First of all I want to note that I used GOODSEARCH.COM for all my research and it works great so please check the previous post for details and chose a charity and get to doing some searching of your own.
I feel like going back and searching – ‘what the hell was Dianne thinking’.
I was doing tons of research about the Inaugural Invocation and Rick Warren and his ‘church’ and I was struck down numb. Just numb from the sheer amount of crap I had to read to fully understand Rick Warren. I always check all points of view and in doing so had to swallow hard and force myself to read garbage.
So – I had all my quotes ready and my links to sources and then I just set it aside. I went over to my Photo Blog and posted sky shots. I told myself it is the holiday season, just be happy.
Be happy and gay …
Oh wait! That would be a problem. I can be happy. Or. I can be gay. But …
I better not expect to be both.
Cause if I’m gay then I don’t matter. According to Rick Warren I would represent 2% of the population – I assume God checks Rick’s numbers for him – and I would be an “abomination” and 5000 years of goodness tells everyone that I don’t matter.
Why do I care about Rick Warren?
Because President Obama has chosen him to give the Inaugural Invocation. MY President!! The one I campaigned for. The one I donated money I couldn’t afford to part with to. My hope for better times – where ALL people are openly included.
I looked up ‘Invocation’ on wikipedia and a few other sources. Check it out - HERE. It reads like the definition of hocus pocus.
Why does a state ceremony require an invocation? Why can’t we finally live the separation of church and state? Obama said he was devoted to the Constitution – to bringing it back to the days before Bush. He further affirmed that he was dedicated to insuring that the ‘practice of America lives up to the promise of America’.
So he chooses Rick Warren …
John Adams took the oath of office with his hand on a book of US laws, not a Bible. Imagine that. That happened in 1825 and the country lived to tell about it. No religious forces were harmed in the making of that Inauguration.
In researching Rick Warren I came upon many people suggesting Rabbi David Saperstein would have been a better choice to give the invocation. I’m not going to agree since I don’t think there should be an invocation but I will share with you a bit of a speech the rabbi gave back when Bush was trying to ammend the Constitution to tell gay people they aren’t Americans …
The fight for equality is uniquely tied to the history of this nation. From the suffrage movement to the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement minorities in this country have worked tirelessly to achieve equal rights as guaranteed to them by the founding vision of the United States. As long as injustice remains pervasive within our community, we will continue this fight for equality until our dream of equal rights for all is realized.
This Amendment is not about protecting families. Certainly my family will not be hurt by giving states the freedom to recognize the committed relationship of two loving adults. How can two loving adults coming together to form a family harm family values? Are our families and marriages and communities so fragile and shallow that they are threatened by the love between two adults of the same sex? This bill is about targeting scapegoats; and as a people who have been the quintessential scapegoats of Western civilization; we stand with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters saying that this bill is immoral and unjust.
You can read more HERE
While reading about the rabbi that magic 2% number popped up again. Seems that there are ‘Christian groups’ who think the ‘Democratic party is being turned over to Jews’ and that ‘2% of the population is being encouraged to run the country’ – these comments and many far more offensive were published back when the rabbi was chosen to speak at the Democratic National Convention. I will not link to these sources. They do not deserve further exposure. Unfortunately they are easy enough to find anyway.
Imagine being a gay Jew. I assume hell has a special chamber for them.
Nana would have been heartbroken by the sites I found and their filth. She was always so proud to be an American. And a Jew. And she loved her gay son – my uncle Johnny – with all her heart. She knew. She didn’t care.
I have been so looking forward to the Inauguraton. So proud of the triumph of a man who means so much to me. So happy that someone who is of similar background to my own son became President.
I mentioned this to my son. And he rolled his eyes at me. He told me he doesn’t believe gays should marry either. He doesn’t see the sad irony in one excluded group having no problem excluding another.
Worse than exclusion! Rick Warren targets gay Americans.
I told him then he should believe his own marriage doesn’t count either.
And then I really missed Nana – she would have climbed on a chair and smacked him in the head. Gently of course because Nana believed in loving everyone. Even when they are so clearly misguided.
I guess I’ll need to mute at least one portion of the Inauguration.
My dear friend at PAGAN SPHINX posted about this as well. She is far more concise and eloquent than I am. And my deepest apologies to her for almost not bothering to post about this. I will not let that happen again.
If any one of us is neglected then we are all neglected.
46 comments:
I can feel your sadness pervading this post. I'm sorry too :(
It's difficult to hear that kind of stupidity persisting year after year, despite so many people fighting for tolerance. I have to admit that sometimes I don't have the emotional resources to watch the news. It's all just too depressing. I watch What Not To Wear instead - it always has a happy ending.
I wrote to the transition team to tell them how disappointed I was. How emotional I had been when he was elected and how I would not 'celebrate" with him. I won't be watching the Inauguration. Not with that person invoking the God of hatred and bigotry. Thanks for your post and BTW. give you boy a (light) tap on the other cheek from me. j
Maybe Obama should have invited Rev. Wright instead because he can't disown him any more than the black community. :p
Well, you're right, of course. I have already been to change.gov and left a brief story of my own, but I think I'll go back and leave one on how I feel about this. How about if we all go to change.gov and tell Mr. Obama how we feel?
I can't believe he did that. I think a lotof supporters are going to think this is a slap in the face.
I agree with many comments given here in that I do not believe the G&L community should be excluded from the rite of marriage and I sure as heck do not adhere to the preachings of this evangelical minister, nor any other right winger-type like him. However, after watching Pres.-elect Obama give his speech on why he chose this man -as a means of reaching out, including him and his group into this new presidential term -I then have to agree with his methodology. The objective is to bring people together -ALL people -not just those of us who supported his successful bid for this office. Until each and every group is made to feel their voice is important, the separation between US and THEM will only continue to widen. This is not to say I expect a miraculous change of heart by Rev. Warren but rather that bit by bit, overturning tiny pebbles instead of trying to move mountains, perhaps we can then, each of us, adapt to seeing others beliefs and work then to build those pebbles into mountains of our own choosing that will be better able to safeguard the rights of all. Just my own theory there. Kind of my own take on the "more flies with honey than vinegar" adage.
I think most of the people just have a problem with calling a gay marriage a marriage.
I was disapointed at Obama's choice for the invocation. If there even needs to be one. I wonder why he did that...
Yesh I am upset about this as well... I get the whole appeal to the other side thing, but this coice seem wildly wrong... becaus it IS wildly wrong.
Sad.. so very sad.
CG - I do feel sad, very sad. Sad that someone I believe so fervently in has let me down so deeply. I wouldn't be fair if I didn't call him out - especially in the face of all his opponents and detractors who called people like me "the kool-aid drinkers" when we were campaigning for him.
sparkling - me too! although what not to wear gets mean at times too lol
but I just can't ignore anymore - it started for me when I campaigned for Obama, it was re-enforced in me when Prop 8 won and now that I have a grandchild coming I want the world to be better - but good heavens it is exhausting.
jay - I don't know that I can ignore the Inauguration completely - it was what I wanted to see and dreamed of thru this incredibly long, painful election process. As for my boy - he truly doesn't 'get it' - he listens too much to macho morons he works with. I am proud to say that when any of his co-workers harass the gay guys on West Street he always steps in and puts a stop to it. It is actually because of his being affected by his enviornment that I feel so strongly about people like Warren - look at what they teach and preach!! they infect the air we breathe
mrs c - I don't get the Rev. Wright reference at all.
bobbie - I'm headed over to change.gov
queen size funny bone - yes my face sure does feel slapped. especially since I have been silent about many of his appointments - giving him a chance to do an incredibly difficult job on his own terms with the people he feels he needs to choose.
jeni - I see what you're saying but really - when it comes to Warren's church and others like them - what are we extending our hand out to - and I have no issue with Warren being invited - but to have him or anyone like him take what many perceive to be an important role in the ceremony - that's just wrong. what would be next - someone who says Jews killed Christ and should all be shunned (yes - I found that thru a link from a Warren fan) - the choice of Warren says discrimination against gay people is OK. as I said - I feel religion has no place in the ceremony at all but if he had to have an invocation then there are so many decent religious leaders to chose from. Lincoln had a seriously divided nation to deal with and he didn't unite it by reaching out to slave owners and telling them it was OK. if this nation is to become truly free and truly inclusive of all people then it is going to take some battles - no nation has ever changed any other way. Warren and his ilk are feeling way too powerful these days - look at Huckabee, he's already campaigning for 2012 and he is a carbon copy of Warren. these so called moderate Evangelicals - that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
ivanhoe - I think his doing it is a dangerous signal to many religious groups who want nothing more than to make their religious agenda the law of us all. I think he made a huge mistake with this one.
kay - rather than seeing it as reaching out I see it as giving religious groups far more voice during a state ceremony than they have a right to. any invocation should take place in a church, not on the steps of the Capitol.
Dianne.. I could not have said it any better. I don't know if Obama realizes how much he's shaken the snow globe that is his base. Rick Warren? Is he serious? As for your son, I know what it's like to have political and ideological differences with a family member (I wonder if I am overstating the point regarding your son.) I am an atheist, so I've been down that road with my own family with regards to the explanations and subsequent dismay. I still love them and they still love me despite the differences and smacks on the head.
I tried to yell at the TV news last nite about this but they dont hear me, or so Husband says, and I knew you'd be pissed ... I am muting the voices in my head that said during the endless campaign that they didnt trust Obama .. well I still trust him, I trust that he is doing this because Warren had him speak at some big do-da when everyone else there was Right to Life.. I want desperately to believe this is an example of being open to all sides of all issues but I also recall Obama saying he agreed with McCain that marriage for gays was not something he supported.
But like you I am not happy with this
Not happy
:-Daryl
Ohhhh dear Dianne... perhaps now you will see that ONE MAN can NOT change the world. And that politics is politics. They will ALL tell us what we want to hear... and then do what they are going to do. He's not even IN office yet, and already you're finding fault with his decisions. And YOU'RE a supporter!!! Good grief... MY President Elect Obama is in for a world of trouble.... I hope the majority of his supporters have realistic hopes for this man. He IS just a man, you know....
I was shocked to hear about this also and I knew Obama would have to play more to the middle..but to the right? I don't get it..but I really do. You can't get elected President if you aren't a straight Christian.
This choice seems so completely wrong, it makes me wonder why he did it, when all his other choices seem so right. I don't think he needs to pander to the religious right in any way, if that was his reasoning. This has given me the uncomfortable feeling that I ought to pay more attention to his judgement in the future.
spartacus - 'shaken the snow globe' - what a beautiful way to put it. No - you don't understate my philosophical and political differences with my son - and much of my family. With Jeffrey his pulling away from my beliefs started in Junior High School - living in Bensonhurst Brooklyn he wanted more than anything to fit in and in that neighborhood it requires agreeing with a lot of close minded BS or at least being quiet if you disagree. Always the Mom who wants her child to be his own person I would tell him how I felt and then ... well you know. He is a good person with some bad ideas. I do find spending a lot of time with my family to be difficult - virtually every conversation can take us into treacherous waters ;)
but yes, like you - I love them :)
daryl - the people in the TV can't hear me!? crap ... I've been losing my voice for no good reason :)
I have always disagreed with Obama on many issues - I have always found him to be far too centrist, too moderate for my liking BUT I do trust him, you can disagree and still trust. This was a huge mistake on his part.
melli - I never thought he could change the world on his own but I did think he could lead the charge and I still do - one mistake doesn't undo all he is and has done. Plus I would be a hypocrite to blindly support him - I'd be exactly what many accused his supporters of being - naive and brain washed. What does shock me and sadden me is the need to placate the religious right. To me that is carrying over the power Bush gave them - a power that is at the very heart of the deep division in this country. when I look at other countries and how they were torn apart it so often comes from fundamental religious crackpots trying to impose their will on all. Warren has clearly stated many times that gay rights, reproductive rights and scientific freedom are "non-negotiable" to him and his followers. people like that don't understand a hand reaching across, they simply try to grab more power.
rambling - you just hit on something!! since so many describe him as "left" and "socialist" does he feel he needs to veer so far right just to get back to the center? what a mess
betty - is it possible he really does believe this choice can bring about some sense of reconciliation? It is killing me to feel this let down - but then again I am an idealist. perhaps spartacus is right and he truly doesn't know how deeply many of us feel about this. I wish he would have said that - ask me to accept this openly - ya know a statement starting with "I'm going to invite this hideous asshole to your Inauguration because unfortunately he and his friends have lots of money and spend it all on TV ads so please - just put up with him for a few minutes"
wow - that would've been cool ;)
I'm reading a number of commentators who are veering from "it's a mistake", "what was he thinking?" to "it's about reaching out to those who didn't vote for him". I would have preferred him to have asked Jim Wallis, or Tony Campolo maybe - I don't have a problem with religion in the inauguration, but I hate that it's become so politicised (I realise religion is now thoroughly politicised which I guess is the problem). I suppose the advantage over here (at least south of the border in England) of having an established church is that at this sort of thing you just get the Archbishop of Canterbury regardless, so it's not seen as a huge political thing (even though the current ABC is not backwards in coming forwards about political issues and giving the political establishment a hard time about social injustice).
Anyway I'm rambling - my personal view is that it was a shrewd move, but that doesn't make it right.
If there has to be an invocation, then it should be delivered by someone non-political. Warren is as political as they come, and giving him this voice just increases his power. He's dangerous enough already!
jackie - so maybe it's a matter of keep your friends close and your enemies closer? if I think of it that way I can concede to shrewd. good observation
linda - seems to me all organized religion is political - they hide it under the guise of social issues but it is all about political power and it is dangerous.
When I saw this story in the news, I raised my eyebrows just a tiny bit and thought to myself "Wow, it's started already before the man has even taken office?" I guess I'm not really surprised, though. It seems that most politicians promise the sun, moon, and the stars and end up only delivering clouds instead.
I think you said it best in this post with your very last name - "If any one of us is neglected then we are all neglected."
In the grand tradition of church and state remaining separate, there should be NO invocation by anyone. John Adams had it right, all those years ago.
It's certainly a puzzling choice and I can't help but think there must be better people out there. I peeked around a bit on google (sorry... habit) and he does say a hell of a lot of stupid and evil things. On the other hand, even people who say and do stupid ugly things can have redeeming virtues that counterbalance (not erase) their dark side... Warren is apparently driven from his core to eradicate poverty and disease throughout the world so perhaps there something there which made Obama choose him.
In the end he's a creepy guy who's going to say one short prayer, not a spokesperson or employee of the administration.
I'm going to hold to my trust that Obama has some reason I don't understand that may be politics or something more than political. Maybe even making the issue, angrily, hideously public has some kind of purpose. Bringing the forces of darkness into the light, maybe.
Great post. I hope/suspect that your son will come around as he grows older and wiser. From all you have told me about him, he's too inherently kind not to.
As for the politics of it all, I don't think Separate But Equal should be held up as the solution for gays any more than it was for African-Americans back in the day. But I somehow can't get past the need for an invocation/benediction at a state function, either.
linda - I learned that about John Adams just today and thought it was such a cool thing - should have stayed that way.
I don't want to become jaded about Obama over one issue - I remain dedicated to his message but I am super pissed over this giant, huge mistake he has made.
raven- I am trying to see it the way you're seeing it. But this man has equated gay people with "pedophiles". Pedophiles! and when he speaks you can see the video of the people in his audience/flock swaying to his words and clutching their children. It is vile, he is vile and he deserves no added public attention. PFAW released a statement saying that they thought Obama could have invited him to the ceremony as a gesture but not given him a place of honor. The short invocation means nothing to me but it says a lot to others and by having Warren there it makes him acceptable. He can save every child in Africa and my feeling about him will be the same. Plus I believe his philanthropic work to be nothing more than cover for his true purpose. and it keeps him and his 'church' eligible to pay no tax on the huge amounts of money they collect. Hell - the Klu Klux Klan did lots of charity work by day.
Yes - Jeffrey is a good good person with some misguided beliefs ... thank you for saying that :)
You know it's possible that he owed Warren a favor... could be a simple payback...
He's made a mistake.
And I can only hope that he will listen to the hurt that has been caused by this mess.
I can only hope that Mr. Obama, who i intuitively believe to be a good, decent and inclusive man.... will make it a priority of his administration to make amends to the marginalised for this mistake...
To lead from the front and say that there is never ever a moment
where supporting discrimination against anyone is ok.
Much love to you my friend,
M
melli - that dawned on me, you know faith in someone does require believing in them without all the facts and I do retain my faith in Obama ...
maithri - and all good people make mistakes ... I can try to hold that in my heart
hugs sweet doctor
Dianne, I meant that he's a politician like about any other and will change friends and allegiances accordingly. I don't think he's changed. That being said, I would be hurt if I were Rev. Wright and wanted that invitation. :[
There are many battles to be won in the long march ahead. Perhaps when prioritising, the Gay marriage issue is relegated for now to a lesser place. Let's face it, there are bigger issues to deal with. Besides, I doubt that the time is right for that change to be accepted - prop8 much?
Before we all get ahead of ourselves, give time for President Elect Obama to get into the role. Watch and take notes and lets assess after 100 days.
In the mean time the work continues - Obama can't do it all you know.
Hey, we trust and we live in hope, yes?
Rights for the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual,Transgendered community is only about sexual lifestyles to them who fear that community. To the GLBT community it is a question of civil rights. The right to choose whom one will commit to, the need to have all of the civil rights conferred on every other member of the culture at large. What difference to me if a gay couple stand by each other in sickness and in health, for better or for worse 'til death do they part...in the personal aspect, not much...but in the cultural aspect it means a great deal. It is a symbol of what an enduring relationship is, why is the gender of them involved in that relationship relevant? Does not our society need every example of kindness and fidelity it can muster?
Only a fool would say no.
Who is it who targets gay people for punishment? Who is it who beat and kill the Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard's and so many other of the LGBT community? It is them who harbor generations of wrong learning from generations of wrong teaching.
The religious right is confused as to what to believe. The Christian Bible says the law of Moses passed away at the resurrection of Jesus. Ergo all laws concerning man's choices as a matter of religious law passed away as well in favor of an individuals access to God. It is not to me, or you to define the boundaries of that relationship. That is between God and the person, so please do not come at me with scripture less you know where of you speak.
So let's remove the religion from the dialog, civil rights are just that a right and responsibility, it is a fundamental portion of being human not something conferred by the power of the state. Although throughout history the state has tried to take civil rights away. As recently as the Red Scare of the 1950's where lively hoods were destroyed by rumor an innuendo. Or by the Black's in chains that truly are only now seeing the light of a new day. Let's not forget the Japanese internments of the 1940's.
In one way or another...
Aboriginal peoples have been oppressed in this country
The Irish have been oppressed in this country
The Asians Have been oppressed in this country
The Italians have been oppressed in this country
The Arabs have been oppressed in this country
The Eastern Europeans have been oppressed in this country
The Hispanics have been oppressed in this country
Catholics have been oppressed in this country
Mormons have been oppressed in this country
Protestants have been oppressed in this country
Have I left anyone out? Has History? Which struggle against oppression is to be minimized and counted worthless?
So if we or our parents or their parents felt the lash of oppression why do we want to further it? What good can come out of it? Is divisiveness good, is listening to shrill arguments from detractors good? Tell me what good can come from denying civil rights granted the majority of citizens to a minority population.
Believe it or not gay people do pay taxes just as hetero people do and in most case more because they do not get the benefit of joint filing. Is this fair, yes fair is the question. Gay people buy houses, support economies, local and national and have the same dreams and desires as you yourself do regarding family and home. Why do we as a nation continue to deny them their rights? As we should know if we decide to deny one segment of society their civil rights we deny all society the right to live harmoniously.
Wake up America and stop the fear. Chances are that no matter how old you are you have been taught by a gay teacher, treated by a gay doctor, represented by a gay lawyer, had your car fixed by a gay mechanic, you floors swept by a gay janitor, your food prepared by a gay chef, your house sold by a gay real estate agent and on and on and on.
For your own sake...for God's sake...the ideals of civil rights can not be selectively granted any more. Please soften your hard attitude and live free.
posted by the walking man at 5:16 AM on Dec 10, 2008
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Obama is proving himself a centrist by choosing Warren, if this bone makes the neocons feel as if they are not forgotten, this is a small slight in the face of the over all to the GLBT community.
What I mean is:
Choose wisely the battles.
mra c - I don't think Obama has changed either - BUT - I do NOT think he will change allegiances and friends at a whim. I STILL believe him to be a decent man with exceptionally good intentions who is in an extremely hard place and needs to push a gigantic rock with lots of sharp edges up a very steep and slimy mountain. Just because I am disappointed and angry about ONE decision does NOT negate anything else about him. That philosophy is at the heart of what is hurting America - the quick, simple judgements and inability to disagree on a specific point yet still value the entire being.
I doubt Rev. Wright ever expected to be chosen. The entire Rev. Wright debacle is sad to me. Bits of an impassioned speech about the hundreds of years of opression of a people is twisted and spun and because the average American is a moron Obama needs to answer for someone else's words - I don't even want to go any further on what I really think of that entire situation - it is counter productive at this stage. Obama is not a politician like any other - he is attempting to work in a political system that needs so much change and he is attempting to speak to a nation full of people with the attention spans of fruit flies.
rob - yes we do :) But to clarify - it isn't just prop8 or gay marriage or even gay rights that makes me angry about this choice. Warren is the used car salesman of religion. He pokes his bloated face into every corner he can. He has preached hateful sermons about women, non-Christians, scientists - hell the list is endless. He hides his darkness uder the cloak of Godliness. The most dangerous of all cloaks. I have been worried for a long, long time about the ever increasing power of the whatever the hell they want to call themselves politically involved religious bullies. Hell - it still amazes and scares me that people like Huckabee can be viable candidates for any office, let alone the Presidency. And let's not forget Palin with her own creepy brand of off the wall relgious fervor.
But yes Rob - you're right - and a part of me is sorry I gave Obama's enemies ammunition because of course they only read and hear the parts they like.
mark - any words I could offer would simply detract from yours.
Peace my friend.
I am not going to attempt to try to second guess Obama’s motivation for selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.
I have been upset by many of his recent appointments--upset but not surprised. I never viewed Obama as a progressive. And looking at the list of corporate donors to his campaign, I expected there to be a strong undertow in this direction.
The topic of Rick Warren is disturbing on another level. I feel that a moral boundary has been crossed.
Something has shifted in American politics in the last 30 years. From a time when one’s religious beliefs were a personal matter, not to be discussed in polite company and especially not on the national stage to the present state of affairs when it seems any political figure of stature has to prove her/his Christian credentials. When narrow minds were accusing Obama of being a Muslim, he had the opportunity to respond in such a way as to dispel and disavow religious intolerance. He chose rather to flash his membership card in the dominant culture. Dominant being the operative word. Meaning there is an underclass comprised of groups who are less than in rights, influence and status.
Like you, I don’t think that a religious invocation has any place in a political event, even if there are more inclusive voices. It violates a basic principle of separation of church and state. There are enough historical examples of the hazards of mixing these two powerful forces in government to remind us of the wisdom of the first amendment. I fear that the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration sends a very dangerous message about hatred and bigotry.
Let Nana be an inspiration to us as she is to you. Let’s smack Obama on the head, gently. He is an elected official and thus, responsible to his constituency.
Once again, Diane, thank you for being such a passionate, informed and articulate voice for the collective conscience.
My dear Dianne. I am concise, yes. But eloquent - that's what you are.
What a great post. You always do your homework and then you put things into such heartwarming perspective because you understand that love is what matters. I guess that's where the Nana influence comes in.
You know how I feel about this Obama pick. And I agree with you that there should be no invocation, but I know that's probably unrealistic for this country; especially at this time, but that wonderful rabbi you quoted from would have been fine with me. As is Rev. Lowery. I think I could have kept my head around the separation of church and state issue, even, were it not for that bigot Warren.
Interesting fact about John Adams.
Awesome post, Di, and thanks for the linky. I rarely get linked, so it's kinda cool! ;-)
I couldn't agree with you more, especially that there shouldn't even be prayer at the inauguration. Right away that alienates us non-Christians. I have been sitting back, watching him make his appointments and promising to give it some time. It sounds corny, but some while some of his appointments have been disappointing, we have to face the fact that the people we feel the most passionately about are inevitably bound to disappoint us.
But the invocation is a slap in the face to everyone who worked so hard to get him elected, both in spite of but also because of the injustice and hatred that has plagued our country. And he chose rather than stepping up against this mentality to send the message that this type of intolerance deserves a forum.
I get that he is everyone's president, left and right. But I think everyone who is defending his choice should think about what they would say if the pastor were antisemitic or racist. There's no difference.
gabrielle - thanks for always adding so much to the conversation
pagan - my honor to link you
I'm here watching the Sunday news shows and they're making far too many excuses for Warren and I'm getting riled up again.
magnetbabe - so many people are saying that this is a gay issue - it's NOT
it is a decency issue, a human rights issue
thanks for sharing your thoughts
I disagree with this choice for two reasons.
The first is that I believe in equality for all. And free speech does not give anyone the right to discriminate.
The second is that an invocation given by a religious official is a prayer and it doesn't belong in a secular ceremony. Neither does a book sacred to a religious sect.
travis - I was fascinated and delighted by the fact that Adams used a law book - it should have become part of every inauguration.
thanks for adding your thoughts Trav.
I found Obama's decision about Rick Warren very very disappointing and depressing...., like you, love this man and I too, sent money....The first time I have supported a candidate in 40 years....! I hear what his reason is and something about it just doesn't ring true to me. There are lots of ways of being INCLUSIVE...I think it sends a terrible terrible message to all of us who looked to him, Obama, with such hope. To include this man in the most important day of the beginning of Obama's Presidency...well....It is really terrible to me. And as I said, deeply disappointing. I must say that I also felt a twinge knowing that there would be no Rabbi participating in this important day...(Whether there SHOULD be an invocation, etc...is for another day...since there IS one, well, I have feelings about who is doing it....)
Church and State are already MUCH too entwined....Obama should take a leaf from Adams book....Of course it would alienate all of the "religious" right, left, center, etc....!
BUT, for me, the big thing is that I believe Rick Warren is NOT inclusive, and in fact, is a bigot. THIS SENDS A BAD MESSAGE.
Period. End Of Story.
oldold lady of the hills - especially when he had so many other fine people to choose from - I agree, it is a bad message - gives Warren credibility when he deserves NONE!
Dianne....did you happen to read this today?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html
It is very intertesting and it kind of changed the way I feel about this whole thing....If the only thing that comes from this is what Melissa Ethridge talks about then Obama's reasoning makes sense....This has definitely opened a HUGE Dialogue....And it seems that The Reverend has been effected by it all, as well....See what you think...!
old old lady of the hills - I read it once and my initial reaction was - no one should have to work as hard as Melissa is suggesting - Warren is the one who should be working to be accepted.
But that is a knee jerk reaction - I'll read it again with more sleep. thanks for the link :)
I see I'm a little late on this, but I'll chime in anyway.
I actually think that including Warren is a major step toward unifying everyone.
First of all, I could care less about gay marriage. If I had to object, it would be to marriage period. LoL, it is the No. 1 cause of divorce, you know.
But seriously, there are a lot of people who believe what Warren believe and there are a lot who don't. Obama himself doesn't believe in "gay marriage" but he does support civil unions.
From what I understand, gay folks feel like they've been betrayed because Warren was asked to participate. Would you guys feel better if they'd asked Jeremiah Wright or Jesse Jackson Sr., perhaps?
A minister in support of gay marriage is giving the closing prayer, I haven't heard anything about that.
Everything that Obama has done thus far has been about showing that he wants to bring in people with different ideas and some with viewpoints that differ from his own. I commend him for that.
You will never fully understand everyone unless you know where they are coming from.
What's the harm in it? Warren won't be going there to preach or spew any of his one-sided logic, he is going to say a prayer, nothing more, nothing less.
It's all a part of the ceremony and we know how people in this country love their ceremonies.
I'm sorry to be visiting belatedly, but interestingly I read a post at Hamguin's Hide-not this morning with a link to something Melissa Ethridge wrote about Prop 8 and Rick Warren ... that helped ME wrap my head around all the controversy. You might find it helpful too.
Hugs and blessings,
smarty - I'm responding real late too. It's nice to have a visit from you, I haven't been by your place in a spell but I always get back there eventually.
My problems with Warren are not rooted in his oppostion to gay marriage. It is in his overwhelming contempt for gay people overall - since I first posted this he has come out (hehehehe) with a weak apology for equating gay relationships to incest and pedophilia so perhaps the exposure has done some good.
"Would you guys feel better if they'd asked Jeremiah Wright or Jesse Jackson Sr., perhaps?" - I don't understand this question. Personally I think Rev. Wright has done some fine work over the years and is a passionate if explosive speaker. And Jackson Sr. has a rich history even if I think he's lost his way lately, or perhaps he's just tired. I do have to say the use of "you guys" and the overall tone of your comment seems very dismissive of the struggle for human rights for gay people. "you guys" sounds a lot like old white people calling blacks "them" or as McCain would say "that one" - it doesn't feel especially inclusive. I think excluding gay people, discriminating against them, is still deemed acceptable by far too many, including President Obama. I commend Obama for many, many things but there are so many better, cleaner, wiser, kinder hands to entend his too - it didn't have to be Warren. I remain firm in my belief that it is a terrible mistake.
storyteller - as I just said to smarty jones - I really don't think I'll ever see this choice as anything but a terrible choice but I do appreciate the link. ME definitely makes some good points.
OK, late again. Dianne, I'm sorry that my use of "you guys" was taken out of context.
Like my friend Eb the Celeb says, "Take everything I say at face value, I ain't that deep."
I should have said exactly what I meant. Again, I apologize if it sounded like I was lumping everyone into one catergory. Man, my brother would curse me out if he thought I was lumping him into one huge group of gay people.
I was speaking mainly of the folks here who responded to your post.
My question about Wright and Jackson was basically saying that they too have said some crazy -ish throughout this campaign and I don't think it would be appropriate for either or them to participate because of their obvious disdain for the President Elect.
As for the Warren participation, we just disagree. I think this is the campaigns attempt to include people from all sides.
Post a Comment