Well, it's a good thing that breaking news isn't what we do here at Jungle Red, because we'd be way behind on this one. But it's a doozy.
The liberals are raving mad over the announcement that Rick Warren has been invited to provide the invocation at Barack Obama's Inauguration.
For those who don't know, "Pastor" Warren is the leader of the Saddleback Church, author of The Purpose-Driven Life, and has compared gay relationships to pedophilia and incest in the past. He's a charming fellow, that Rick Warren.
Hilary Rosen and Robert Zimmerman debated Roland Martin about the whole flap on Anderson Cooper's show last night (special kudos to Zimmerman, by the way - he was great), and Obama was asked about the flap at a press conference. His response wasn't terrific, but I imagine that the subtext sounds something like, "Wow, what a relief to not have to talk about the whole Blogojevich clusterf**k today."
So ... I've been thinking a lot about this today, and haven't really made up my mind about any of it. Where cartoons have long depicted a little angel and a little devil sitting on the shoulders of someone facing a moral dilemma, I often find myself with a little idealist version of me sitting on my left shoulder, fighting it out with a little realist version of me on my right.
On the one hand ... from where I sit, nothing about Pastor Warren speaks of inclusivity. He is, by his very nature, a polarizing figure. A lot of GLBT folks are saying that the day is basically ruined for them now that an unapologetically anti-gay figure has been given a platform by a guy they worked their butts off for. They feel like they've been slapped in the face.
On the other hand ... it's an invocation, not a cabinet post. As Obama's apologists have pointed out, there's a pro-gay preacher giving the benediction at the same Inauguration, and Obama has been an outspoken advocate of gay rights (with the notable exception of legal civil marriage for same-sex couples) throughout his campaign. Surely after all he's done, this is no reason to abandon Obama's message of hope and change. This is likely nothing more than a political move, designed to silence the evangelicals who think we're all going to hell after voting a faggot-loving Muslim into the Oval Office. And besides, a pro-gay preacher has been asked to give the benediction, so it's not like Warren's peculiar brand of faith will be the only one on display on Inauguration Day.
So those are the two sides to the debate, as I see it. And I'm still mostly confused. But little by little, the tiny idealist to my left is winning. But it's doing so with a realist's argument. Faith is a particularly touchy issue in these United States, but c'mon ... there have to be huge numbers of American faith leaders that could have been chosen to speak at the Inauguration celebration that would not have caused this kind of outrage. I'm upset because what should have been a day of immense joy and celebration has been tainted somewhat; I just know I'm going to spend the entire morning with the nagging fear that I and my adoptive lesbian moms (who plan on standing right beside me in the freezing cold on the National Mall) will be insulted by a bigoted asshole who was handed a microphone by the man who embodied diversity and inclusivity for us in 2008. But beyond my own personal feelings, this seems like Obama's first big political mistake. A lot of people are really pissed off about this, and it seems like he should have forseen that kind of response.
Instead, Obama says that we should "agree to disagree." Well, when it comes to some issues, he may have a point. But, as Robert Zimmerman so brilliantly and succinctly stated on CNN last evening, "this is not about the issue of gay rights. This is about individual respect for humanity and human decency, and Reverend Warren's comments disqualify him from that. He uses faith to preach fear." When it comes to respecting the basic humanity of all people, we shouldn't have to put up with differences of opinion. Either I'm a human being or I'm not.
If Obama, three or four months into his presidency, wished to invite Pastor Warren to the White House to talk about issues that they disagree on with others who agree or disagree with either one, that would be a positive step. I would actually welcome that. But this seems more like endorsement than engagement. And while I'm not peeling the Obama sticker off of my car anytime soon, I guess it really comes down to this: the little idealist and the little realist on my shoulders can argue all they want; I guess the one truth I can't quite get away from is that the whole thing just makes me sad.
So ... what do you all think?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Purpose-Driven Scandal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 whoop-whoop(s):
I don't like this at all. I hate that he did this, I hated when he had an anti-gay preacher with him at the beginning of his campaign against Hillary. That was one of the reason I went with Hillary. He would not bring a preacher that preached against Inter-racial marraige so why is he bringing a preacher that hates gays? It is because we are probably going to get put on the back burner. He is trying to get the fundies on his side. HE can't get them on his side with us sitting next to him.
Sage: I tend to agree ... what it tells me, loud and clear, is that anti-gay bias and anti-gay rhetoric is not seen as the same or even comparable to the evils of racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism. If a preacher who believed in white supremacy, male supremacy, or the supremacy of non-Jews or the able-bodied and spoke about it to the extent that Warren has spoken about the supremacy of heterosexuality, s/he would not be given this kind of platform.
So why the difference? The problem, as I see it, is that the heterosexist members of our society doesn't really believe that gay people exist. To them, I'm just a mixed-up heterosexual who does gay things. Gay is what I do, not who I am. And until we can figure out a way for those folks to "get it," we'll always be a second-class civil rights movement.
Oh, I have a lot to say about this - and will do my own post because the comments aren't big enough. I'll wait to do it until tomorrow, though.
I will say that I thought Obama's response was weak, and that I realized that he doesn't see us as equals, but as an "issue", and that bothers me. A lot.
Tens of thousands of gay Americans had their marriages nullified by popular vote just last month, and Rev. Warren was one of the leaders of that. I find the whole thing disturbing - and makes me wonder if Obama is tone deaf when it comes to our lives.
I am not happy with this at all... And I think Sage is totally right, we are going to be put on the back burner.
I felt let down when I heard about this. I've been having those "idealist v. realist" conversations with my eldest daughter for months now (see my comment on Maine Gay's post) so that part of your post really struck home with me.
If Obama, three or four months into his presidency, wished to invite Pastor Warren to the White House to talk about issues that they disagree on with others who agree or disagree with either one, that would be a positive step. I would actually welcome that. But this seems more like endorsement than engagement.
I agree. I think (hope) what Obama is going for, not just with this, but over all, is looking at the bigger picture, realizing that this country is dangerously polarized, and that we need someone to step up and find some way to start bringing those factions together somehow. No way that's going to be easy, no way that's going to please everyone. I think (hope) that he's willing to be that person to do it, and to be the target of the anger and disappointment that will surely come from that difficult process.
That's what I think (hope) must be going on, and I am willing to give him some trust and leeway to do that overall -- I know I couldn't do it, I'm feeling too pissy with the far Right -- but boy, this was sure a kick in the pants. Why THIS pastor?
I agree Red, this seems like a mistake. I think he could've accomplished the same goal of bringing sides together with some other preacher. This does seem like endorsement, not engagement, you got that down. I hope this is not an indicator of future priorities.
MG: Loved your post, by the way.
Lost: I'm not happy either, but ...
Cowbell: Now that the shock of the announcement has worn off, I'm seeing things in a slightly different way. I'm no happier with the situation than I initially was, but am more and more willing to give Obama a break and view this as a serious error in judgment as opposed to the intentional slap in the face it initially felt like. It's very possible that Obama is, as MG puts it, "tone deaf" to our concerns, and what the Warren situation enables us to do is provide him with a few singing lessons, as it were. I doubt that Warren's invite will be rescinded, but I am happy that the GLBT community and our allies are speaking up so forcefully in the wake of this huge mistake; I think that ultimately we're doing more good than Warren, in his symbolic role, can do us harm. And that's easier to live with.
Post a Comment