Rick Warren and Respect
Selecting Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation -- effectively giving a presidential endorsement to Warren's self-anointment as "America's Pastor" -- is a Sister Souljah moment for Barack Obama, a demonstration that he's willing to disregard the concerns of a key constituency. It's not his first, but I think it's the saddest, the most hurtful.
During the primary campaign Obama angered his supporters in the blogosphere by voting for the FISA bill granting retroactive immunity to telephone companies that abetted illegal spying. He had said he would support a filibuster of the bill, and he did -- but when that failed, he voted for the bill.
After winning the nomination, he angered labor by appointing an economic team full of proponents of "free trade" -- a turnaround from the primary campaigns in industrial states, where he competed with Hillary Clinton over who was a fiercer (or, perhaps, more disingenuous) critic of NAFTA.
And early in his transition, he caused concern in the peace movement by naming a national security team full of people who supported the war in Iraq, topped by Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. Obama's opposition to the war was the big issue that distinguished him from other top contenders for the Democratic nomination and won him his earliest support. Now prospects for withdrawal from Iraq are getting murky, and military escalation in Afghanistan looms large.
After running as a candidate of change, Obama is emerging as a president of restoration. These are the politics that brought us a Gingrich Congress and helped usher in the disastrous Bush years by dispiriting key segments of the Democratic base.
Warren's selection has nothing to do with policy, and that just makes it a more
gratuitous insult.
Inauguration Day is shaping up to be a momentous celebration of a new, broader foundation for national unity. Yet on that day, millions of gays and lesbians and their friends and families across the country will get a sharp poke in the eye -- a message that we are marginal and expendable.
Warren has sought to back away from his comments insulting and degrading gay and
lesbian relationships, but they're on the record. His church refuses membership to "unrepentant" gays and lesbians. No matter how sweetly he speaks as he tries to justify himself -- and he is a sweet-talker of the first rank, on par with the President-elect himself -- that is bigotry, plain and simple.
Reaching out to political opponents is all well and good, but it must be based on the principle of respect. Rick Warren has a ways to go in that regard. (There are evangelicals, like Jim Wallis, who share much of Warren's social conservatism but have actually demonstrated a capacity to "disagree without being disagreeable." Warren has not. And there are lots of outstanding religious leaders who are women.)
But while Warren's prospects for spiritual growth and social awareness may interest us, it is Obama whose capacity for principled leadership concerns us all. And it may be that he too has a ways to go. A ceremony of national unity is no place for a president to display his so-called political "toughness" by disrespecting people, particularly people who have given him crucial support and who have tied their hopes and dreams to his star.
This sorry episode, on top of previous slights to constituencies, makes one thing clear: Obama supporters should be prepared to stand up for principles when the new president leans toward accommodation.
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
Thanks for the great discussion! I wish I'd noted Pastor Rick's comments on abortion as another example of his inability to disagree agreeably (to say the least). Meanwhile, it doesn't seem like he's taken the opportunity of all this attention to talk about climate change or poverty -- he's used it to hammer away at gay rights advocates ("Christophobes") and, as Rachel Maddow showed, to lie about his previous statements. Forget civility, let's just shoot for honesty.
I don't suppose Obama's experiences this year with the Pastors Rick and Wright will lead him to reassess his call for Democrats to talk about religion, and the appropriateness of religious claims by political candidates in a nation whose Constitution bars religious tests for political office. He should.
I've always been struck by the illogic of Obama's statement that because he's a Christian, he opposes gay marriage. It's a false syllogism because many Christians support gay marriage (notably his former denomination, the United Church of Christ). He should say, because I'm a Christian who opposes gay marriage, I oppose gay marriage. Otherwise he's implying that Christians who support gay marriage aren't really Christians. This is territory he should avoid.
By the way, I like Obamaismyguy's suggestion that civil unions be open to all and marriages left to religious congregations. It seems to me that the ban on gay marriages violates the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom to those congregations whose beliefs would lead them to make marriage available to gay people. (more)
I have a lot of mixed feelings regarding this issue. I understand the historical significance of the invocation, yet I feel that in today's world it creates unnecessary drama.
The fact of the matter is no one will ever be happy with a minister chosen to give the invocation. I don't dislike Warren. He's done some wonderful work with charity and he's one of the only evangelical ministers I'm aware of that rallies for environmentalism. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, but I respect him for the charitable work that he has done and promoted.
Barack made this pick to reach out towards evangelicals. Like it or not, there are a lot of them and they are part of this country too. He's trying to make as many people feel included in his inauguration as humanly possible. Rick Warren and the people of Saddleback were kind enough to invite Obama to their Civil Forum during the election, and I believe Obama is re-paying the favor. Also, Obama was a pretty controversial candidate for a lot of evangelicals, a lot were in fact quite scared of him (which I think is ridiculous). When one of their leaders agrees to participate in the inauguration ceremony, this sends a powerful message to Christians that it's ok to accept this guy and that we need to all come together as Americans and focus on our similarities, not our differences.
Where was all this outrage when Bush made decisions that costs lives and money?
Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, is Evangelical; but, unlike Rick Warren, he is NOT a fundamentalist.
He has a blog section on his website and no one objects to pro-gay marriage comments and some of the bloggers who create topics approve of same-gender marriages. Tony Campolo has posted comments on the blog and while he does not (or at least did not) support gay marriages, his wife does.
Bible-thumpin' fundamentalists claim that Jim Wallis is an extreme left-wing liberal; but, he is a middle of the road moderate. After all, the KJV Bible has the words "let your moderation be known of all men" in a New Testament book.
The following is from the US Constitution regarding all that is necessary for a person to take the office of the President of the USA:
>>> Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
None of this big to-do coming up on January 20, 2009 is even necessary.
True. But new presidents and many voters like to make a big deal out of it, and it's not paid for with tax dollars, so... so what?
To anyone who said this was a calculated decision on the part of the president elect, YOU'RE RIGHT!
He has shown himself to be thoughtful, intelligent and not prone to making off-the-cuff decisions. Often to be criticized for not moving fast enough.
I am convinced (NO, I'm not speaking for you or anybody else) that the president elect selected Warren and Lowery both with the very intent of putting these matters on the public stage. He could have stuck with a light and fluffy, fun and non-controversial event and a lot of people of would have just sat back on their laurels waiting, for gawd knows what, but waiting. As it is he has enjoined himself in this struggle and he's made clear his point of view and he's enjoined others (cough, Rick Warren) into a very public debate as well and from not only the first day but the first minute of the new administration - the battle is afoot (or a hand or leg or something). Not just to be forgotten after a bunch of pretty words during a campaign. This isn't a sucker punch or slap in the face to anyone. It's keeping a promise to everyone.
And yes, I'm completely aware what Warren has said, tried to unsay, etc. I've followed evangelical politics for years. I refuse to give him my power because he doesn't define me. I do.
"This sorry episode, on top of previous slights to constituencies, makes one thing clear: Obama supporters should be prepared to stand up for principles when the new president leans toward accommodation."
Why is this a bad thing? We know the President has to factor in diverse points of view when it comes to leading the United States. He has to figure out a way to keep an overall vision in addition to factoring in opinions that everyone doesn't agree with.
Individual citizens, on the other hand, have the luxury of being able to cherry pick issues that are important to them. I'll go as far as to say only very naive person reasonably thinks Obama's actions are always going to match their wants and needs.
Personally, if Obama aligns to my opinions over 50% of the time, I'll be grateful. It's about being realistic. Acknowledging that the world isn't a fairy tale. There's give and take all the time.
Hear, hear!!!
Stop making assumptions!
No one said that criticizing the Warren pick means one hates everything BO. Stop with the extremens. If you want an evolved conversation and an evolved country, people need to stop with this "all or nothing" attitude. People can speak out on this single issue without it meaning they are giving up on BO entirely or are criticizing everything about him.
And don't be so niave. Yes--citizens cherry pick issue but it should be the SYSTEM, not necessarily the president, that seeks compromise/accomodation. Compromise is usually met NATURALLY through debate and negotiation in the USA.
The president (at least one I prefer) usually has a strong point of view and an agenda and then gives and takes on certain things to get what he wants done, which ultimately leads to compromise. BO's agenda and point of view IS compromise. He's doesn't take a firm stand on anything--he stands for what we would likely have if the system played itself out without him. Perhaps there are certain things that standing u pfor accomodation makes sense to move debate forward, but come on....this usually happens naturally on it's own.
BO ran on accomodation and compromise. I never much liked it and would have preferred a fighter, but I voted for him in the GE and think he's going to be just fine and perhaps great.
Finally! A great post.
The saddest part is that Warren is so unnecessary, politically or otherwise.
Without Warren, the inauguration would be a joyous, exultant occasion. If Warren delivers the invocation, the inauguration will be remembered as a day Obama glorified a hate-filled bigot. The negative memory will linger not only during Obama's presidency but throughout history.
Warren's invocation is only a small part of this historic event. I don't think he has the power to ruin it unless you give him that power. I will be joyously watching.
This inauguration will be quite joyous for me.
This is the best of the anti-Warren postings I have seen, and its logical argument is solid. I certainly agree that we need to forcibly advocate a progressive platform. The trouble is that it continues to make the same intellectual error others have made: it still tries to cast the mantle of a 'progressive' onto a candidate whose self-proclaimed 'post-partisan' message explicitly rejects any such label.
I voted for President-elect Obama, I am glad he will be our next president instead of John McCain. I didn't vote for him in the primary. I considered it, because of the lack of availability of alternate choices and because I was unwilling to vote for Senator Clinton's essentially neo-conservative foreign policy record, but in the end I chose not to vote in the primary. However much I find fault with his decisions right now, I have to consider that I would find more fault with those of President-elect McCain.
That said...
I don't expect him to advocate meaningfully for my political principles.
If 'progressives'/liberals want to be able to be proud of a liberal president then we must proudly nominate a liberal candidate. The only two candidates who genuinely support ALL of I what I see bandied about as the' Progressive Platform' were Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Instead of supporting either of them, the majority of 'Progressive Democrats' lined up gleefully behind their preferred choice among the two most conservative candidates.
Worth a repeat:
"...it still tries to cast the mantle of a 'progressive' onto a candidate whose self-proclaimed 'post-partisan' message explicitly rejects any such label."
Well said.
although Obama never campaigned as anything but a centrist , given that he is what we have to work with there is absolutely no reason people should not make full use of our rights to speak freely to declaim bad choices and raise our voices for better ones.
saying "I told you so" doesn't really seem to be a viable working position
This is exactly what I have been saying to my friends. They ask me what I think of the Warren pick as a gay person--I say, "Outraged, but not surprised."
Obama has been extremely centrist from day one. His message of bi-partisanship/post-partisanship is all about compromise, which has nothing to do with liberal.
His message of real change was never genuine.
That's all folks.
I am amazed that so many are jumping on PE Obama for his INCLUSIVENESS.
"I am amazed that so many are jumping on PE Obama for his INCLUSIVENESS."
Would you still be "amazed" if he had asked Rush Limbaugh instead? Warren was the wrong choice. Period.
Rush Limbaugh?! Now that would be just be too funny.
The Limbaugh comment is not even comparable. We are talking about a traditional invocation. Traditionally, it has been offered by a religious figure. Rick Warren, as despised as he might be by the GLBT community, is still a generally popular religious leader and he took part in the campaign with a broadcast from his church with both presidential candidates. I have no problem with Warren giving the invocation. It is a signal to me that Obama will not be beholden to one small segment of the nation.
inclusive of intolerance ?
Bingo.
Like the old Tom Lehrer line: "The world is full of intolerant people. And I hate people like that."
Rick Warren's Christian doctrine holds that homosexual acts are sinful. A very large portion of the American populace holds the same belief. Last I checked, he supported civil unions with benefits equivilent to marriage.
Oh stop making sense tbone!
Inclusive of everyone. Is there really any US religious figure that isn't intolerant of some group? Perhaps he's trying to start a conversation? Until he does something to undermine LGBT civil rights legislation, I prefer to trust and believe.
So this is how it goes? It's your way or the highway. You'll support Obama as long as he makes decisions you agree with. You voted for him so he owes you complete allegiance. Obama has "thrown you under the bus". (please find new phrase) After reading many comments replying to many blogs, this is how I'm hearing it.
The gay/lesbian community is not the only group responsible for electing Obama. I'm an Obamacan and there are many of us. I don't imagine that I'll always agree with every decision he makes and I'll let him know when I don't. But I won't expect that he will be able to please everyone all the time. I will, however, continue to give him my support as he tries to do what's best for ALL of us. I wouldn't have chosen Warren but I don't see it as a reason to be outraged. And don't tell me that I don't understand because I'm not gay!! I voted no on 8 and I do understand the desire to have equal rights. I think the choice of Warren might have been a brilliant statement....a lesson for all of us.
Here we go with the straw man argument. It's either what we believe or what a demagogue believes.The choice of Warren is disrespectful of gays and lesbians who just suffered a major defeat in their fight for equal rights. That's where this begins and ends. For a PE who ran such a good campaign not to be able to foresee that is troubling. It bespeaks of a general indifference to gay and lesbian concerns. That's the point. This was needless provocative and insensitive at best. At worst it was a pointless, calculated Sista Soulja move to curry favor with a part of the electorate that will never vote for Obama. Either way, it stinks.
If you aren't gay, you really cannot understand. You are not a second class citizen. If you fall in love (or fell in love) and decide to make a legal commitment (or decided to make a legal commitment), you can do it with no problems. And, in fact, it will be celebrated by friends, family, and your society. Once married, you will enjoy many societal benefits and, as psychological research shows, you will increase your chances of having a longer and healthier life.
I also expect that you and your significant other walk hand-in-hand down the street with no fear of being attacked. Try having a loving relationship that must be CONSTANTLY censored in public because folks like warren think you are no better than a pedophile and that you are literally doing satan's work on earth. Then you might understand why there is a reason to be outraged.
NEWSFLASH-- *If you are white in America, you are NOT a second class citizen!! Find another argument, that one doesn't belong to you period!
"The gay/lesbian community is not the only group responsible for electing Obama"
It really has very to do with a special interest group and EVERYTHING to do with the promise of America- equality, respect for the individual and inclusiveness to pursue your dream. It has to do with a level playing field and and the embrace of diversity that America has the potential to show for the world.
Thats why electing a Constitutional lawyer seemed to be such a beacon of hope in so many ways.
And the letdown so painful
Great post libbygirl!
Tell me how many Gays, Lesbians and Transgenders have disowned their families when the families rejected their homosexuality? I know many gays who are terribly disappointed in their families' rejection, but are still keeping the lines of communication open in hopes that their families will become more educated.
Would somebody just drop me some of the Gay andLesbian communities 'bonafides on the 1960 civil rights marches, affirmative action, equal opportunity in housing, and employment.? When you question someone else's commitment to these issues, others have the right to question yours. I have heard far to many statements from the Gay community using my people's 300 years of beatings, lynchings and murders as a battering ram to reach their goals...but did they have their feet on the ground walking the talk in the 50s, 60s, and70s, when the black community was being lynched, beaten and killed and affirmative action was being challenged? What? you didn't agree with affirmative action? hmmmm.
It is this kind of response that is provoked when you challenge someone else's commitment to the central question of equal rights for all...you show me yours and I will show you mine! . Someone offered in another post, that Rick Warren would have had Obama sitting at the back of the bus, but can the Gay community given its majority constituency tell me that none one of its members would have been helping Rick Warren show Obama his seat. I don't think so.
Having marched on picket lines from the age of five,... having met MLK, Fanny Lou Hamer, and many others as a child of a Civil Rights activist family...as the great grandchild of a slave, and as an African American lesbian, I can say that I am hurt, angry, frustrated, and saddened by Obama's callousness in picking Warren. I am tired of the assumptions that the entire LGBT community is white. I am tired of Warren's choice being framed as a "reaching out to those we disagree with." This isn't only about politics---it's about people, human beings, our lives. I am hopeful, yet hesitant about PE Obama for all of the reasons listed in the article, but this last blow has been the most devastating. It reveals a complete lack of understanding of how it feels to be LGBT in this country. And to be black and LGBT has its own unique set of challenges. I pray Obama takes the backlash to heart and even if he isn't willing to rescind his invitation, that he learns from the experience.
I'm sure Obama will recieve backlash from many decisions he makes in the next 4 years and he will continue to do what he thinks is right. He has great tolerance for disagreement.
Very, very eloquent. Let's see how many people actually understand what you said.
Singforpeace,
I get what you are saying. I am sorry for your hurt, anger, frustration and saddness. You are not alone. It seems that Gays of color are collateral damage to the racial tensions still going on between White and Black people.
I predict one day a Gay leader will rise up and stand up to the religious leaders and take them to task in our Federal Courts without fear of the case going up to the US Supreme Court. She has been born, she has the skill and she is coming. Look for her she will appear in late 2009.
Thank you...
I mean, what makes it so difficult for me is that I can see and understand both sides of the story. I don't like it when gays (who I am presuming to be white) scapegoat blacks for the failure of Prop 8 in California (as if noone else voted). On the other hand I have seen, rants on here by those who I presume to be black rattle on and staddling the homophobia fence (and sometimes they go full blown). anghiari, do you know the names Bayard Rustin and James Baldwin? There were black men and women that marched in the 60's that were gay and lesbian and discriminated against by people like you...
It's strange you've never heard of Bayard Rustin then. He was MLK's right-hand strategist: Black *and* Gay. The reason you probably have never heard of him was because he was basically thrown away by the leadership. Because he was Gay.
Because he was Gay.
I am exhausted of the "more-marginalized-than-thou" game. At its core, that argument goes that because you haven't suffered as much as we have, your cause - and therefore your civil rights - are not as important as mine. Does the fact that more African Americans are victims of hate crimes make the loss of a Matthew Shephard or a Lawrence King any less of an outrage. Sadly, these kind of arguments are dividing those who should unite for ALL of our benefit.
Very well said!
http://www.pubrecord.org/religion/583-proselytizing-in-the-military-likely-to-continue-under-obama.html
Proselytizing in the Military Likely to Continue Under Obama
Barack Obama's decision to have the evangelical megachurch leader Rick Warren conduct the invocation at next month's presidential inauguration proves that fundamentalist Christians still wield enormous power within the federal government and will likely continue to be a dominating force under an Obama administration.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the U.S. military where, for the past several years, in apparent violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, chaplains have openly proselytized to thousands of active-duty soldiers and, in some cases, have tried to convert Iraqis and Afghans to Christianity.
This man, Rick Warren is given tremendous power....but NOT by Obama ...but by the gay community who is acting as if this man has so much power that they are trembling in their shoes. It is a disservice to Rev. Lowery who is a friend of the gays and more importantly human rights. For after everything is said and done...human rights should be the focused and not who someone sleeps with. This goes for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I am far more than who I sleep with. I am a human being and I do not feel the need to constantly tell others I am their equal based upon my sexual orientation...I am a human being simply because I am....I just happen to be heterosexual and female. I do not need to continually promote my private parts as some rite of passage just because I am a woman...I am able to have my thoughts and views and long to be perceived as a person. Which should be the highest goal of any group of people that feels oppressed. After all, isn't that the ultimate objective in the first place?
I am glad you don't feel it is your concern to tell others what you do in the bedroom, because you're right -no one is interested. Now imagine Rick Warren telling everyone that what you do is the same as, incest or sexual child abuse. And he doesn't even know you.
Next imagine him spending vast amounts of money to annul your marriage and again he doesn't even know you.
Wouldn't you wonder why you weren't being perceived as a person?
What Rick Warren says is based on his religious beliefs and there are many who believe as he does. Whether you agree with him or not, he is entitled to his beliefs and he has the civil right to state them without reprisal. Pastor Warren happens to be in the majority on the issue of homosexuality. That is to say, a majority of the citizens of the world believe it to be a sin. Ranting and whining won't change the hearts and minds of those people.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
