I saw two people -- apparently a husband and wife -- turn their backs on Rick Warren during the invocation. Given the moment, the feeling of hope and togetherness in the crowd (despite the near mob conditions to get in) the act seemed petty. Small. One can deplore some of the thing the man espouses without becoming smaller than he is.
As Obama said in quoting scripture, we must put aside childish things.
Showing posts with label Rick Warren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Warren. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Melissa Etheridge: The Choice
Sister Melissa writes this after she meets and talks to Rick Warren:
Yes, we can.
Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention.
We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but
before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful
people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But
there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning
to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we
consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands.
Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer
for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for
HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.
Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.
I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.
Yes, we can.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Rick Warren, Obama and Race
A reader writes me a hypothetical: What would Barack Obama have thought in the 60s if a president had included a preacher in his inaugural who preached that interracial marriage was a sin?
Most likely the preachers who spoke at inaugurals in 50s or 60s DID think interracial marriage was sinful. They surely must have thought and preached that premarital sex was sinful, so Obama's parents were likely doubly condemned.
Warren's religious beliefs lead him to declare homosexuality and gay marriage sinful. That's his right. And Obama has declared he does not share this view. I don't think we gays win anything by demanding someone be excluded from the inaugural because of what he or she believes. We can and should oppose them on the policy front. But prevent him from saying a prayer?
These blessings don't have the import you give to them. Who gave the invocation at Clinton's inaugural? What did he or she say? How did it shape the outcome of the Clinton Administration?
There is a double standard here and it seems to me to be this one: We supported Obama and were willing to overlook the fact that his pastor claimed white people invented AIDS to kill black people. We believed Obama that Rev. Wright didn't inform his views on that topic. Why are we so unwilling to accept Obama's denunciation of Warren's view of sinful homosexuality? His relationship with Warren is far less substantial than his one with Wright. And on the subject of gay marriage Warren and Obama do agree: one man, one woman. We knew Obama's position on this (sadly) before the election. His reaching out to Warren doesn't surprise me, especially given Warren's work in other areas (aid to Africa, which is important to the President-elect)and that fact that Warren's views on homosexuality are (also sadly)part of the Christian mainstream.
It also doesn't surprise me as I re-read Obama's speech on race.
He said:
"I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together."
That's Obama's overriding goal. To achieve it he cannot afford to be governed by what he, we or anyone might consider moral purity. Common ground must be found even between fierce foes. This point becomes clearer as Obama talks about black rage -- which he thinks is justified. Nevertheless:
"The anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems...and prevents the African-American community from forging alliances it needs to bring about real change."
Another part of Obama's race speech also offers insight into how he might see Warren. Referring to the most divisive and and outrageous comments of Wright, Obama reflects:
"But the truth is, that isn't all I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another..."
You get the point. Obama is not the type of person who rejects someone completely if he finds one thing he is vehemently opposed to in a person. Human beings are complex animals and Obama recognizes this. That's a welcome relief from the us vs. them mentality that has been disastrous for our country.
Again, I do agree that we can't give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt on following through on policy. I'm more alarmed by Rahm Emanuel's lowering expectations on DADT. That's directly relating to policy, and its far more important than whatever prayer Rick Warren will say on Jan. 20.
Most likely the preachers who spoke at inaugurals in 50s or 60s DID think interracial marriage was sinful. They surely must have thought and preached that premarital sex was sinful, so Obama's parents were likely doubly condemned.
Warren's religious beliefs lead him to declare homosexuality and gay marriage sinful. That's his right. And Obama has declared he does not share this view. I don't think we gays win anything by demanding someone be excluded from the inaugural because of what he or she believes. We can and should oppose them on the policy front. But prevent him from saying a prayer?
These blessings don't have the import you give to them. Who gave the invocation at Clinton's inaugural? What did he or she say? How did it shape the outcome of the Clinton Administration?
There is a double standard here and it seems to me to be this one: We supported Obama and were willing to overlook the fact that his pastor claimed white people invented AIDS to kill black people. We believed Obama that Rev. Wright didn't inform his views on that topic. Why are we so unwilling to accept Obama's denunciation of Warren's view of sinful homosexuality? His relationship with Warren is far less substantial than his one with Wright. And on the subject of gay marriage Warren and Obama do agree: one man, one woman. We knew Obama's position on this (sadly) before the election. His reaching out to Warren doesn't surprise me, especially given Warren's work in other areas (aid to Africa, which is important to the President-elect)and that fact that Warren's views on homosexuality are (also sadly)part of the Christian mainstream.
It also doesn't surprise me as I re-read Obama's speech on race.
He said:
"I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together."
That's Obama's overriding goal. To achieve it he cannot afford to be governed by what he, we or anyone might consider moral purity. Common ground must be found even between fierce foes. This point becomes clearer as Obama talks about black rage -- which he thinks is justified. Nevertheless:
"The anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems...and prevents the African-American community from forging alliances it needs to bring about real change."
Another part of Obama's race speech also offers insight into how he might see Warren. Referring to the most divisive and and outrageous comments of Wright, Obama reflects:
"But the truth is, that isn't all I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another..."
You get the point. Obama is not the type of person who rejects someone completely if he finds one thing he is vehemently opposed to in a person. Human beings are complex animals and Obama recognizes this. That's a welcome relief from the us vs. them mentality that has been disastrous for our country.
Again, I do agree that we can't give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt on following through on policy. I'm more alarmed by Rahm Emanuel's lowering expectations on DADT. That's directly relating to policy, and its far more important than whatever prayer Rick Warren will say on Jan. 20.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Rick Warren II
You're either with us or against us.
Remember that? Wasn't that type of rigid "thinking" part of what we wanted to change from? The whole didactic "us vs. them" mentality that has made our politics poisonous and our government ineffective?
One of the comments I read was from a fellow traveller who whined, "After working so hard to get Obama elected, this is how he repays us?"
Actually, I would hope we wouldn't settle for a pro-gay preacher to say a prayer as "repayment." That's an awfully small reward. I'd hope instead for pro-gay policies, which Obama says he is in favor of and which I think we need to follow through with him to give him support and pressure to make it happen. If I thought all I was going to get from an Obama administration was symbolic gestures to make our community feel good, why, I would have voted for Hillary.
Obama said throughout the election (and I heard him say it several times throughout Nevada, personally) that he wasn't always going to tell us what we want to hear. Guess what? He's delivering on that promise. He's telling us that he is going to deal with all Americans, and that includes the mainstream who are opposed to gay marriage, many of whom, like my own family, believes it is a sin.
It also means he's going to deal with -- and work with -- us. If Obama were playing ideological identity politics, banishing from his administration or state events those who didn't meet a checklist of ideological purity that fit the politics of the moment, we might feel better. Today.
But while we might fit on the list today, politics can change and we might not fit tomorrow.
This is what the big tent feels like. It's full of things that we admire, things that fascinate us and things we fear. And if you're going to have a big tent, there's bound to be a few clowns.
Rick Warren is a clown and this controversy is a circus. Let it go -- there are serious things we need to focus on, like repealing DOMA and DADT.
Policies are what is important, not prayers.
Remember that? Wasn't that type of rigid "thinking" part of what we wanted to change from? The whole didactic "us vs. them" mentality that has made our politics poisonous and our government ineffective?
One of the comments I read was from a fellow traveller who whined, "After working so hard to get Obama elected, this is how he repays us?"
Actually, I would hope we wouldn't settle for a pro-gay preacher to say a prayer as "repayment." That's an awfully small reward. I'd hope instead for pro-gay policies, which Obama says he is in favor of and which I think we need to follow through with him to give him support and pressure to make it happen. If I thought all I was going to get from an Obama administration was symbolic gestures to make our community feel good, why, I would have voted for Hillary.
Obama said throughout the election (and I heard him say it several times throughout Nevada, personally) that he wasn't always going to tell us what we want to hear. Guess what? He's delivering on that promise. He's telling us that he is going to deal with all Americans, and that includes the mainstream who are opposed to gay marriage, many of whom, like my own family, believes it is a sin.
It also means he's going to deal with -- and work with -- us. If Obama were playing ideological identity politics, banishing from his administration or state events those who didn't meet a checklist of ideological purity that fit the politics of the moment, we might feel better. Today.
But while we might fit on the list today, politics can change and we might not fit tomorrow.
This is what the big tent feels like. It's full of things that we admire, things that fascinate us and things we fear. And if you're going to have a big tent, there's bound to be a few clowns.
Rick Warren is a clown and this controversy is a circus. Let it go -- there are serious things we need to focus on, like repealing DOMA and DADT.
Policies are what is important, not prayers.
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Other Preacher at Obama's Inauguration
The Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights icon (he marched with King) and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He's an African-American pastor who has spoken out for gay rights and is in favor not only of gay clergy but of same-sex marriage (the latter making him more progressive than Obama).
And he's giving the benediction at Obama's inauguration.
And Lowerey's inclusion doesn't mean Obama's changed his position on gay marriage, any more than Rick Warren's inclusion means Obama's backed away from civil unions and the repeal of DOMA.
Policies matter more than prayers.
And he's giving the benediction at Obama's inauguration.
And Lowerey's inclusion doesn't mean Obama's changed his position on gay marriage, any more than Rick Warren's inclusion means Obama's backed away from civil unions and the repeal of DOMA.
Policies matter more than prayers.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Rick Warren
An overblown issue. Calm down, people.
Do you remember the preacher who gave the invocation at the Clinton inaugural? And the influence exerted by that individual over the ensuing eight years? I don't either. In fact, that person wasn't even mentioned in the WaPo story of the Clinton swearing in.
I've seen no evidence that Obama is changing his mind about any of his pro-gay positions. And although I don't care for Rick Warren's positions on gay people, he probably doesn't care for my positions on gay people.
Frankly, I don't care which witch doctor casts his spells over the inauguration (why is a religious element a part of a matter of state, anyway?). I care about the policy positions of the guy being sworn in. And although I think we need to be taking nothing for granted and hold Obama's feet to the fire, this whole controversy is a sideshow. Not the main event.
Do you remember the preacher who gave the invocation at the Clinton inaugural? And the influence exerted by that individual over the ensuing eight years? I don't either. In fact, that person wasn't even mentioned in the WaPo story of the Clinton swearing in.
I've seen no evidence that Obama is changing his mind about any of his pro-gay positions. And although I don't care for Rick Warren's positions on gay people, he probably doesn't care for my positions on gay people.
Frankly, I don't care which witch doctor casts his spells over the inauguration (why is a religious element a part of a matter of state, anyway?). I care about the policy positions of the guy being sworn in. And although I think we need to be taking nothing for granted and hold Obama's feet to the fire, this whole controversy is a sideshow. Not the main event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)