what you stand for? As the mother of a gay son I am appalled at what this symbolism denotes. Please rethink this decision.
nonsense. first off, being gay is NOT a civil rights issue.
That said - this is just an invocation. You are being ridiculous and overly dramatic. I am a mother too and guess what? You gave birth to a son who "happens" to be gay. That is not his identity. Inviting Warren provides the opportunity to reach across the aisle and offer the evangelical religious right the opportunity to be a part of history (even though most of them were casting stones at the President Elect) and extend the hand to get a seat at the table to help shape the future of our nation which includes EVERYBODY. This also provides the opportunity to open the dialogue on key issues in the future which includes gay initiatives.
We need ALL Americans to dig us out of this mess and not just the folks who agrees with us 100% of the time.
The trouble with believers like Warren is they have retrojected all-too-human politics and morals BACK INTO Christianity. Jesus was pretty clear on nonviolence: Loving your enemies doesn't say anything about killing them.
When the Church got in bed with the Empire in 325 AD, the faith changed. Before that, it was the Christians who did not serve in the Roman army. Then 400 years after Jesus' crucifixion, you couldn't be a member of the Roman army UNLESS you were a Christian.
Warren's brand of Christianity is more like a militia than a moral alternative.
Picking someone who is so polarizing is the antithesis of inclusiveness.
Why can't people understand this? It seems so simple.
because it isn't rational.
nonsense. Wouldn't that include you? Aren't you telling Obama to EXCLUDE Warren? How is this different?
Let me answer my own question -- it isn't.
CHANGE does not mean doing the exact thing that the Bushies did, just from a left-wing progressive slant. CHANGE does not mean taking over the government and filling it with people who think exactly like you do. CHANGE means doing exactly what Obama does--bringing as many people into the political fold as possible. You may not agree with Warren, but many many people do. Obama is not validating their opinions on issues he disagrees with them on, but validating their right to be Americans, and indicating again, as he has said so many times, that that which unites is stronger than that which divides us. I don't know why people act so surprised by this move--it is vintage Obama. I'm actually disappointed with how many "liberals" just wanted Obama to get in there and start running things the exact same partisan way as always. Again, like he said, you can't play the same game over and over again and expect different results.
And finally, speaking as a former strong evangelical who is now actively liberal, this move holds the potential to sway MANY young evangelicals towards progressive causes. Finding common ground is the first and most important step towards any sort of transformation.
Courageous move.
AMEN!! The President-elect believes, as I do, that all Americans need to find common ground and work together to solve our nation's problems and address the real needs of all Americans. I think Mr. Obama and his staff have worked very hard to nominate the most qualified, yet diverse, cabinet, and to reach out to ALL Americans by including a diverse group to participate in his inauguration. I am disappointed that the gay and lesbian community does not support the President-elect in his endeavor to reach out to all segments of our society as their President whether they supported his candidacy or not. While I am not a fan of fundamentalist, extremist sermonizing which is so often on TV, and while I disagree with Rev. Warren on some issues, I admire him for other things he promotes in his ministry that I fail to see in the ministries of some other "ministers". I believe Mr. Obama sees the same good things and truly believes that all Americans need to stop fighting over those issues on which they disagree and unite on the issues on which we can agree. The election of Mr. Obama to the Presidency is the beginning of the type of government that we all need and want. Let's support him in this endeavor in very trying times. I don't for a minute think Mr. Obama's decision to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation was intended to be an affront to his gay and lesbian supporters.
BRAVO!!!! My sentiments exactly.
I dislike much of what Warren proffers, but he IS more 'centrist' than the real troglodytes on the right. If Leo is right, Warren has come a long way. He also engendered the absolute wrath of the religious right himself for having Obama to his church months ago for the discussion on AIDS. Obama is keeping the lines of communication open with those with whom he CAN talk who in turn can talk to the real conservatives. I detest Warren for many things. I do not detest Obama for building this bridge.
We should be helping him lay the foundations. Instead most seem to want the same partisan ways that got us to this point.
Looks like much of the population that voted for BO feel totally betrayed. This line is one of the best I've read: "Obama...needs to remember that this isn't just his big day, it's also a huge occasion for our country, and he has a responsibility to present people who represent the best of American life, not the worst".
Well said--he's taking what was going to be a glorious occasion and RUINED IT.
oh please. Grow up.
not much of the population -- just the left and right wingnuts.
Second of all - Obama has a point here. Evangelicals have dominated government for the past eight years - six of which (I think?) they had control of congress as well. Whether one wants to admit it or not, they are a large portion of the population in the States, and a powerful voting bloc. Furthermore, because of stated opposition to birth control, its not as if their numbers will start to decline in the near future. For Obama to engage in an Inauguration that was a complete celebration of liberal, progressive values, then that would be alienating a HUGE chunk of the population – and how would that be different from GWB.
This is an admirable move by Obama. Obviously, he is more willing to be inclusive than some of the other so-called 'progressives,' who populate the blogosphere. He clearly knew he was in for some flak, and unfortunatley, he is recieving it from people who have forgot two of the core tenets of progressivsim (as least as I interpret them) - open-mindedness, and willingness to dialagoe with, rather than demonize, your enemies.
Part One:
This is one thing that the left does often, which always befuddles me. Whenever the right/far-right is in power, all we hear about is how partisan they are, how divisive they are. How they seek to demonize and characterize their opponents such that the view of the world as shades of grey becomes morphed into a view of the world in black and white. However, what this author - and many of the other Warren opponents are doing - is essentially the same. Let me preface by saying I am an NDP-Liberal voting Canadian (so technically progressive that oh...90%+ of Americans. I am strongly pro-Same Sex Marriage, and for the most part, hold peronsal views which could be considered by some to be 'anti-religious'...I call them pro-Humanistic).
As already pointed out on this board - Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage is, on the scale of the LGBT-rights by most evangelical pastors, moderate. So for one to call him 'homophobic' and 'bigoted' is really no different from GWB or Cheney demonizing their opponents as 'anti-American' or 'unpatriotic.' Both instances are ad hominem attacks that merely reduce the intelligence of the writer.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
