It seems safe to say that President-elect Obama doesn't give a damn what we think of the choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation
>
"Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn't need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.''
-- Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, on the announcement that Pastor Rick Warren will give the inaugural invocation
by Ken
By now I imagine everyone has heard the news. Certainly from the time it oozed out this afternoon, it has spread like wildfire over the blogosphere, and in particular over the liberal blogosphere. Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddlebrook megachurch will give the invocation at the presidential inauguration.
There's plenty of time, and plenty of reason, for fulminating, but first I think it's important to keep in mind that the announcement of the selection of the celebrated right-wing evangelical power broker and die-hard homophobe was bracketed with the announcement that the benediction will be given by the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the hugely admired civil rights leader. (There will also be performances by Aretha Franklin, violinist Itzhak Perlman, and cellist Yo-Yo Ma, among others.)Here is Michael Paulson's post from early this evening on the Boston Globe website:
EVANGELICALISM, POLITICS
Obama taps evangelical for inauguration
Posted by Michael PaulsonPresident-elect Barack Obama (right) has tapped Rick Warren (left), the most prominent evangelical preacher of the post-Billy Graham generation, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. The decision was announced today by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.
Warren pastors the Saddleback Church, a megachurch in Orange County, California, but he is best know as the author of the best-selling "Purpose Driven Life" and its many spinoffs. And Warren has been a forceful advocate for reordering evangelical priorities -- he does not support abortion or same-sex marriage, but his public priority has been combatting AIDS in Africa, and he has criticized the politicization of evangelical Protestantism.
Warren has hosted Obama several times; in 2006, he invited Obama to speak at his church on World AIDS Day (an invitation that drew some criticism of Warren from the right); in August of this year Obama and the GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, were interviewed on live television by Warren in an election forum; and earlier this month, on World AIDS Day, Obama offered taped remarks praising President Bush's work on AIDS, which was being recognized by Warren at Saddleback.
The choice is winning praise by anti-abortion groups that have been concerned about the Obama administration. The Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody blogs, "Pro-life pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at President-Elect Barack Obama’s inauguration. It makes a whole lot of sense. Even though Warren and Obama disagree on the life issue, they do see eye to eye on many social justice issues. This move is also classic Obama because it is a signal to religious conservatives that he’s willing to bring in both sides to the faith discussion in this country. Obama has never shied away from that."
But advocates for abortion rights and same-sex marriage are furious. People For the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert called the choice "a grave disappointment,'' citing Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, and writing, "Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn't need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.'' And blogger Andrew Sullivan, under the headline "Ugh" wrote: "Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."
(Photo taken at Saddeback Aug. 16 by Mark Avery/Reuters.)
There was apparently some effort to spin the news by fobbing it off on the inauguration committee, chaired by Senator Feinstein. But that's so silly as to be insulting. Does anyone believe that the committee would do anything, anything at all, against the wishes of the president-elect? I'll go further: Does anyone believe that any decision by the committee has been or will be made without clearance from the president-elect's people? Not a chance.
I'm going to assume that the objections to Pastor Rick are too obvious, and audible around us, to be worth enumerating here. If his selection for the invocation was not intended as a kick in the teeth for those who believe in women's reproductive choice and those who believe in equal rights for LGBT Americans, that was accomplished nevertheless.
I don't think the thinking here is mysterious. It's not just a matter of "inclusiveness." It's surely an attempt to bring more people into President Obama's planned Really Big Tent -- to recruit and perhaps even coopt people who aren't already part of the Obama coalition.
Since the president-elect truly doesn't seem to care what progressives think, I guess all we can do -- beyond making our share of nasty noise -- is to hope that he's right about the possibility of bringing people with such contrasting views together to find shared solutions. Me? I'm more persuaded by the argument Digby made for us the other day about Republicans. (I think she would agree that it's even more true of the Christian Right.)
[Republicans] really do believe that bipartisanship is date rape -- they have done for the past 30 years. And there aren't any Republican political professionals who didn't come up in that school. To them, this is what politics are all about. Since they have paid no price for this beyond a fairly even ebb and flow of electoral politics there's been no reassessment of their methods. Dems don't play the blame game. Republicans do.
Dealing with a ruthless obstructionist opposition party that always operates in bad faith and never misses an opportunity to weaken the president was always going to be part of Obama's challenge. (And it doesn't matter if the public hates it -- the whole point is to wear them down until it's just too exhausting to resist.)
Clearly, President-elect Obama believes otherwise. I hope he's right. I hope we aren't looking at an administration whose policies are going to be tailored to acceptability by Pastor Rick.
#
Labels: inauguration, Joseph Lowery, Obama, Rick Warren
posted by KenInNY @ 6:50 PM
11 comments
|
Reddit
11 Comments:
All well and good that Obama bracketed the Warren choice with a genuine civil rights hero in Lowry, but until he has a gay or lesbian member of the clergy involved in the inauguration, it's not a big tent, it's an insult. I think we should push for the inclusion of a GLBT clergy person to participate. I like to see them give half of the invocation standing right next to Warren since he claims he doesn't, you know, hate gays.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a fuck who is giving the benediction, or who else is on the program.
I find it deeply offensive that this hater Warren has been given any kind of credence at all by Obama, now and before.
I am not GLBT. And, I don't need to be one of those letters to tell me that this "choice" turns the clock back, and gives credence to haters and asshole right-wingers.
People might ask "what was Obama thinking?" Yep, I got a pretty good idea of what he was thinking. And, it was basically "fuck you", all you dumb ass liberals.
Okay, I better stop before I become even more incoherent in my outrage.
Oh, and if this was merely a "fuck you" to liberals, yeah, well, that's pretty much expected from Obama.
No, it's way worse than that- it's a "fuck you" to anyone who believes that all people should have equal rights in this "great country of ours".
When Obama said that he would talk to a sworn enemy because ignoring them doesn't accomplish anything...in reference to Iran...the progressives cheered.
But if he wants to do the same thing within our own country and include the people who want to stand outside and tear things down...that's now wrong?
Who give is shit who is doing what up on some political speechmaking stage? Ignoring the religious right has made them powerful, butting heads with them just gives one a headache...co-opting them seems like a new strategy.
It's still a little purposely driven creepy.
"Ignoring the religious right has made them powerful, butting heads with them just gives one a headache...co-opting them seems like a new strategy."
No, it's the same strategy that the moderate Democrats have been employing unsuccessfully for over a decade:
1) Get spit upon by the Religious Right for having Unchristian, Non-Family Values.
2) Talk reasonably to them about all the things you've done that are in line with comments made by Jesus.
3) Get spit upon again by the Religious Right for having Unchristian, Non-Family Values.
4) Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
It's gotten so bad that when a very few of the Religious Right big leaguers spoke up to point out that yes, maybe the moderate Dems have point, they've been kicked out of their organizations. This isn't news.
My point, I guess, is that you don't try to embrace a powerful madman wielding a knife who has killed dozens of people that have tried to embrace him, just ahead of you in line. You are not the odds-on favorite, either for your choice of weapon--a hug--or the results that have so far been achieved with it.
And embracing a right-wing homophobe who has slandered gays for years, and thrown lies about like they were confetti? I suppose it's a kind of change from the King of Change, but it's not the kind of change most of his supporters were thinking of when they ran around sallivating over Obama. Personally, I expected as much, since he is a moderate-to-conservative, and I never bought into the change meme. But others did, so this is a rude awakening to them. Perhaps Obama should have tried a gentle nudge instead of a kick to the ass; and maybe they'll kick right back, too. We live in interesting times.
I have never had any delusions about Obama and I can't stand Rick Warren or any of his horrible kind, but the speech Obama will give on January 20th is the most important he will give up to that point. Maybe, just maybe, some percentage of Warren's millions of followers will now watch Obama and listen to his words who would not have tuned in otherwise. And, maybe, just maybe, a few of them will start to heal. The only thing that is certain is that if they don't watch the proceedings, they will just go on being the ignorant, hateful people that they are, continuing to damage our world as they go along.
Ida, I think the best response to the comment you present was made today by Adam Serwer, and is a lot better than my own remarks on this subject:
"It's possible to interpret the decision to include Warren and Lowery as another Lincoln "we are not enemies but friends" moment, an attempt to bring the religious right and religious left together. The only problem is the most offended parties, the LGBTQ community and the women Warren equates with Nazis, are not in any symbolic sense present to make the choice to be friends or enemies. Had Obama, say, chosen a gay pastor and forced Warren to make the difficult decision of whether or not to appear, the situation might be a bit different."
A good point Balakirev. I, too, would like to see a gay pastor on the program. It would have made Warren's choice even more difficult even though he is already getting serious grief from the right for accepting Obama's offer. A gay pastor might have opened some previously closed eyes but then, without Warren on the program, the ones that need their eyes opened the most would not be tuning in to begin with. I just think acting like George Bush would and has will get us nowhere.
Well, I listened to Thomm Hartmann push spirituality and prayer today. So what is that about?
I am more and more offended by religion of any kind as I get older.
Maybe Rick's male prostitute will come forward with the truth about Rick's sexual history before the inauguration. Let's hope so.
Post a Comment
<< Home