Re: Rick Warren: Why Not?

[Bertha Venation]

If Obama based his choices on each individual's stand, he wouldn't be able to appoint very many people. Same with Warren giving the invocation. I don't know exactly why he was chosen or whose decision was the final one. I don't like it at all. But exclusion based on homophobia would rule out a lot of people being chosen for this administration and even for the ceremonies. ("Hidden" homophobia is still homophobia.)

Obama has to be inclusive. If that means including someone who is respected by many Americans but derided by others, so be it.

Flames & pile-ons will be ignored. I'm thinking out loud here. What are your thoughts?

[Phredicles]

1. Wouldn't that same reasoning extend to exclusions based on racism,

or sexism, etc.?

I don't like being disappointed in Obama. It hasn't happened very often, thank goodness. But right now I'm disappointed.

[snappyturtle]

2. When I think of Rick Warren I do not see a religious man. I see a man who

has figured out what triggers modern man into accepting his philosophy...not religious belief. Shallow.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Let's see, he's anti: Jew, Catholic, gay, pro-Choice, evolution. In general, ALL we stand for. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Hi Bertha, I guess it's the line in the sand thing for me. I wouldn't invite a known racist to

speak at a public gathering just for inclusion's sake, so ditto for known homophobes. And Warren is far more than just that.

(How ya doin', btw? :))

[hlthe2b]

5. Love ya, Bertha Venation, but please quickly don...

this flameproof suit....

Emotions on this forum are far too raw I suspect right now to avoid the flamethrowers.

[Bertha Venation]

24. and my skin is thin, but I THINK

I think a lot, and this is what's running through my mind.

Flamethrowers don't give much credit to the process, it seems. It is only the conclusion that matters, and they seem to miss that I haven't stated mine.

Anyway, thanks. :)

[Malikshah]

25. You think. But many of us do as well. Rick Warren is a public

homophobic bigot being given one of the most public forums. Once every four years-- hundreds of millions watch the person give the invocation. Hundreds of millions of world citizens will see an avowed bigot give the invocation for the inauguration of our country's first African American president.

That's a hell of lot different than the argument you are putting forth.

[Bertha Venation]

35. I did not mean to imply that I alone am thinking. n/t

[WillParkinson]

6. Obama has to be inclusive...

Please read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x100204

When this happens THEN we can discuss inclusion.

It never ceases to amaze me that when he brings homophobes to center stage (Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren) he's being "inclusive". If he were to bring someone who insists that a woman's place is in the home or that blacks have no business mingling with whites or that Hitler was right would we still call that being "inclusive"? How would you react to that?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

11. Hear, hear. nt

[SidDithers]

7. Lots of people are homophobes, therefore they should be represented?...

But that's just giving legitimacy to their insipid views. Bigotry, in all its forms, should always be excluded. No exceptions.

Sid

[Lex]

16. Agreed. What if he invited David Duke the renowned racist

in order to be inclusive to racists?

[stillcool]

8. I think it was a mistake..

I don't think he should have been invited to the party.

[Mari333]

9. then, inclusive would mean

that Obama should also allow a Klansman to speak, to include the neonazis in America.
its the same thing.
when he does that, then the Warren choice will make sense.

[Neecy]

10. Nice.

You know, over the years I've given a lot of money to Democratic politicians, including Obama, only to be shit on once the election is over. I hoped for different this time and oh boy, was I wrong.

I guess 'change' doesn't apply to us - it's the same old shit, different messenger.

This man equates my relationship to child molestation. You say 'inclusive', I say fucking bullshit.

[Bertha Venation]

23. I say "thinking out loud." Did you miss that part?

Shall I not think, then?

[jhrobbins]

38. Yeah, but you wrote it down which changed the dynamic entirely.

Thinking can be, and perhaps should have been in this instance, a private thing.

[Bertha Venation]

39. deleted

No need to cause more flames.

[tigereye]

43. I like how you are trying to mull this over, Bertha and I admire your willingness

to do so. :hi:



NPR seems to think that he was included so that Obama can extend some kind of a branch to evangelicals and this Warren guy is "ostensibly" (hard to know for sure) trying to move evangelicals away from some of their previous positions, particularly on abortion, and trying to have a church model more based on concerns about health and poverty than those problematic 'cultural concerns."


However, Warren's positions on marriage as a whole and his rejection of many things that I hold to be important make me scratch my head.... Obama could easily have picked some one from the evangelical community who was less of a lightning rod - maybe from more progressive branches of the evangelical movement, if that is the message he wanted to send.

All in all, I don't think this is the right message - maybe he is trying to assuage the fears of RWers that it won't all left-oriented positions. Heaven forfend, as if we haven't had enough of the alternative for the last 8 years.... :eyes:


It's hard to say :shrug:

[BeFree]

12. He is sucking them in

So that they get close enough so he can reach out and smack 'em good upside the head.

They need a good head whacking right? Figuratively speaking.

[RoyGBiv]

13. I couldn't care less ...

My fundamental problem with it is I don't believe we should have prayers to a Christian god during governmental events at all. I have been waging that battle in whatever way possible as long as I've been aware of the political process. What this particular preacher believes or doesn't believe, hates or doesn't hate, supports or doesn't support really means little to me.

He shouldn't be there at all.

It doesn't change anything about my opinion of Obama.

[Marrah_G]

14. How about a KKK guy? or maybe an anti-Semite? or do gays not really count as important?

[laststeamtrain]

15. "Rick Warren: Why Not?" 'Cause he's a pig. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

17. I truly feel sorry for you. I will leave it at that. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. I Agree With You. It's Not Like He Appointed Warren To A Friggin Cabinet Position.

That's what some here are making it out like. It's just an irrelevant invocation. Without the over the top outcry, almost nobody in public would've even given a fuck or had any idea who was doing it. The outcry just gives him attention. But I think it's a good thing that Obama is being so inclusive as it relates to the inaugural ceremony. Shows he's a man of his word.

[Fumesucker]

21. What if he invited someone who was admantly against breast cancer research?

Someone who thought that curing breast cancer with medicine was disobeying the will of God?

Would you think "he's just being inclusive" in that case?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. I Wouldn't Treat It Like The End Of The World, That's For Sure.

If this person was merely giving Obama a physical? No, I wouldn't give a rat's fat ass. Nice try though! :hi:

[Fumesucker]

49. I've read enough of your posts to know that when your particular ox is gored you squeal the loudest

Of all.

I have no doubt at all that you'd go right through the roof.

And I wasn't talking about someone giving Obama a physical, I was talking about someone invited to give a blessing to his administration.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Your Lack Of Doubt Shows Your Lack Of Insight, Clarity And Perception.

Because I can factually say that even given the scenario you've chosen, I wouldn't bitch about it at all, let alone go right through the roof.

And giving him a physical would be the direct comparison to warren giving the invocation; if there was such a thing as an inaugural physical. The outrage is overblown to the max. You'd think Obama had just chosen him to be in charge of Education or something.

[Fumesucker]

55. I'll let the readers decide who is making an accurate prediction here and who is blowing smoke..

You have a lengthy track record of outrage here.

[SteppingRazor]

19. To quote Lincoln: "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

For all the outrage on DU over Warren, how much outrage is there at places like FR that Warren has accepted this? For how many right-wing fundamentalists has Rick Warren just become a pariah? For how many has the best possibility for mainstreaming their movement just gone up in smoke?

[Mari333]

20. FreeRepublic wont vote for Obama because of Rick Warren

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2150765/posts

if anything, this makes them even more angry. now they hate Warren also.
backfired!!

[hlthe2b]

28. Freepers now hate Warren too? Then there is some benefit...

to this whole debacle.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Well

Abe did do a bit of very actual destroying of his enemies, as we all know. Gues that friend thing does not always work out as planned.
Rather than a movement gone up in smoke, this is a movement changing to the winning Party.

[tigereye]

44. thanks for an interesting perspective, as usual, SR

:hi:

[SteppingRazor]

46. Mind you, I'm not saying I'm all for a Rick Warren appearance at the inauguration...

I'm just saying there's about 200 sides to every story, especially where politics is concerned, and the Warren thing does have its upside.


And thank you very much for the compliment. :)

[tigereye]

48. yeah I think it sends a really confusing message and angers and saddens

many of his supporters. I would like to have seen a gay, inclusively- minded pastor give it, instead.



you are welcome!

[tsuki]

22. 'Swinging Dick' Warren is also a misogynist and an anti-semite.

Glad Obama is being inclusive.

[Rebubula]

26. Where to start

"Obama has to be inclusive. If that means including someone who is respected by many Americans but derided by others, so be it."

A lot of Americans support and respect David Duke and the Klan...perhaps we should include them.

A lot of Americans support and respect George Bush....perhaps he should get a speaking slot.

Apologizing for assholes leaves a bit of stink on the defender.

Being anti-gay is indefensible.

FORWARDS...NOT BACKWARDS

[DarkTirade]

27. Because including somone who discriminates is excluding more people than he's including.

:shrug:

[Heidi]

29. Why not just invite the daddy of young Adolph Hitler Campbell

to give the invocation? Hate is hate. One does not demonstrate the concept of inclusion by giving bigots a place of honor.

[Lyric]

30. "respected by many Americans, but derided by others"

No, you have that wrong. He's respected by SOME Americans, but he DERIDES and DEGRADES others. I haven't seen anyone here deriding Rick Warren. Criticizing him, yes. Cruel derision? No.

[PVnRT]

31. Why at the inauguration? Why not hold some kind of inter-faith discussion

to talk about inclusiveness and reaching out? Why deliberately pick someone you know is going to piss off a large chunk of your supporters?

[Mosby]

36. That's the key point I think

Obama could have picked any minister for the invocation but chose Warren. If the idea was to be INCLUSIVE then he should have picked a minister that would do a NON-DENOMINATIONAL invocation, which is obviously not the case with Warren.

[blueraven95]

32. Bertha,

I agree with you that Obama should be inclusive. However, I think that there are ways to be inclusive without alienating those on your side. As in, choosing Warren is not an inclusive action, but rather an exclusive action, because it indirectly condones Warren's viewpoints. For instance, it secludes the GLBT community.

Speaking personally, and putting aside GLBT civil rights for a moment, as a Jew and as a woman I am offended by the choice of Rick Warren, but I can tell you that there are many, many Christian clergy who I would not be offended by. It seems to me, that if there is going to be an invocation, which in and of itself seems incorrect because of our separation of church and state (yes I know it's a long standing tradition, but that doesn't necessarily make it right), then it should be someone a little more middle of the road - who doesn't offend, as much as possible, either end of the political spectrum.


I wrote basically all of this in a letter I mailed to Obama's office this morning. :hi:


edit: to fix stupid typos and a missing word.

[Bertha Venation]

34. I appreciate what you've said.

Very much, BR. :hi:

[blueraven95]

40. oh good.

I was afraid as I was writing it that I wasn't making much sense. :)

[LuckyTheDog]

37. If we are a civil society...

... then we have to learn to be civil to people who disagree with us.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

41. But isn't this more than just a disagreement...............

Doesn't Warren advocate the denial of rights for a whole swath of the population of this country? At what point does an issue go from a "disagreeable" issue to a wholesale denial of civil rights?

I'm all for debating and being civil w/ folks who's views differ from mine, but the inauguration is not the place for that discussion.

[LuckyTheDog]

53. My guess is that Warren's prayer...

... will not touch on that issue. Sure, I disagree with Rick Warren, too -- on a lot of issues. But it is wrong to judge a person entirely based on his/her opinion about one issue.

I have a great aunt who probably agrees with 99% of what Rick Warren says about gay marriage. Yet, I also know her as a generous, loving person who would never turn away a needs person from her door and who has done a lot of good in the world during her lifetime.

I really would rather have seen a black Unitarian woman minister from Chicago (yes, I have a particular person in mind here) selected to give the prayer.

But I don't despise Rick Warren for being misguided and narrow-minded. Nor do I think his wrong-headed views about gay marriage make it impossible for him to say something nice and meaningful about other topics. I'm willing to hear what he actually says before I condemn his prayer.

[cwydro]

42. I agree with you.

There are too many other things to be outraged about.

People still dying in Irag, for one.

I do not understand his choice of this man, nor do I like it - but I think he has a reason for it.

[Taverner]

45. As long as that nut is kept away from policy, I'm fine

[Kali]

50. I wonder what his real reasons are.

I'm with the faction that wishes we could keep all religion out of government, but I am disappointed in choosing this individual as well. I would love to know the thoughts behind the choice.

[musette_sf]

51. anyone ignorant and vile enough to follow Warren

is NEVER going to change their mind or their vote. we don't need them. Obama has lost my trust.

[deaniac21]

54. Wrong is wrong.