he meant it
I'm not a fan of Rick Warren, and I'm not thrilled with Obama's choice to invite him to give the invocation at his inauguration. But, you want to know what my main response is?
Obama really meant it when he said he wasn't going to be president of the red states, or blue states, but of the United States of America.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
well, that’s a positive way to look at it, i guess. but this isnt about red or blue. this is about bigotry. prejudice. representing everyone is not the same as *giving* a very public forum on a very symbolic day to someone like warren.
separate is never the same as equal, and obama ought to know that. i feel like charlie brown, having run at the football yet again. sigh.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Amen, sister.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Hey, that was kind of freaky. I too thought — but this is about being a bigot, and then I saw that the other bj has beaten me to the comment section.
I am unhappy with this choice.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I third what the other bj said– while I would like to be positive, the fact is this guy is anti-me, anti-my sister, anti- my brother. I mean that both figuratively and literally. I understand why Obama made his choice, but he needs to understand that just ’cause he’s more “blue” than “red” doesn’t mean he gets a free pass from criticism when he decides to share the stage with a man who HATES me and my family.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I am still hopeful here. I think when it comes down to it Warren (unlike many of his ilk) is persuadable. He’s already backed off a lot of his earlier more hateful language in order to focus on things like poverty, hunger, etc. Maybe inviting him into the conversation is what it will take.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Throughout this (minor, I suspect, in the grand scheme of things) controversy, I just keep thinking “pick your battles.”
Yes, we all voted for change, but Warren is really a friend of Obama’s (from what I’ve read/heard) and his views on other issues do veer from “traditional” Christianist views (poverty, etc). As he did in the campaign, Obama has shown he wants to work things differently – I lost track of the times I would have totally risen to the GOP bait (Wright v. Hagee for example), and the Obama campaign resisted. Can you imagine the GOP’s feigned outrage should Obama have selected Rev. Wright?
I’m in no way trying to diminish the very real hurt that the LGBT community is feeling. But isn’t taking absolutist stands part of what we voted against? In my mind, the most important thing about this election is that perhaps we are growing up as a country – the last 8 years having been adolescent, frat-boy, with us or against us bravado. We have to start this growing up process somewhere, sometime. Through actively engaging those with whom we disagree, we look for common ground and seek common goals.
One final point: I suspect, but don’t know for sure, that the Christianist community is probably threatening to disown Warren as one of their own. That he is going to bless the presidency of this Muslim Marxist Socialist Liberal non-citizen, says to me that Obama has thoroughly ticked off both sides – and that’s a good thing, right? (Couldn’t resist. :-))
December 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I agree with you. I disagree with Warren’s views on gay marriage and abortion, but I’m pleased with Obama’s decision to invite him because it really does represent some change.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I think Obama should be inclusive and bring all points of view to his adminstration. But what is a point of view? I think views on abortion, stem cell research, the bailout, ethanasia, creationism, etc., are all points of view and we have to respect both sides of the argument. But homosexuality is not a choice and does not involve “point of view.” Warren believes homosexuality is a sin. This is just plain wrong. I don’t think many straight people (and I’m straight) get it. I have 2 brothers. One gay. One an evangelical Christian. The evangelical loves his brother and “forgives” him. This drives my gay brother crazy. For awhile, I thought they should understand each other’s point of view and respect each other’s viewpoints and move on. But I finally understood just how unfair and HURTFUL this was to my gay brother. My Christian brother’s views are just plain wrong. My brother was born gay. It’s what HE IS. Warren’s view of gay people is evil. Just like Jim Crow was evil. Jeez, should he invite holocaust deniers to the inauguration? Members of the KKK?
December 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
My comment to my husband the other morning, when I first heard the brouhaha on NPR, was that I voted for Obama b/c he’s a thinker, and can make his own decisions and stand by them, and so I’m not going to jump ship when I disagree with him. There’s no way he can please all of us, not with the pedestal we placed him on. and I’d hate it if he tried.
That said, I’m no fan of the bigoted christians.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I would like to say that my own personal and vocal opinion that this was a poor decision that is insulting to many, many progressives (Warren’s not *just* anti-gay marriage, though that is bad enough) _especially_ in the wake of Prop 8 and Warren’s role in that campaign. This does not mean Ive “jumped off the ship”– it’s not an all or nothing game when it comes to supporting a President.
What is an all or nothing game is civil and human rights. You cannot compromise with the Warren’s of the world on issues like gay marriage and abortion. What would that look like– you get 50% of marriage benefits? I get a 50% share in autonomy over my reproductive system? And giving him a national platform, talking about opening up the dialogue with his views– that won’t get us civil and human rights.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I think the reaction Obama supporters have to this is indicative of what will be whenever Obama ventures to the center left or conservative right during his presidency. Obama is not in favor of gay marriage, but rather civil unions. Many religious leaders are anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion; I think it would be difficult for him to find one that was not and not have a huge outcry from the right. Yes, he did campaign that he would create change and bipartisanship, but we had 8 years of extreme right conservative principles, so picking Rick Warren seems like the same.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“What would that look like– you get 50% of marriage benefits? I get a 50% share in autonomy over my reproductive system?”
No, you get 60% (or 3/5).
Obama either doesn’t *get* this issue, or he chooses not to out of political expediency. Hopefully he will learn. I didn’t use to get it, either. I certainly wasn’t anti-gay, but I didn’t realize that it is the civil rights issue of our time.
Now, I understand that like Hillary Clinton organizing voters in Texas, or the white boys who went south, that this is an issue I could ignore but need to choose not to. As a brown person, the choice of ignoring bigotry isn’t usually available to me. I’ve always admired those who understood that bigotry is evil even when you’re not a target, and this is my chance to prove it.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Steven Waldman says that Rick Warren allegedly practices reverse tithing–he gives away 90% of his income.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/in-defense-of-rick-warren_b_151878.html
I know very little about Warren, but I was just reading a very long 2003 piece on him at Christianity Today, which is the NYT of the Evangelical world. I think the article is very helpful in understanding what Obama would see in Warren.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/october/17.32.html?start=1
The article is about Warren and outreach to Africa, especially Rwanda. It would be interesting to see how Warren’s Africa programs are working out. I recently finished reading William Easterly’s “The White Man’s Burden,” and Easterly is very critical about the kind of one-big-solution program that Warren seems to be pushing. Easterly instead encourages the use of lots of small, tentative solutions with measurable results. Easterly also criticizes traditional development for its top-down approach, and its lack of receptivity to homegrown solutions. From my reading of the Christianity Today article and what he said about his dealings with African pastors, I suspect that Warren may actually be very receptive to local answers and homegrown solutions, which would be a big plus. It seems like enough time has gone by that it should be possible to evaluate the results of Warren’s work in Africa.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Sorry–the Christianity Today article came out in 2005. It deals with events starting several years earlier, though.