Sam Stein
At his press conference on Thursday, Barack Obama for the first time addressed the flurry of protest that has erupted over the choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation.
<...>
The remarks came after progressives and, in particular, the gay and lesbian community criticized the president-elect's decision to give such a prominent role to a pastor whose views on torture, gay rights, and stem cell research don't align with Obama's stated agenda.
Indeed, the backlash against the Warren selection has been swift and fierce, putting Obama's inauguration team largely on the defensive. A source sent over a copy of talking points making the rounds among the president-elect's staff in order to rebut these critiques. A transition official would not confirm or dispute the material, but did acknowledge that it sounded "an awful lot like what I have been saying."
- This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.
- In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.
- Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren's leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.
- The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.
- As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.
- The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
- And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.
The inclusion of Rev. Joseph Lowery, an icon of the civil rights movement and a respected progressive voice is, perhaps, the Obama team's most obvious defense. One progressive pastor I spoke with on Wednesday, who was critical of the Warren selection, said she would have been fine had the two pastors merely switched spots in the program.
But the inclusiveness of the inauguration is an important point to stress as well. At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other's company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in '04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.
Update reaction from blogs:
Obama is not so much using the left as a foil here as he is using division and polarization in general as his foil. The question that just won't go away, however, is why campaigning against division and polarization by picking an equally radical choice on the left to give the invocation would be politically unthinkable.
Such a decision would be met not just with screams from the right, but outrage from middle-of-the-road pols and pundits all over the country. But the pick of Warren is only generating outrage from the left, so it doesn't matter, and indeed, it's good for Obama politically, we're told.
To be clear, this state of affairs isn't Obama's fault, obviously. It's just an apparently un-mutable fact of our political life, for reasons that are beyond this blog's pay grade to grapple with.
Late Update: Aravosis
wants to know when we're going to be asked to politely agree to disagree with haters of other groups.
linkI'm really starting to think that the Obama administration really doesn't care what the so called "far left" thinks anymore than they do what the "far right" thinks. We are the same people who's voices he said would not be drowned out by special interests, and now he's treating us like we are the special interests.
But there you have it, straight from the transition team and the President-Elect's mouth. He picked Warren, and he's going to stick with Warren (too bad he didn't have that much conviction when it came to letting Rev. Wright give the invocation at his initial announcement, they didn't agree on everything either, yet Rev. Wright got the axe).
linkThis certainly sounds reasonable. Obama wants to bring people together and focus on what unites Americans. He supports gay rights, but he's willing to engage prominent figures like Rick Warren, even though they disagree. Indeed, Warren reached out to him in 2006, and now Obama, as a sign of respect, is doing the same thing in return. It's a symbolic gesture about inclusiveness and the importance of diversity of thought.
I get it. In fact, it's a noble and admirable goal. But Warren is still the wrong choice for the inauguration.
Consider it this way: imagine the Obama White House were to host an inter-faith dialog on the great moral issues of the day. President Obama and his team want a lively discussion with a variety of competing ideas, and invite a wide variety of pastors, including Warren, to participate. There may be some who would say this is wrong -- that Warren's conservative believes should necessarily disqualify him from being invited to the White House. If, under those circumstances, Obama responded by saying, "There are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented -- and that how it should be, because that's what America's about," I would agree without hesitation.
But that's not what we're talking about here. There's only going to be one invocation at Obama's inauguration, and it will be delivered be a conservative who strongly disagrees with Obama on gay rights, reproductive rights, foreign policy, and modern science. I'm a huge fan of diversity of thought, and if Obama and Warren want to have a spirited dialog, I'd no doubt find it fascinating. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Indeed, in Obama's response this morning, he seemed to suggest he was returning a favor -- Warren invited him to speak at his church, so Obama is inviting him to speak at his inauguration. The problem, of course, is that the two are in no way comparable.
I'm afraid Obama's decision, at its core, is ironic. In the name of tolerance, he's elevating someone who's intolerant. In the name of acceptance, he's extending an imprimatur to someone who refuses to accept those unlike himself.
link
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
