Choosing Pastor Warren: Callous or Cunning?
Like the rest of the progressive world I've been trying to figure out why the usually so careful Obama team would give Pastor Warren the pole position speaking at the inauguration. Certainly in the short term it was an unnecessarily insensitive choice, and it's disturbing to see many unquestioning Obama supporters like CNN's Roland Martin try to rationalize it.
In the short term the choice is needlessly hurtful to all the tens of millions of homosexuals, relatives of gay people seeking equal protection under the law for their loved ones, and progressives.
But what if the Obama team is thinking more than just one move ahead on the chess board? What if they plan on actual actions to bring long overdue civil rights to the nation's last unprotected minority? Wouldn't they need to peel off a few leaders from the religious right? Wouldn't relatively reasonable Pastor Warren be one of the most logical people to start with?
I'm not saying don't be hurt and incensed. Scream, yell, protest. I'm just saying let's revisit this decision in a while and judge it again.
The reality is that right now priority number one is the economy. Nothing else will change until it does. Priority two are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unrest in Pakistan. Those issues will take at least two years to wrestle back into some state of control. But if Obama succeeds on those two fronts then he will have unprecedented political capital.
Let's see then if he spends it on the social issues that will finally transform America into a more caring, more modern democracy.
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
Can we start by investigating Saddleback's tax status? As we are discussing Separation of Church and State....and if one looked at the website....there is not separation. If the site decides to change/or remove articles...I have them saved.
Callous
Bottom Line is to govern it takes 50% +1. ( OK 60 in the Senate in cases that are challenged.)
To get a consistent 50+1 you need more like 65% conditional support. That means Rick Warren. If you get your feelings hurt maybe you need to look at yourself. I am gay, I get more support in my life from straights than I have ever gotten from gays.
Gays need to get out of the victim mode, one way or another we are all victims. Clean up your own house before you chastise others for thye dirt in theirs.
Rick Warren is a pompous windbag that has little understanding of what he does or says. Money seems to be his main motivation. But he is a citizen, too. and if he is in that 65% we need, let him Invocate away.
He is NOT in the 65%. Try 16%.
I "HOPE" one day he will come to see his views as an embarrassment, and "CHANGE" his narrow opinion. Just like those that supported ANTI-MISCEGENATION laws up to the middle of the 20th Century. I am disgusted with his choice of a bigot pastor. What a pandering fraud. I am glad I didn't vote this year, or I would feel so betrayed. I was suspicious of his sloganeering and insincere rhetoric from the start. You know what they say, "if its too good to be true...".
Where's all this "CHANGE" he talked about?
Big Agra/Ethanol at Dept of Agriculture
Heads of failed banks at Treasury and the Fed
Reversing his WINDFALL PROFIT TAX ON OIL COMPANIES (saw that one coming...the Dems pulled that crap in the mid-term elections).
blah blah blah
Just more of the same.
I am sorry you are so full of hate and bitterness. Obama has already proven he is different, and just like he promised, he is going to try to focus the nation on areas of agreement, not disagreement.
Hey Jim -
Can you get married legally? I would bet you can.
Thanks for safeguarding the rights of the minority so vigorously.
Where do you see hate in pastdue's post? Hate is equating my relationship with partner with something as vile as pedophilia as Warren has. Hate is saying that my love for my same-sex partner is something immature and that I need to somehow channel to someone of the opposite sex as Warren has said. Decrying the huge disappointment that giving a national stage to a bigot like Warren is not hate. It's pointing out the obvious.
"Just because people are not pro-Gay does not make them anti-gay "
if they believe gays are the equivalent of rapists and pedophiles, they are anti-gay. if they believe that this view should be upheld at an inauguration, they aren't neutral. believe what you want in your churches. but there is no way a civil event should include this garbage.
That is an extreme spin on what he actually said. And do you know what Warren will do at the inauguration? He's going to give a 3-minute general prayer, and... that's it. How is that garbage?
Warren's social views aside, where do I begin to describe how a three minute general prayer is garbage at the presidential inauguration in a supposedly secular nation.
Trey: If you believe, even for a minute, that Obama's going to push for civil rights for gay people, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you. Obama is sucking up to Rick Warren. He's selling out on his first day in office. I'm looking forward to another 4-8 years of Obama selling out his base. I jsut wonder who's next?
I am sorry you are so angry and bitter. Obama believes in gay rights and will continue to work for them, no matter what you believe.
You mean disappointed and skeptical. We now see Obama's rhetoric for what it is. Only real actions will change the perception that he is a lot of talk but when it comes to "inclusion" will gladly include bigots to the offense and exclusion of lesbians and gay men.
He'll continue? When did he start? And Jim, just so you know, a speech and some nice sounding sound bites do not equate to a record of fighting for gay rights.
IF the "Obama team" has a rationale for this choice, they better start talking in full sentences to explain it ASAP.
IF it is considered a 'political choice' - OBAMA LOST.
IF it is considered a 'deft maneuvering' - OBAMA BLEW IT.
IF it was considered the "RIGHT" thing to do.....OBAMA needs to tell US what "RIGHT" is.
I am disgusted and NOT in the mood to give any BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
Three DOUBTS, and yer out.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84uxZ8g1EMM&feature=related
I am sorry you are so angry and bitter and can't see the bigger picture. Obama's views on gay rights have not changed.
You keep saying that but you don't explain.
I'm sorry you drank the Kool-Aid and can't understand anything we're saying.
As a beginning Buddhist I am appalled at the Christian mythology that is being used during a government ceremony! (just joking - I don't think any religion belongs in the swearing in of a president of the United States.) As for putting your hand on the bible, in most circumstances, Joseph Heller's book, "Catch 22" would be a better and more realistic book to chose.
Actually as a long time non-Christian, I am used to ignoring the ignorance of some leaders of all the religions.
Just think of Rick Warren as another idiot with a couple of minutes of blather to ignore. Later on in the ceremony, I would bet the Reverend Lowery (?) will be much more interesting. As a man who worked along side Martin Luther King Jr, he has a good perspective of what this day really means to America.
Rick Warren is not only anti-gay, he is anti women's rights, I hope Michelle gives Barack hell over this.
You go girl!!
And Barack: remember the seperation of church and state!
That is exactly how this should be viewed - some guy giving a dumb prayer! Big whoop. Everyone will forget it the next day.
This is not the first time that Obama has "allied" himself with people in the anti-gay camp.
Remember Donnie McClurkin, an antigay singer and crusader who has railed against "the curse of homosexuality"? Obama included him in a campaign gospel tour in the South 14 months ago, despite outrage from civil rights activists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/us/politics/25obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
To be fair to Obama, he said in reference to McClurkin that he believes that all viewpoints should be included under his umbrella and those whose postures are anti-human rights should be "taught".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIQLwe-MmxY
The problem is that Obama has not established a Department of Teaching Human Rights to Americans, and literally millions of Americans have tried to "teach" their fellow human beings tolerance to absolutely no avail. Prejudice is as difficult to eradicate as religion. And when prejudice becomes political, it's reaching for power, not being taught anything.
So it seems to me that the best solution is to marginalize those who would trample on the human rights of others, not give them the spotlight, no attention, and simply leave them on the outside looking in at the benefits of America's rich diversity -- always keep a welcoming door open for the day when individuals one by one have a Eureka! moment and realize that we are all the same in ways that really matter, when they give up their hateful prejudices against others.
when we are equal we will have something to fight for, ...
Would you be saying that if he told you separate was equal for people with more melanin than Mr. Warren?
He doesn't have to tell us; we black folk already know it and yet we struggle everyday and have for years to make it better. So what's your point????? Let's talk when your struggle has a legacy of 100 years or so...
The modern gay rights movement was born in Europe a huindred and fifty years ago. Gays and lesbians in the western world have suffered under the tyranny of Christendom for 2,000 years. You may know a lot about the black struggle for equality and equal rights, but you know not a thing about the struggle for sexual rights.
As the ancestral daughter of abolishionists, equal rights for ALL people IS my struggle. BTW, I'm straight, not that that should matter, but it seems it matters to you.
What's YOUR point?
The African slave trade was inaugurated in 1441 by Antonio Gonsalves, the vassal of Portuguese prince Henry the Navigator. Gonsalves returned from the west coast of Africa with gold dust & ten slaves for the prince, as a demonstration of the potential wealth to be taken from Africa. Henry, in turn, gave the slaves as a gift to the Pope, who then granted Henry title to a huge chunk of African territory.
Our modern prohibition against homosexuality was inaugurated in 325 CE, when the Council of Nicea, under the Roman Emperor Constantine, gathered together various Jewish & early Christian texts & letters, then chose those which most justified the authoritarian, hierarchical slave state that was Rome at the time.
Most non-fundamentalist Biblical scholars concluded long ago that perceived injunctions against homosexuality were largely the result of translation errors over time. They were primarily prohibitions against engaging in sex with temple prostitutes, but the Bible as we know it was made up of translations from 2nd and 3rd hand copies of long-lost or destroyed originals. The errors were compounded when the King James version of the Bible was translated into English. Constantine himself, known erroneously as the first Christian Emperor, was a pagan until a deathbed baptism, so few doubt that he indulged in the love that dare not speak its name.
OMG - are people really this ign0rant?
The struggle for gay rights has a legacy of hundreds of years if not longer, arguably ever since Christian came to prominence in the West and the burnings at the stake began. So please let's not debate who has been oppressed longer. NOBODY should be oppressed.
if separate schools really had been equal, then the Brown v Board of Ed would have had to have been argued with different logic.
The fact of the matter is that since marriage conveys certain legal rights (rather than teacher funding, or physical schools, etc) it is entirely possible to create civil unions which are absolutely equal under the law to marriage. Obama has suggested that. That's not the outcome that I would like to see, but it would be a HUGE step forward, and would be a precursor to marriage. And the only difference would be the name.
The point is that sometimes you have to trust that the leader you selected is going to do what he said he was gonna do. You were right when you voted for him. Trust your judgment, and let him work.
I voted against prop 8 because it's not my inseam (non of my bizzznes.
Gays, bi, I'm against all of these acts but it's none of my beezzz wax. I think it's not my life so I consider it above my pay grade to decide how this or these people choose to live their lives. I have a few gay pals and I love them to death and they know my position but again it's their inseam not mine so I say to them "be happy"
I understand that gay people want to be considered as people and I want that for them, but we all have our opinions so let's disagree together, in a civil manner.
I voted for Obama and I'm willing to give him a lot of slack, especially since he hasn't even taken office yet. That said, there is no way to sugar coat that his decision to give Rick Warren a place of honor at his inauguration was monumentally insensitive after Prop 8.
It is now even worse because today California's AG asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8, and I have no doubt whatsoever that after (or even before) the inauguration, Warren will be very loudly and publicly fighting that.
Obama has shown he is tone deaf to the needs of the gay community and anyone who believes that gay Americans must be given their full civil rights.
That Obama thinks choosing the bigot Warren for a honored place in his inauguration is truly
shameful.
Maybe we should just get our heads out of the clouds (or some part of our anatomy)... wake up and smell the coffee.... All this figuring out his strategy, reading some meaning into his actions or motives... it is really very simple, Obama was VERY clear! He believes that marriage is between "a man and a woman". AND, gay people do not deserve the same rights as non-gay people.
Get it ! He is a biggot... no need for a lot of discussion! Obama has NEVER done a single thing to support the gay community! Like many "liberals" of the past "seperate but equal" is good enough for those whom are fundamentally "less than" under his "religion".
I see it more as a case of taking the path of least resistance.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
