Obama has chosen Rick Warren, the right-wing Christian author and pastor of Saddleback Church, to given the invocation at his inauguration in January.
Dr. Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," will deliver the invocation. He will be followed by Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul, who sang "Someday We'll All Be Free" and "Respect" at a concert for Bill Clinton in 1993, but not at the inaugural ceremony.
What?! Surely Obama could have found a non-bigoted religious leader to give the invocation. Warren, despite being considered a nicer-and-friendlier "new evangelical," equates same-sex marriage with incest, says Christians who work for social justice are basically Marxists, and is staunchly anti-choice. (He recently told Steven Waldman of Beliefnet that he believes he is obligated to lobby the president to end abortion rights, but not to stop the use of torture.)
So many pro-choicers, gay activists, and progressive Christians worked their asses off to elect Obama, which makes Obama's decision to give Warren a platform at the inauguration a real fuck-you. I can't even handle the irony that Warren's appearance will be immediately followed by Aretha singing "Respect" and "Someday We'll All Be Free."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Obama picks anti-gay, anti-choice pastor for inauguration ceremony.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11012
Maybe this is an attempt to "reach across the aisle"?? *shrug*
That's all I got.
Otherwise I'm at a bit of a loss.
I'd sure rather have Obama's nonpartisan gestures include letting one of the most moderate, mainstream Christian leaders in this country give the invocation than, say, giving conservative Republicans positions in his cabinet, concessions on policy, or say in a Supreme Court choice.
I just want to make one more point and then I'm done with this topic.
The ONLY reason this man is being called "mainstream" and "moderate" is because he ha chosen to hate groups that it is OK to hate, namely, women and homosexuals.
If, instead of denying gay people the right to marry, he wanted to deny interracial couples the right to marry, he would be called a hate monger.
If, instead of advocating that women submit to men, he advocated that, say, Asian people submit to European people, he would be called a racist.
But he's sticking to us vagina-bearers and fagggots, so it's A-OK.
Warren's called moderate and mainstream because he represents the center, majority opinion of the country. Our support for gay marriage is simple, logical, and just, but at the moment it is also the radical fringe not supported by any mainstream political figures who intend to win elections. Gay rights have made a huge amount of progress (5 years ago it was illegal for gays to have sex in some states) remarkably quickly, but we are not at the point where a national battle over gay marriage is even remotely winnable, and so that damned reactionary Obama has decided not to throw the rest of his agenda away on a doomed charge for a cause he's never said he supported. I want to see universal healthcare, an end to the war in Iraq, a repeal of DADT, government respect for science, a solution to both the economic collapse and growing wealth disparities, a recovery of our reputation and standing in the world, energy security and environmental protection, and an end to torture. Believe it or not, most women, gays and lesbians also consider those issues important. If you don't consider anything else relevant in the face of Obama's association with Warren, that's entirely your right. Goodbye, good luck, good riddance, good God are we ever better off without you on our side.
Once again, THIS WAS NOT THE ONLY REASON. It was a small reason on top of a lot of much bigger reasons, but I have stuck to THIS REASON because it's the topic of the post. If you want to disagree with me, fine, but disagree with what I said, not with what you are pretending that I said.
Okay, I'll take your word for it that you have a whole bunch of really good super secret reasons for hating the most pro-gay president we've ever had, and I'll take on faith that they're all just as valid and well thought out as the one you deigned to share.
Why should I bother trying to explain my other reasons (which include many things such as various laws he voted for and statements he has made) when you've been so completely dismissive of everything I have said so far? You didn't like it, so you rejected it right away, inventing things about me and making jokes along the way. Why should I think it would be any different? I mean this sincerely. I would have been happy to talk about my reasons, but not with someone who dismisses my honest, and whether you believe it or not, well thought out opinion of Obama as "silly" out of hand without even the barest hint of an attempt to understand my perspective and where I'm coming from. So go ahead and continue making rude jokes about me and dismiss me as you have. But please forgive me if while you do, I don't feel like also trying to have a real discussion about my reasons at the same time.
"[28+] Ayla said:
Ok, this does it for me. I'm officially anti-Obama and would support his impeachment on day one if it were an option. Nothing short of a totally, 100% feminist president is acceptable anymore. Fuck his bigot pastor, fuck his inauguration, fuck the "christian" political agenda of hate, fuck his rhetoric and lies, and most of all FUCK OBAMA."
Obama is an elected official, and a public figure. Me going off about him in thread on Feministing is a completely different context than commenters, speaking as peers. Anyway, I'm officially over my need to justify my position, but here's to the next four years....
I smell troll.
I think this is exactly the case. The man promised to find common ground, and you don't get that by alienating those with whom you don't always see eye to eye.
That makes sense. Someone even said that he's getting LGBA to participate- so that seems like he's trying to keep it level.
When I first read it, I was a bit shocked. But now that I've had a chance to mull it over, it seems like he's just keeping his word. I think it takes strong character to respect someone you completely disagree with.
Not to mention that so many of us have been excited because of the news the LGBA, (Lesbian and Gay Band Association) was invited to participate in the Inaugural Parade, something that is very historic as no LGBT group has ever been invited to participate previous to this administration. That just feels a little less spectacular now.
Not to mention that so many of us have been excited because of the news the LGBA, (Lesbian and Gay Band Association) was invited to participate in the Inaugural Parade, something that is very historic as no LGBT group has ever been invited to participate previous to this administration. That just feels a little less spectacular now.
So the inauguration, like the campaign, is going to be more inclusive than ever. But the high profile Christian leader, who will not be worse and will probably be better than every previous Christian leader to fill the role, ruins it for you? This is progress. It's a step down the road, not the end of it.
Uggh, first paragraph is a quote of the post I'm responding to, I hit submit without erasing it.
Ok, this does it for me. I'm officially anti-Obama and would support his impeachment on day one if it were an option. Nothing short of a totally, 100% feminist president is acceptable anymore. Fuck his bigot pastor, fuck his inauguration, fuck the "christian" political agenda of hate, fuck his rhetoric and lies, and most of all FUCK OBAMA.
Um...wait- are you being sarcastic?
Not one little bit. I voted for the man, but this was the last straw for me.
The last straw? The man hasn't even assumed office yet...Might be a long 4 years for you.
I was pretty sure that was going to be the case anyway.
What a fragile back you must have. Goodbye, don't forget to tip the bartender, give our love to the PUMAs.
haha, so funny, except I'm not a PUMA and in no way identify with what they stand for.
Oh. You're just a person who has given up on Obama for a transparently silly and implausible reason.
I think that most of the reasons a lot of Obama's supporters voted for him in the first place are silly and implausible. I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I'm incredibly comfortable with that.
What is a PUMA?
Never mind I found it. I bet a lot of people here would agree that the PUMA people are complete morons, but absolutely fail to see the obvious parallels to their own positions. It's a good summary that sometimes you just can't beat the system. The system is too big and too ingrained. At this point I doubt that the two party U.S. system could fail any time before America itself collapses.
A PUMA is a white woman who claims that she would have supported the Democrats but won't because of some hilariously transparent reason she finds Obama unacceptable.
I assumed it was sarcasm, because it seemed like a pretty over-the-top, ridiculous response to a man actually following his word. And he hasn't even been able to start making policies that might offend you yet.
This was actually my biggest fear for Obama: that supporters had built him up so high in expectation, that if he does one thing they don't like, or goodness forbid, acts like a human being and makes a mistake, that those same people that treated him like a holy savior would turn around and treat him like a devil.
Good luck with that?
I don't think sulking in a corner until a Feminist Fantasy President comes along is at all helpful or productive. Particularly when that backlash is based solely on symbolic gestures, since you're ready to impeach him before a single act as president. Sure, he could strike down the gag rule, pave the way for equal pay, and declare DOMA unconstitutional on his first day, but you want him impeached because of the pastor that delivered the invocation, which most people will remember as "Some guy that wrote a book" if at all.
I'm just tired of the wailing and gnashing of teeth when progressives are unhappy with anything. I'd hate to think that loyalty and perspective are solely a right-wing traits.
Excuse me, but "sulking," really? You mean like a moody teenager who can't play their video games? Who said anything about me "sulking in a corner until a Feminist Fantasy President"? That was you, not me, and I would appreciate you not condescending and insinuating things about me that I in no way implied. I said that nothing less was acceptable, not that I would be sulking in a corner 'til it happened. Not to mention the "wailing, "gnashing teeth," and insinuations about disloyalty and lack of perspective. My perspective is feminist and I see loyalty as a concept I would apply to my friends and loved ones, not elected officials.
I also said it was the straw for me. That's a reference to the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back" meaning that there have been many other things he has done that I disagreed with. This was just the proverbial final straw. Also, I would argue that "symbolic gestures" can be pretty.. umm.. symbolic if you know what I mean. I guess it IS a symbolic gesure. So what does it symbolize to you? To me, it symbolizes Obama's willingness to pander to bigots.
You're right, you did not in any way imply that you were being sulky, immature, rash or irrational. When you said you supported impeaching the most progressive president we've had in almost a decade, before he's even in office, despite not committing any impeachable acts, you demonstrated these qualities, not verbally claimed them. Furthermore, when you declared you would only accept a 100% feminist president, a candidate yet to be discovered, and I doubt would ever be to your satisfaction, you sounded a lot like a child throwing a tantrum.
You're welcome to include yourself in the "wailing and gnashing of teeth", but I was speaking more generally of the infuriating phenomenon among progressive circles for turning on someone when they're inevitable deemed not progressive enough for the speaker. I think that's a lot of the reason why the right tends to be a lot more cohesive, and subsequently powerful. The left turns on it's own at the drop of a hat, it's a constant game of "What have you done for me lately?". I don't believe we should have blind faith in our elected leaders, but we should have reasonable expectations and give people a chance to correct their mistakes. Condemning a man you supported before he even takes office, based on a decision by a committee he may or may not have influence over, even as your final straw, is terribly fickle.
Respectfully, why should I NOT hold the man I and my fellow Americans elected to lead OUR country country to a standard of near perfection?
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the 100% figure, because you're right, that does imply perfection, a human impossibility. But the REACH for that perfection should be there... must be there, or we will never, ever progress from where we are. We hear the phrase "baby steps" so much it's almost like a mantra used to excuse the frightening lack of progress in this country. I don't expect results overnight, but the backward steps we often take scare the shit out of me.
I personally want to see a complete overhaul of the US government system. Obama is a bandaid at best, and a road to an even more fucked up world at worst.(and I in no way speak for all progressives, nor represent any particular shift or trend in progressive politics as I subscribe to no particular political identity)
And for the record, my vote for Obama was a vote for what I perceived as the lesser of two evils. I had serious misgivings about voting for either of them, but in the end, I decided to do what was best. I would still do the same today if presented with the same candidates. All I'm saying is that I already mostly knew Obama wasn't for me, and now, I'm sure of it. I used some not-very-nice language to express that, and if you want to think I'm immature or irrational, that's your business.
Obama is not progressive. He is just not regressive.
Which still makes him more progressive than Bush.
More progressive than Bush - setting the bar a little low, isn't it? This reminds me of people that defend the Iraq body count by pointing out that the war has killed fewer people than Saddam Hussein.
He's also more progressive than any other president in history, how's that?
So seem to be confused by the context of my comment. Another poster called in to question my referring to Obama as the "most progressive president in almost a decade." I was pointing out Obama is clearly more progressive than Bush. We can argue as to whether Obama is ACTUALLY progressive, but your comment strikes me as you don't understand, or are just trying to stir up trouble.
I know you and are were arguing in another thread, but I'm 100% with you on this one.
I also assumed at first this comment was snark. I mean, "extremely disappointed", say--that would be believable. But "impeached on day one"? LOL, on what charges exactly?
And though you have insisted you're serious, I still think it's snark, albeit of a more sinister kind. Most likely, in my view, you're an antifeminist right winger who is getting his laughs pretending to be an over-the-top circular firing squad extremist, while hoping to incite disunity on the left.
But maybe you're an actual sincere feminist (a PUMA type, perhaps). No matter--if you're out for Obama's scalp, you're still my political enemy. This man has the potential to be our greatest president, and I have no use for people like you.
And shame on all of you who uprated Ayla's comment, btw.
-Alan
"And though you have insisted you're serious, I still think it's snark, albeit of a more sinister kind. Most likely, in my view, you're an antifeminist right winger who is getting his laughs pretending to be an over-the-top circular firing squad extremist, while hoping to incite disunity on the left."
That's pretty presumptuous, no? She was a little hasty maybe, but no need to discredit her entire opinion.
"This man has the potential to be our greatest president"
I'm curious, why do you think so?
"and I have no use for people like you."
Ouch.
Why do I think Obama is likely to be our greatest president? First of all, he is by far the most progressive; I have read parts of his book "Memories of My Father" and along with watching him speak and give interviews, I truly believe he is, to the core, a wonderfully caring, progressive, brilliant person (who takes some more centrist stands for politically pragmatic purposes). The financial crisis offers an opportunity for government activism that would make FDR or LBJ envious. And he will seize that opportunity, taking care to appoint the best and brightest to work for and with him in effecting change.
And yes, anyone who is talking about wanting to impeach him is my political enemy and an enemy of progress in this country.
-Alan
"Most likely, in my view, you're an antifeminist right winger who is getting his laughs pretending to be an over-the-top circular firing squad extremist, while hoping to incite disunity on the left."
LMAO!! That's one of those most ridiculous things ever said about me, but so funny I can't even be mad. No, I'm just a radical feminist. Not PUMA, no political party affiliation.
Oh, how did I miss the part about "shaming" people who gave points to my comment?! You're funny dude.
I disliked this comment.
What exactly does a "totally, 100% feminist president" look like? And how exactly do you know that Obama isn't "totally, 100% feminist"?
wax ghost, please see my comment with the 11:28 time stamp.
Here's my problem with that: there is no such thing as a perfect feminist. We each have our own ideas on what makes a feminist perfect and those ideas don't always overlap. So which perfection are we aiming for? Yours? Mine? Someone else's?
It may sound like I'm just trying to be combative but I'm not; I think it's something that requires serious consideration.
Indeed. If there were such a thing as "perfect feminism" then we would never have any arguments on this forum- including this one.
There are too many different sects within feminism- some parts even contradictory. And asking anyone to be perfect is just, well...stupid. That's as polite as I can say it because you will only be disappointed if you expect a person to be flawless. All you can ask for is "do your very best". I really really think that Obama is do just that.
You DO know you can't just impeach someone for doing something you don't agree with, right..
No, really? Gosh, I had NO idea!! Thanks for letting me know.
In recent days we have been urged by some of our colleagues in the world of women's advocacy to call attention to President-elect Obama's failure to nominate more women to his Cabinet.
Rather than speak out, we have given him the benefit of the doubt and encouraged others to do the same - until now.
With this week's announcements, the new Cabinet stands at 14 men and 4 women. That puts the current percentage of women in the Obama Cabinet at 22 percent - and there are only four Cabinet-level openings left to fill.
President Clinton's first Cabinet - 16 years ago - was 37 percent women. In his second term, it climbed to 47 percent women. President Bush began his first term with 22 percent women in his Cabinet. We want that number to go up - not go down or stay the same!
Some more math: women make up 51 percent of the American population and 56 percent of voters. In the 2008 presidential election, women voted for Obama 56 to 49 percent over men.
Dozens of qualified women have been recommended to fill critical slots on the incoming leadership team.
We urge the President-elect and his transition team to act now to improve their record of commitment to naming women to senior positions in the new Administration. It's not too late.
Such a lack of progress for women underscores the need for real change - now. WomenCount has launched a major petition campaign calling on President-elect Obama to create a Presidential Commission on Women in his first 100 days.
If you haven't done so, join our call for t he new administration to begin a national conversation on the future of women in our country.
Increasing the number of women in appointed and elected positions in just one of the many issues a Presidential Commission on Women would address.
Sign the petition. Then, forward this e-mail to a list of your friends.
Really? Didn't Bush put a lot of women (and minorities) in positions of power? Positions of power that they mostly proved they were only capable of egregiously abusing?
I'm not convinced that there are enough capable Democratic women for Obama to put into those positions without leaving gaping holes of female representation elsewhere. I'm not convinced the Democratic leadership of the past 30-plus years has done enough to support women and get them to those levels. And as far as I know, Obama is not the Democratic leadership of the past 30-plus years, nor should we be blaming one person when it is an entire system that causes such a lack.
Which women do you think should have been chosen instead of which men?
Obama wants to be Lincoln. There are worse ideas.
This is the shortcoming of highly special interest groups like Feministing. There is a difference between talking about ideals and carefully analyzing every fast food commercial for the slightest hint of patriarchy or heternormativity or whatever; and trying to make changes in the real world, with lots of other real people who disagree with you.
Obama gains power by including this man. It gives him more credibility with people that he wants to use for one cause or another. I can sit on the internet and mock Christianity all day because I don't have to work with any of those people. Obama has to somehow convince millions of conservatives to go along with his plans. This is just one way of coercing the religious right into thinking "hey, maybe this guy isn't so bad, if Rick Warren will associate with him, maybe I'll give his policies a chance."
No one could look at Obama's history and take seriously the idea that this guy is some ideological ally. He's a politician, and this is a political move. Snicker at it and move along. Deciding to fight Obama because of this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But that's what groups who lack power have always been told, especially by groups who act like they don't have any power (i.e. Democrats): you need to be accommodating, make concessions, and compromise your principles because no one cares about those principles or your issues. So instead of trying to teach people about those principles and issues, we're supposed to put them on the back burner and be satisfied with whatever comes out of that "collaboration."
But, hey, we've got a hugely popular Democratic president! He couldn't use this opportunity to bring some people round to our side by showcasing a non-bigoted religious figure, who might reach out to other religious people in a new way and show them a different side of religion? Why do progressives or Democrats need make peace with bigotry?
You're kidding yourself if you think that once Obama's endorsed Warren's anti-women, anti-gay views by including him at the inauguration ceremony, he'll be in a better position to get Christians to give pro-civil rights (of all kinds) policies a chance. They've just had their views reinforced with a shiny new presidential stamp of approval, so what is going to make them give Obama's progressive policies a chance?
Inviting Warren to speak as a way of bringing round the conservative Christians=not treating the cancer in your nose because you don't want to upset the cancer cells. Or something like that...
Did anyone who voted for Obama ever realize that Obama & Warren were friendly? Did anyone ever think that Obama was secret feminist-socialist-elite-liberal? I mean that's what McCain-Palin tried to say about him, but that was nowhere near the truth. Obama's a left of center politician, which means even his supporters are likely to be disappointed about 40% of the time.
From the perspective of many black people its very much the same. Check out Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's editorial in the WashPost. Some black people thought that electing BO would mean an all black cabinet. That was simply unrealistic.
This is democracy folks. Until we have a leftist dictator take charge, we're all gonna have to get along. BO didn't run to be, nor should he be viewed by us as being, the conscience of the nation. That's the mistake the Right wing makes with its Presidents.
Politics is the art of compromise & compromise will never satisfy a conscience.
I really liked what you said here. Unless the entire country steers left overnight, we have to work together to a certain extent.
Like I keep saying: we talk a great deal about tolerance- except that we're not willing to be tolerant of people who think oppositely of us. I.E.- we sometimes have to be tolerant of people who are intolerant. We don't have to like it, we can try as hard as we can to change it, but in the end, we have to be mature and deal with it. Maybe if we can work together civilly we have a better chance of making positive change.
Brilliant comment, I wanted to add to this:
"But that's what groups who lack power have always been told, especially by groups who act like they don't have any power (i.e. Democrats): you need to be accommodating, make concessions, and compromise your principles because no one cares about those principles or your issues."
Even more specifically, this is the stuff constantly shoved at women and feminists when they advocate for themselves and demand respect as equals.
Yes yes, brilliant response. Thank you.
Yeah, that sure roils the blood and paints an inspiring picture. Of course, the problem is that when you come back to reality, you'll notice that the conservatives have raised an army against you. All the work discrediting the conservative war-cry of Obama's radical liberalism falls to shambles and all those moderate voters who were on the fence before swing into a backlash against the democrats. Republicans regain control on the newly rejuvenated messages of hate and fear against liberal radical policy, and pretty soon we're back to appointing pro-life judges to SCOTUS. how many more do they need now to kill Roe?
We can't even get CALIFORNIA voters to recognize gay marriage, but you want Obama to try shoving tolerance down the throats of all the red states, and you think it'll just work itself out in our favor?
Trying to work methodically instead of violently toward a goal doesn't mean I don't support the goal. It means that I disagree about the fastest way to get there.
Oh please, no one expects Obama to pick only the most liberal people ever.
The point is that this is a SYMBOLIC gesture and there are plenty of pastors or religious figures from various faiths that have not OPENLY spouted hate and bigotry.
This isn't about a disagreement about politics, this is about a contempt for human rights and human existence that is being given one of the most anticipated and highly watched stages in generations.
This isn't a coming across the aisle, this is a symbolic statement that you can "look past" bigotry and hate preaching and who cares if a few gay people get offended. It is deplorable.
The invocation is "one of the most anticipated and highly watched stages in generations."?
Basic human rights are soooooo highly specialized. When you count up women, homosexuals, People of Color, People with Disabilities, and men, all of whom feministing advocates for, you're basically up to 100% of the population. Rick Warren is the one with the highly specialized interests, not feministing.
Basic human rights are soooooo highly specialized. When you count up women, homosexuals, People of Color, People with Disabilities, and men, all of whom feministing advocates for, you're basically up to 100% of the population. Rick Warren is the one with the highly specialized interests, not feministing.
You're confusing "advocates for" with represents. Feministing thinks it knows what's best for basically 100% of the population. The chunk of the population that actually looks to Feministing for guidance or leadership, however, is probably a bit lower than Warren's.
The first paragraph, obviously, is a quote of what I responded to.
This is exactly right. And just to be clear for the hard of sarcastic, when aleks says "a bit lower" what I'm assuming he means, tongue in cheek, is far, far, lower. People in this country self-identifying as Evangelicals would quite roundly trounce people self-identifying as feminists in a battle of numbers.
Yes, if feministing were the only site discussing this and not Shakesville, Feministe, Pam's House Blend and many, many others, not to mention (ugh) HRC and Equality California. If Feministing is your only source of leftist views, you are missing an entire world.
The sad fact is, Democrats run to be elected, and then they govern to be re-elected, all the while saying "we'll be able to make those changes someday, not now, but after the midterms in 2010, then after the next presidential election in 2012, etc, etc, etc. The reason to get elected is to get your policies enacted, but that seems to be the last thing Dems really care about. Republicans seem to shove their agenda through when they're in power...
The MAJORITY of people are pro-choice and pro gay rights. If we cannot do it now, then it will not happen until a realistic actual liberal party rises to challenge the democrats.
I am so sick of these "let's be patient, wait and see, never criticize Obama!" comments. Advocating and outrage didn't stop November 4th. And if something was wrong then, it's wrong now. We wouldn't give Bush a pass on it, so why Obama? If you like the fact that Warren is giving the invocation, ok. But telling us we shouldn't be upset about it is insulting and condescending.
You're cheating by not defining "gay rights." Do you mean it to include gay marriage, and if so do you really think the majority supports it?
The point isn't "feministing" itself, but the number of people who would characterize their ideologies as "feminist" as opposed to "Christian". Christian is still winning.
Every pro-choice measure succeeded in Novemeber. Every pro-gay rights measure failed. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the majority of people are pro gay rights. The empirical evidence does not support that idea. It's funny, over at rightwingnews.com everyone is talking about how the Republicans aren't conservative enough and the whole party should be overhauled because most people are really conservative. Of course here everyone will tell you that most people are really liberal. The fact that every election is won by 1-2% of the vote is not accidental. People are really moderate. It doesn't do any service to try convincing ourselves otherwise. If you pushed the party far to the left, you would just lose all the moderate support.And there's a middle ground between liking the fact that Warren is speaking and being upset about it: seeing it as a political move and accepting it as such. I don't think it's insulting to disagree with someone. If I didn't respect your intelligence I wouldn't bother talking to you.
I fully endorse your comment here, doubleb. Very similar to what I would have written myself.
-Alan
Thanks. I also agree with the stuff you're saying.
i wanted bush/cheney to be impeached for their all to REAL crimes against humanity, but, alas that didn't happen.
i'm thinking that suggesting impeachment of obama before he's taken office is, well, a bit vitriolic.
which is not to say i appreciate the rick warren choice at all. i don't find western religion all that accommodating to anyone who doesn't contribute to their coffers. i'm funny that way.
i voted for obama knowing he wasn't as progressive as me, and with the full intention of working to pull him and his administration to the left.
Trust me, I want Bush/Cheney impeached also. Actually, I want them both in prison. Also, if being unwilling to settle for this crap from our tax paid politicians is vitriolic, then just call me Ms. Vitriol cause I am officially DONE with it.
I respect the fact that you think this is cause to write him off and withdraw support or what have you, but you can't just call for his impeachment every time he does something you don't like. That isn't "not settling for this crap," that's just stupidly reactionary. You might as well call for his beheading, it would make about as much sense.
So not wanting him to be president is as ridiculous as wanting to chop his head off? Mmmkay then.
As I said already, I can understand that/why you don't want him to be president. Really, I can. But you don't call for impeachment on that basis, is the thing. Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment and he has to to have done something illegal in office (which would, of course, require having done something in office) to be impeached. Clinton lied under oath. Bush... well, what didn't Bush do? Obama is not president yet. And even in the third year of his presidency, associating with people you (and I) find objectionable will still not be an impeachable offense.
Patriarchy!
i wanted bush/cheney to be impeached for their all to REAL crimes against humanity, but, alas that didn't happen.
i'm thinking that suggesting impeachment of obama before he's taken office is, well, a bit vitriolic.
which is not to say i appreciate the rick warren choice at all. i don't find western religion all that accommodating to anyone who doesn't contribute to their coffers. i'm funny that way.
i voted for obama knowing he wasn't as progressive as me, and with the full intention of working to pull him and his administration to the left.
Obama didn't pick Warren, this organization (chaired by, irony of ironies, Senator Feinstein) did. That said, I hope this bigot would be dropped via some Presidential-elect pressure, but I somehow doubt it will go that way.
Yes, a Senate committee picked Warren but I highly doubt Obama didn't see the schedule before it was confirmed and publicized. I'm sure if Obama strenuously objected to Warren, they could have changed that.
Picking a fight over Warren's mainstream Christian views would be hugely disruptive and insult a huge number of Americans who voted for Obama or are open to working with him. Right now we have a tanking economy and we're losing two wars. Obama can afford to feed Feministing's daily need to be outraged, he cannot afford to offend most of America.
Obama's said all along that he's against gay marriage, as have the Clintons and almost all elected officials, not to mention the American voting public. This SUCKS, but it's well beyond Obama's power to fix, other than to have come out for gay marriage, in which case we would have anti-gay marriage President Hillary Clinton, or anti-gay marriage President John McCain.
Warren isn't my cup of tea, I wish it was Desmond Tutu. But Warren is one of the most moderate Christian leaders in the country, and he's being given zero role in policy making. If that causes people to give up on Obama, then it's probably best they go now before things get difficult.
i just saw desmond tutu speak a few weeks ago at a conference....he was tremendous.
yanno, i know i'm gonna be strung up for saying this, but i have read some of rick warren's work (purpose-driven life, et al), and i've actually found some of it illuminating. i don't like his stances on gay rights and abortion rights, but that doesn't mean that everything the man has ever done in his life has sucked or been hateful. i'm firmly in the left-wing christian camp, so i think battles like this are won more with love than with hate or anger.
Here's something else you may not know about Rick Warren: At Saddleback Church, the crown jewel of his empire, female employees are required to be overseen by men. Women do not preach, and they are not allowed in leadership roles unless there's at least one man supervising them.
(I found out about this through an undercover phone call to their offices one day. The receptionist said "Oh, we have lots of women working here, but there's always, you know, like, a man OVER them."
"Really? Why is that?" I said.
"Well, it's BIBLICAL," she replied.
I wanted to say "No, it's missionary!"...but I held my tongue.)
That's an interesting point, could you give us more information on this undercover sting phone call? I'd love to reference it in a discussion about Rick Warren but "I know it's true because a person on the internet told me" isn't terribly convincing.
Uhh, so? I mean, look at the Catholic Church. Look at Muslim communities. Women very often have submissive roles within their mosques and churches. Does that mean we should be scandalized and exclude them from all political events? What exactly are you suggesting with that little revelation?
Yes, but we're not talking about the Muslim or Catholic churches (I can't even imagine the hoopla if Obama chose a muslim or catholic leader...). In the context of the american christian community, this is an extreme position and furthers the idea/worry that this pastor is quite extreme and far-right in his views.
I think its clear that you have a problem w/ evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity. And I can understand why you disagree w/ their interpretation, but just b/cs Bush sneered at the views on the Left, why should BO emulate him? We see how well that worked for W.
What the pandering?
Please let this not be the beginning of the end.
this is my first comment on here. big fan of this web site. :)
BUT hold the phone about this obama hating. Obama's team didn't CHOOSE this guy, CONGRESS did.
From Salon:
This time, though, the decision to get involved with Saddleback was actually not Obama's. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, run by the House and Senate, put together the program for the swearing-in ceremony.
before we as a community hang him out the dry, at least know he wasn't responsible for this decision.
It's POSSIBLE Warren was chosen at Obama's behest (the Inauguration planning is a combined effort of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, the President-elect and the Vice Pesident-elect).
http://inaugural.senate.gov/media/releases/release-12172008-inauguralwebsite.cfm
But there's no evidence of this at this point.
As such, this Feministing headline is absolutely irresponsible.
Ya know, if he is going to "reach across the aisle" I think this is a perfect opportunity. He gains conservative credential by asking a conservative to participate in something harmless. What I'm saying is, at least he didn't choose an anti-choice, anti-gay person to serve in his cabinet.
I'm actually really pissed off about this, not just because I don't like Warren (though I really don't like Warren), but mostly because Warren is the anti-change.
I'm all for seeing him reach across the aisle, but Warren is not a politician, he's a conservative ideologue who openly preaches hate in the state of California.
If he wants to create an image as a man capable of working with Republicans, he should work with Republican politicians. Invite one of the conservatives who supported him to speak, not a guy who spent the entire election ranting about how wrong Obama was and attacking his performance when Obama spoke at Saddleback.
Warren is not a classy individual and even if I agreed with him, I couldn't respect him. He condescends to those he disagrees with and patronizes those who follow him. Just not the kind of person I want speaking on this particular occasion.
[6+] jstein said:
"If he wants to create an image as a man capable of working with Republicans, he should work with Republican politicians."
Warren will do the inauguration for publicity. What do you want to give Republican politicians to play ball? A role in policy development, or a say in Supreme Court nominations?
"Invite one of the conservatives who supported him to speak,"
Fan though I am of Jim Leach, he's hardly going to give the invocation.
"not a guy who spent the entire election ranting about how wrong Obama was and attacking his performance when Obama spoke at Saddleback."
You don't make peace with your friends.
"Warren is not a classy individual and even if I agreed with him, I couldn't respect him. He condescends to those he disagrees with and patronizes those who follow him. Just not the kind of person I want speaking on this particular occasion."
I don't like him either, I wish it was Desmond Tutu. But Warren represents the most moderate (and by default most liberal) branch of mainstream political Christianity. Coopting him and reaching out to people who admire him with a meaningless gesture firms up Obama's support in the middle and establishes his moderate credentials without giving up a damn thing.
The Christian gospel does have similarities with Marxism. Why does this have to be thrown around as an insult, like "how horrible that he would disparage the name of those who practise the Christian gospel by calling them "basically Marxists"! Ugh, this is disappointing from a poster on a progressive site. Marx may have been discredited by the mainstream, but serious progressives (and the entire field of sociology) still consider him to have had great insights on the ills of capitalism--ills that even some conservatives are beginning to admit seem all too trenchant given recent events.
-Alan
I can't speak to Warren's comments because I haven't read them, but I think its difficult to compare Christianity with Marxism, if only because Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses." That kinda shuts down the comparison I think...no matter how much social justice is suggested by Jesus' message.
I don't like Marxism (though Marx's ideas about the necessity of organized labors looking out for proletarian values are, as you say, insightful), but I've always seen it as strange that American Christians think that the Constitutional principles are more applicable to their value system than Marx is.
Jesus has a lot of parables that are directly promoting communism, though phrases like "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" can be interpreted any number of ways.
Anyway, the Constitution isn't conducive with literalist Christianity, and only the crazies at the WBC seem to get that (not that I agree with them, but that they understand the difference and the Christian necessity for theocracy).
I think the point is that Rick Warren thinks it's an insult. He's deliberately trying to drive his followers away from good works-oriented Christianity by equating it with Marxism, which conservatives and evangelicals are taught to fear and despise.
Woah, everyone, lay off the Obama-hating. This is not a reason to abandon the President Elect. Other presidents have made far worse decisions in their time. And, as other people have mentioned, Obama didn't pick Warren.
We also need to remember that Obama is a conservative Christian when it comes to his faith. He has said on record that he does not believe in gay marriage and does not support abortion. The difference between Obama and others is that Obama does not believe it is the place of the government to interfere in people's personal lives and reproductive health. That's actually what I love most about him--not that he agrees with every single one of my views, but that he believes in my right to have and practice them. Just because Warren is giving the invocation does not mean that Obama is suddenly going to become Dick Cheney.
And as for his Cabinet, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would rather have an all-male, all-white Cabinet if it will do the job better than anyone else. I think it is fundamentally anti-feminist to choose someone based on sex or race. I have no reason to be unhappy with any of Obama's choices so far, they are all intelligent people and very good political appointments.
This is actually a fantastic move. Warren is the most prominent of a number of evangelical leaders that are beginning to preach environmental stewardship and climate change as a religious mandate.
In essence, by reaching out to these people on a purely symbolic level (e.g. not making a *single* concession) Obama can then include a massive part of the US population who would otherwise feel alienated from progressive policies as part of his green/energy reform initiatives.
Meanwhile, the LGBT community doesn't lose a single thing from this since it's purely symbolic. There's nothing wrong with working with people who you disagree with on one issue (LGBT issues, women's rights, etc.) on issues where you do agree (climate change and energy).
EXCEPT many people will see it as Obama's endorsement of Rick Warren and so his views. You can't deny that because if that weren't the case, why would he even have Warren there? The only reason to have the bigot speak is to get the support of the bigoted followers.
I think a relatively progressive president having the support of bigoted followers is better than having them violently fight against him.
Its ironic that a few hundred thousand votes from those 'bigots' would've swung Prop 8 our way. Yet as opposed to reaching out to them, identifying common ground, and then coopting them, we expect Obama to totally ignore them? That didn't work so well for Clinton, Gore or Kerry. On the other hand, Reagan/Bush1 coopted the "Reagan Democrats" for 12 long years.
Clinton suffered a staggering Congressional loss in his 1st mid-term election. It took well over a decade to recover from it. Let's learn from history.
This is why I feel proud about having voted for McKinney. I guess hope is just a four letter word after all (sigh).
Same.
Are you looking for someone to email to express your outrage? Well, a well-placed source just provided these email addresses:
parag.mehta@ptt.gov (Parag Mehta is Obama’s LGBT liaison in the transition team.)
dnoble@barackobama.com
bbond@barackobama.com
shidebrand@barackobama.com
fred.hochberg@ptt.com
You can also contact Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office. She chaired the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and made the announcement.
(You won’t get through to her Washington Office, answering machine won’t take message — I recommend calling her local offices)
Los Angeles
11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 914-7300
Fax: (310) 914-7318
The following counties are served by the Los Angeles office: Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Ventura.
San Diego
750 B Street, Suite 1030
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-9712
Fax: (619) 231-1108
The following counties are served by the San Diego office: Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, San Diego.
Fresno
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4290
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: (559) 485-7430
Fax: (559) 485-9689
I guess bigotry is a great way to be bi-partisan.
I don't get his whole bi-partisan thing anyway. Americans are sick of Republicans and voted them out. I think it's rather undemocratic for Obama to embrace conservationism so much.
It's "conservatism", not "conservationism".
And whether we like it or not, the only way to actually get things done in a government is through bipartisanism. Otherwise, the ideologues take over and realities that the side with the power doesn't see get ignored - and ignoring part of a problem will not make it go away.
Yeah, except when the republicans are in power and they jam all but their most extreme policies through congress by steamrolling a spineless and compliant Democratic party. Have you seen the votes in congress? Republicans vote nearly 100% the same way while the Dems split. The republicans will be even more adamant as a party completely out of power. Thinking that even a few of them will cross the aisle seems naive to me, given the past 8 years.
Most Americans, including tons of Obama's supporters, are against gay marriage. Obama has always said he was against gay marriage (as has Hillary and every other high level Dem). How is having Warren speak "undemocratic"?
I've decided I simply need to not give a fuck. If Obama decides to appoint fewer women to his cabinet than W Bush, so be it. If Rick Warren presides over his inauguration, so be that too. Maybe we need to stop seeing Obama's victory as proof women and the glbt community have a chance at equality in this country. So be it.
"Maybe we need to stop seeing Obama's victory as proof women and the glbt community have a chance at equality in this country. So be it."
Yes.
Why on earth would you have ever thought it was "proof women and the glbt community have a chance at equality in this country"?
You want one man to overturn millenium of fundamental cultural and religious views of humanity, before he's even inaugurated? He's going to be president, and I think he'll be a good one. If he's up to putting out the fires left by Bush, the economy and the wars, he'll have to be a great president. He's not going to fundamentally alter society in four years, much less three months.
I thought President-elect Obama was a great bringer of unity? Is this not unity being exemplified? You have a gay band playing and and Pastor Rick Warren speaking, who supported Prop 8, a nod to both sides of the issue.
I think all this tells us, on the right and the left, is that we have absoulutely no idea who the real Obama is. The press gave him such a pass that he had to answer now real tough questions. So is this a big headfake to conservatives or liberals? I think he's really about as Liberal as they come so don't worry, you'll get what you wanted in the long run. I think this is to confuse the conservatives out there. Come on, his choice of Education Secretary supports gay high schools.
I am incredibly disappointed by the rationalizations people are using to preserve Obama's halo. Even if Obama did not himself give Warren's name, he had to approve it and if he wanted to remove him, he would be gone. As for bipartisanship, after the wailing that has already come up from Republicans over the auto bailout and some of Obama's cabinet already, do you think they will actually cooperate? The republicans have been and will remain obstructionist oligarchs that will bite any hand extended to them. And if bipartisanship requires allowing bigots a pulpit, what about the Aryan Nation? That might bring some new recruits in.
This isn't the end of the world, but after the McClurkin incident, it's hard to see Obama's actions as anything but minimizing equality for LGBT people. He cares, maybe, but it's not in his top ten. I was a late convert to Obama as I supported Edwards, then Clinton, and finally warmed to him. My initial skepticism has returned and will likely remain through the end of his presidency unless he starts to vocally support progressive causes and isolates bigots and haters as they should be.
"As for bipartisanship, after the wailing that has already come up from Republicans over the auto bailout and some of Obama's cabinet already, do you think they will actually cooperate?"
There are 49 Republican senators. To overcome the filibuster would take 9 of them. When Obama takes office there will be 41 or 42 Republican senators. Overcoming a filibuster will take 1 or 2 of them.
"And if bipartisanship requires allowing bigots a pulpit, what about the Aryan Nation? That might bring some new recruits in."
I certainly hope Obama will not give weight to the views of people who conflate Rick Warren with Neo-Nazis. I have faith that in this case I won't be disappointed.
"My initial skepticism has returned and will likely remain through the end of his presidency unless he starts to vocally support progressive causes and isolates bigots and haters as they should be."
It's hard, in a democracy, to isolate the majority of the country. Do you think Hillary or Edwards would have found some radical feminist pastor to give he invocation?
So as long as it's someone who's bigoted against something that doesn't affect you, it's ok. Fine. Enjoy your unicorns and rainbows. When someone allows someone that hates ME to speak, I take it personally. I can see you are not an ally to the LGBT. The benefits of privilege.
Bigotry is bigotry. So homophobia is more acceptable than racism. How about misogyny? Where is that on the scale?
The day is coming sooner than you think that Obama will do something you vehemently disagree with and you will be looking for people to support you. Don't be surprised by the turned backs.
So does that make me the Nazi now? Obama's already done many things that I vehemently disagreed with. I live in the real world, however, and never expected him to be anyone's idea of perfection, much less mine.
If the only GLBT allies were those who shunned most Americans because they oppose gay marriage, sodomy laws would be more common than civil unions much less full marriage. But you, and I mean you in the singular sense, you specifically, are free to condemn people who fight for equality in the full knowledge that they'll continue to do it regardless of your whiny scorn. Who'd want to be your, and again I mean that in the personal, singular sense, friend? Who'd want your approval?
I expected this from Obama. But the way you defend this makes it look like you WANT Rick Warren to speak. And if so, what's it like being a blue dog?
Do you ever know what you're talking about? Blue Dogs are the right flank of the Democratic Party. I'm for gay marriage, even if I don't think it's the only issue on the table, making me a Wellstone liberal.
Gee, aleks, no I don't know what I'm talking about. I wasn't aware Paul Wellstone gave bigots a stage, too. Paul Wellstone was the last actual liberal senator this country has seen. And while I know he was not pro-gay marriage, I'm pretty damn sure he wouldn't have been happy about this. And, well, accepting bigotry seems like a rightwing trait, and so... Blue Dog, I call them as I see them.
"Gee, aleks, no I don't know what I'm talking about."
Obviously not.
"I wasn't aware Paul Wellstone gave bigots a stage, too."
Is it his friendship and stated admiration for Jesse Helms that you're unaware of, or Jesse Helms' bigotry? Both?
"Paul Wellstone was the last actual liberal senator this country has seen. And while I know he was not pro-gay marriage, I'm pretty damn sure he wouldn't have been happy about this."
Wellstone wasn't for gay marriage, but I am, but he was an actual liberal, and I'm not, because you pompously assume that he would have shared in your hissy fit over Rick Warren giving an invocation? I knew Paul a little bit, I worked for Paul, and he was a man of deep passion and conviction but also intelligence.
"And, well, accepting bigotry seems like a rightwing trait, and so... Blue Dog"
I'm to the left of almost every Democrat, but like every Democrat I'm not throwing a tantrum about Rick Warren, thus in your understanding of political geography I'm on the right wing of the Democratic Party? When you said "Gee, aleks, no I don't know what I'm talking about" I assumed you were trying to be snarky.
"I call them as I see them."
So does Bush. As with Bush, it's not sincerity you're sadly lacking.
Ok, you're right. I will thank Obama for having Warren speak. Because approving everything Obama does will certainly make him think twice if/when he sells the rights of gays and women out. Fine, you have the right to tell me I'm overreacting. I'm expressing my disappointment, not chasing Obama with a torch and pitchfork. If I can't SPEAK what I think, what am I supposed to do? You claim I'm such a radical, but what am I doing other than expressing my opinion? I think it is wrong to give the stage to a bigot. You think it's smart politicking. I don't think giving approval, intentional or not, to a hatemonger is a wise choice and the only way Obama will hear that is if people say it. Believe me, I have not expended my rage on this. I have plenty more for the next four years. This is a teaching moment for Obama. Just because you got our votes doesn't mean we'll be like the Bush supporters who backed anything he did because he's on our team. That's the difference between right wing loonies and me, an admitted left wing extremist. I'll tell my team when they fucked up. And if that's wrong, and most people agree with you, I don't have much hope for the next four years. And no, I'm not a democrat because I believe that are too far to the right in general. So fine, we aren't going to agree. I'll leave it at that.
Right, because I've somehow tried to force you to stop expressing your opinion, just like I've suggested you "thank Obama for having Warren speak" because I'm an Aryan Nations Blue Dog. Do you ever say anything that isn't whiny, passive aggressive and demonstrably false?
I think it's funny that you are basically saying that you refuse to work at all with people who aren't radically liberal, but you're accusing aleks of being the one chasing rainbows. Should Obama try to isolate and ignore the majority of the country that seems to be against gay marriage? Do you honestly think that that's how change is going to happen? Again, fantasy world.
OK, so activism is pointless. If we don't have people that agitate for better, nothing will change. If there weren't people who saw beyond what is and felt things could be better, we would still be a segregated country and all women would be in the kitchen. So you just stick with your status quo then. I'll think that we can do better and we'll see who leads and who follows.
And seeing that everyone should have the same rights and bigotry is wrong is radically liberal? Ok, then, I guess I'm a radical liberal. Sorry you don't see the outrageousness of Rick Warren speaking at Obama's inauguration. I don't let people piss on me and tell me it's raining.
As far as the rainbows and unicorns, that's referring to some Obama supporters who just will not see his flaws.
I don't think your views are radically liberal, I think that they become radically liberal when you have the honest expectation that all people will immediately conform to them regardless of any background they have.
It's like your righteous anger clouds reason. The world isn't fair. You can't make it fair by just being angry at the unfairness and refusing to work within a corrupt system when that system is the best way to make change happen. At the end of the day, you're going to benefit from the work of people you're cursing. You can stubbornly sit around fuming because talking with your opponents strikes you as distasteful, and when the next generation has more freedom and more recognition, you can proudly say you had no part in bringing it about because you were valiantly refusing to work with anyone who you considered unworthy.
Pragmatism is taking shit and asking for more because you know that when you do, the shit will start slowing down. You're just going to sit in it because asking for more leaves a bad taste in your mouth. That's all well and good for you; other people will make the uncomfortable choice to get things done.
“The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house”
It's awfully presumptuous of you to assume everyone is going to do a 180 and agree with me. Being staunch in my beliefs does not make me naive. I know the battle ahead. But I don't believe tempering my message will help. Would MLK have made the progress he did without Malcolm X? We need agitators. We need people who aren't ready to take it in the rear and thank them for the lube after the fact. You have every right to rationalize. And I have every right to be pissed off.
...to assume i believe everyone...
Oh, and just to be clear, I don't care about gay marriage because I don't care about straight marriage either. I care about equality and making bigotry unacceptable. I am not unrealistic; I understand that there are a lot of bigots out there and they are part of the discourse, but tacit approval of bigotry by giving a national, no, world stage is not a way to reduce bigotry. Pragmatism is just another way of saying "I'll eat their shit until they tell me I can stop. And then I'll thank them for it."
Since this campaign began I have been thoroughly disgusted by how progressive individuals (particularly women and LGBT persons) have bent themselves into pretzels to make excuses for Obama and to deflect the tiniest bit of legitimate criticism or disappointment.
I voted for Obama - no question. I celebrated his victory and love the energy he brought to the country. I am optimistic about his potential Administration. He is clearly EONS better than a McCain or Bush Administration.
All that aside, he is a politician for crying out loud. We elected him and it is his role to serve, not our role to lay on our backs and forget the values that we fight for.
COME ON! People get up in arms over commercials (and rightly so most of the time, IMO) but refuse to frown at giving a man with such a heinous and discriminatory record and ideology a platform at this HISTORIC event???
This choice is clearly a symbol, and it certainly is not a symbol of bipartisanship. Since when is reacting to a disappointing and down right disgusting choice of action mean you throw out support for the President-elect or "dream too big."
Politicians will never be perfect and it is the CIVIC DUTY of every American to hold them accountable for their actions and decisions (which we don't seem to be very good a these past 8 years) and ESPECIALLY the case for disenfranchised groups.
I am sorry but there is no compromising with my rights or the rights of any other individual. Pandering to the religious right is not change and I will never sit by and nod and smile when someone I'd like to like spits in the face of my values.
Not only that, but they will call this bigot a "moderate."
And then the pundits will have the weight of Obama's (intentional or not) approval. Bigotry is bigotry and if you don't oppose all forms, you are a collaborator. A feminist that is racist is not progressive. A LGBT who is misogynist is not a progressive. And LGBs who discounted Trans calls for an inclusive ENDA are not progressives. Your oppression is my oppression and if you don't feel the same about me, then you are not my friend.
I declare war on everyone who isn't 100% like me! That will teach them not to be bigoted!
...oh...wait...
Is that REALLY what you got from her comment?
Really.
Seriously now.
I'm being hyperbolic, obviously, but I do feel that is the sentiment. Following the string of comments, it seems that some are saying that Obama is a bigot because he is "having" (i.e. didn't choose, but is also not fighting) a bigoted person give the invocation. Even though at the same time, he is having a gay activist group perform.
Everyone is making a lot of ridiculous assumptions about this, when Obama is clearly trying to appeal to the largest percentage of people. Show me where he says that he hates gay people, and maybe I'll change my mind. But to really get through to some people, you have to show them that you're not an enemy. If you can be someone's friend first, you have much more influence than just yelling at them and calling them a bigot. Has anyone ever been approached that way and said, "Gee, they must be right, I'll change my ways!" Considering Obama is the guy that said he would meet and speak with world leaders who we think are terrorists, with no pre-conditions, is this really the most horrible thing imaginable?
This pastor supported the law in CA outlawing gay marriage. If instead, he had supported a law banning interracial marriage, would you tell a mixed-race couple that they shouldn't call him a bigot? That they should try to be his friend first? That it's OK for him to speak at the inauguration of the president because, actually, he's a moderate... mainstream even! I sure wouldn't. But that's what gay people are being told.
I don't recall saying that the paster wasn't a bigot. I think he is. And I know Obama IS NOT. That has to mean something.
What I did say is that in your experience, does shouting in someone's face that they are a bigot/hate monger, etc. actually accomplish anything other than making you personally feel better at that moment? I can't deny that the anger people are feeling is understandable, and I'm not (and I haven't). All I'm saying is that maybe a different tactic might actually work. You can protest Warren's appearance all you want (no, really, not trying to be condescending). But implying that Obama is turning his back on gays and women is ridiculous. Some of the most radical people in history do things that piss people off in the present. Maybe him trying to reach out to people won't work out, but maybe it will. Mostly, he is trying to show that he is not just president for one group of people. And a lot of conservative Christians HATE him. Is it in his best interest to keep that hate up, or try to cool it down before maybe making radical changes when he's actually IN the White House?
I also don't think it's reasonable to think that it's hateful to be friendly with someone whose viewpoints you strongly morally oppose. One often has family or coworkers that have prejudices that are highly offensive, even hateful. Yet, you have to figure out a way to deal with, even get along civilly with each other- yes? That is, unless you plan on never talking to your family again, or get in a fight every time you go to work. We can try to change people's views by talking and even debating. But sometimes you have to work with it, or around it anyway. Who better to set that example than the president?
And really, you cannot still defend the idea that Obama did not personally request his appearance. The committee issued the invitations at the behest of the transition team, including Obama. It was a thin excuse to begin with, and has been shown to be patently false.
You say "I am sorry but there is no compromising with my rights or the rights of any other individual."
I think what you mean is there *should* be no compromising. There *is* compromising now, and far, far too much of it.
I fully support equal rights. I want to see us get closer to that at the fastest pace possible.
But I have a huge problem with people who label every realistic choice as "unacceptable". First of all, it often has the effect of making a situation seem hopeless when it's not, and second of all it alienates moderates rather than turning them into progressives.
I'm not twisting in a pretzel to preserve Obama's halo; I never thought he had one. But I do think he will do more for equality than most presidents. And yes, making moderates and slightly-right religious folks not see him as a scary liberal is necessary to do that. It's easier to enact progressive policies if you don't put the right on the defensive before you even get in office.
when he compromises your actual rights, then you'll have a valid argument.
right now, you have righteous indignation, which, while fun, is ineffective.
This choice doesn't really bother me. I don't see why he can't or shouldn't pick a man like this - if he did in fact choose him.
This man's beliefs and everyone who believes similarly has a right to their opinion too, and just because we don't like their ideas does not mean we're entitled to shove them in some dark corner to forget about them and somehow invalidate them.
While I don't like the stance the Right has taken, and just about everyone hates religious extremists, don't you think it's just a tiny bit beneficial to build relationships with them so we can compromise? I think it's the only way we'll have harmony.
I think most people here think that harmony means that everyone has to sing the same note...
I agree though. People seem mad that he's trying to connect with other people who disagree with him. If I were to cut anyone out of my life who didn't have the exact same political ideals as me, I wouldn't have spoken to most of family the whole time I was in college!
Frankly, if I thought that Obama would ostracize and silence those he disagrees with, I wouldn't have voted for him. That's what McCain/Palin stood for.
If we're going to be the progressive voice of equality, it means treating others with respect and putting humanity before politics. This guy's beliefs are gross and sad to me. But when the republicans are in office, I expect to have my right to believe what I believe and be treated with humanity, and I hope the same is true for right wingers when democrats are running the nation.
By ONLY working with and engaging with people who share exactly your beliefs, you create a further divide and make it impossible to reach out to those who disagree and find common ground and ever change some minds...
If you really want conservatives silenced and pushed out the political sphere, then I'm afraid you can't call yourself a liberal. You can call yourself a fascist, though. And I hope you wear your brown badge of cowardice proudly.
I'm glad that my next president will support my right to choose and speak out against torture. I'm glad we have a guy went in to homophobic churches and preached acceptance. I'm glad we have someone who embraces all Americans regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality, and political ideology.
And as for Obama's cabinet... I don't think it does women or feminism a favor by looking at female candidates as female first and qualified second. Would I like to see more women in the cabinet? Yes. Of course I would. But I really like the idea that the decisions are being made based on qualifications. And I wouldn't want to be appointed knowing that my vagina mattered more than my brain.
Thank you! You said it. We're against being pushed aside for who WE are and what WE believe, but we wouldn't think twice about doing it to someone else. I'm getting tired of living in that America.
Well, I don't know how not giving Warren a highly honored position of speaking at the inauguration would either silence or ostracize him. Having a best-selling franchise of self-help books doesn't qualify Warren for a spot. After all, Judith Martin hasn't been asked to speak, but is arguably better-qualified. While speaking at the inauguration will probably help Warren sell more books, it's hard to argue that Zondervan publishing is going to let him go out of print, or Saddleback Church is going to defrock him if he doesn't speak.
But let's make it clear the nature of the disagreement. We are not just talking about the relatively mild disagreement regarding the existence or nature of god. We are talking about disagreement regarding my rights to fully participate in some of the central institutions of American culture: marriage, family, parenthood, education.
We are talking about a disagreement between those who would accept me as a full legal person with the same rights and privileges as them, and those who say openly that I should be less than a full legal person.
I don't think that compromise on this is acceptable. We can be kind and firm, or we can be angry and brash in our rejection of the less-than-personhood of queers. There is room for both kinds of activism. But I don't see how there is room for compromise.
In short, we are talking about hate. Something which is rarely recognized when being applied to women and homosexuals.
Thank you! It's hardly silencing to not invite him to speak at the Inaug. If it is, then millions have been silenced. I also find that line of reasoning (Liberals complain when they're denied rights, but they want to deny the religious folks/conservatives their rights!) hopelessly flawed. No one here is proposing amending state constitutions or passing midnight regulations to deny religious figures or conservatives their rights.
If the Inaug. is setting the tone for the administration, and that tone is half civil rights, half bigotry, then I'm confused: what do we get out of that marriage? Inviting both Warren and Lowery isn't reaching out; it's just "fair and balanced" in the crappy news show sense.
The time to worry is NOT when he gives the invocation (unless it's to Dread Cthulhu) but if Warren hangs out around the white house.
Wow, nerd politics. Gotta love that!
I saw a bumpersticker that said "Cthulhu for President: Don't Settle For The Lesser Evil." Of course, when I tell the joke I substitute Cheney.
No wonder I didn't vote for him.
(N.B. This is the third time I have used this sentence ever since the election and it's still one full month before Obama takes office.)
Turns out he didn't need you. Whew. Bet you had him running scared though.
I find it very interesting that none of the Obama supporters will address the issue of how they would feel about this if the pastor in question had a history of opposing the rights of a certain racial group or groups instead of the right s of women and homosexuals.
What happened to you being done with this topic?
If Obama were surrendering battles that had already been won, as per your silly counter-factual, that would be a problem. But he's not, he's declining to throw his presidency away in opposition to a meaningless gesture involving a mainstream character who represents the country's opposition to gay rights. Lincoln, FDR and LBJ all hung out with white supremacists. Those were the times they lived in. Naturally, all good people should have opposed them . . .
Oh noes! I posted after I said I wouldn't! Horror of horrors! Don't worry though, there's only so much more of this mental gymnastics that I can stomach.
And my counter is not silly. It's an apt comparison concerning the kind of double standards that we're forced to live with.
It's a ridiculous comparison, but I gamed it out for you and "Horror of horrors" you're completely ignoring the argument YOU initiated, while spending your time insisting upon the validity of having initiated it. "mental gymnastics" indeed. I'll try again: Should liberals have abandoned Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson because they consorted with white supremacists? Would that have served the abolition/civil rights causes?
The only question you asked me in that post was about me being done with posting. If I had realized you were asking me that, I would have answered. It would be a very complicated answer, and one that frankly, I probably do not have enough historical knowledge of the time to really do justice to.
Ok, no I understand. My mini-laptop is cutting off parts of posts and I can't figure out why. Until I'm on a diff. machine, there's not much I can say.
It's really not complicated at all. Lincoln was the guy who won the Civil War and freed the slaves. FDR carried the country through the Great Depression and WWII. Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Acts. Each and every one of them worked with people who were far more hostile to blacks than Warren is to gays. So should liberals have not supported Lincoln, FDR an LBJ because teh OMGz they associated with racists, in eras when the nation was profoundly racist?
Obama the racist-lover is YOUR counterfactual, which YOU repeatedly insist is valid.
I know, you keep asking what if he opposed interracial marriages, as if the guy ISN'T biracial. Maybe no one wants to address the moot point.
um, because it's not a very interesting question.
but to answer it for you, i'd feel exactly as i do now: like there's probably a better choice, that i don't like the pastor's views, i'd give the politician the benefit of the doubt based on his stated positions, and that the feminist and LGBT movements have WAAAAAAAAY bigger fish to fry.
i find it interesting that some of the bloggers on this site will actually advocate to abolish prisons and allow murderers to go free, but....OMG! a pro-lifer gets to pray for under 5 minutes at a public event?!?! TEH TRAGEDY!!!
sometimes this is like a parody of feminism.
I wouldn't argue that we abandon Obama. But I believe that choosing Warren is a real mistake, even for tactical reasons of driving unity. I understand Ayla's anger---it really is a decided partriarchal fail. Obama never asked us to accept a double standard for civil rights before the election, when we all agreed with his purpose of overcoming sectarian politics at the level where it is currently disabling governance. But how does choosing someone who is anti-choice and anti-gay (anti-AIDS doesn't wash that one away) for the Invocation of his Inauguration work to anyone's benefit? How does it bring along those who have been so much more excluded from governance over the W years, versus, say, evangelicals? The optics are wrong, the politics are wrong, the tactics are wrong, its just a huge mistake, not least for someone with as good an ear as Obama obviously has.
Obama has always been against gay marriage. Every major politician is. That's the lay of the land this decade. It use to be worse, in 1996 Clinton bragged and campaigned on the Defense of Marriage Act. I don't like Warren, but I think bringing him in for a meaningless gesture is a good strategic choice. You obviously disagree, and some very shrewd people agree with you (1,2 below). But if this is what our lunatic fringe have to shout "Aryan Nation!" about, I think we're doing okay. I wish it were possible to make a courageous, consistent stand for gay marriage without falling on your sword and sacrificing everything else we've fought for. Hell, I wish it was a settled issue like in Canada. But that's not how this country is. This country is mired in many crises right now, and they affect everyone including gays. Obama has a mandate to deal with these issues, and he's going to need to hold the center to do that. If Rick Warren helps him do that, then good. If it drives Mireille and Ayla into loud, inflammatory denunciations of Obama's lack of sufficient radicalism . . . great. That's the best thing they could do for him.
1. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/016103.php
2. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/posner
Meanwhile, while Feministing was focused on who was going to pray at the inauguration, Obama appointed Rep. Hilda Solis to be Sec of Labor. Worth a mention?
I don't like Rick Warren. I think this views are hateful. But I think Obama is practicing what he preaches by including him in the inaug. Like it or not, our nation is full of different people who believe different things. Some of those things make us sick. But a president doesn't just lead and include those he agrees with. And just because Obama is willing to sit down with the president of Iran, doesn't mean he loves everything he has to say.
Obama is clearly trying to make his inauguration as inclusive as possible. He's trying to make sure all Americans can see themselves represented. Right or wrong that's what he's trying to do.
I got pissed when right wingers were attacking Obama over Rev. Wright. I didn't care if they thought his views were evil. He has every right to hold and express them. Ad just because Obama associated with him, didn't mean Obama shared those views.
As much as I agree that Warren is evil, I also, sadly, realize that he represents a huge faction of this country. And Obama is using Warren to reach out to that group. Whether or not this will backfire we have yet to see, but let's not forget that Obama has spoken out for gay rights (though not nearly as much as I wish he would) and he has a strong pro-choice record.
Let's see how he leads the nation before we start hating him. And let's understand now that we can't make bigotry go away by ignoring the existence of bigots. A lot more can be done to bring people back to sanity when those people are treated with respect by those they disagree with.
In college, when counter protesting a group of exceptionally hateful anti-gay god hates "muzlims" church who demonstrated with vile signs every Thursday, my friends and I brought them water and treated them with respect. When we did this, a look of total shock and shame came over them. Then when we quietly presented our points of view, they seemed to forget where they were coming from. When the kids who would fight them and yell at them and egg them on came around, these people got new fire behind their hate and felt justified in their awful attitudes.
I cannot hate someone for believing something that I hate. I fight for women's rights and gay rights. I hate what Warren stands for. But I respect Obama's desire to show all Americans that he is their president. And I think that the inauguration is an appropriate stage for that. Warren isn't going to be helping him govern. It's an olive branch to the red states.
That was extremely beautiful.
You are actually as open-minded, welcoming and respectful as I try to be.
1. Is it a race thing that Obama is being hyper analyzed? Or are our emotions all riled as we have hope of progressive change, fairness and inclusion now? Seems to me Bush basically whipped it out and pissed on the Constitution for two terms with less brouhaha than I'm reading here. Maybe we are not sure what to expect. Being dominated, secrecy and corruption were expected behavior coming from the Bush Regime. So now every little thing, down to the kind of dog he gets, is under the microscope.
2. Why do we expect our leaders to be perfect? Perfect and saintly and angelic. Kind of silly standard to expect. Winston Churchill smoked, drank a ton and was pretty whack, sat on rooftops and watched the bombs drop; but he got London through the Blitz. Lotta people will not let it drop that Rev. Martin Luther King had an affair on his wife; like that error or failure makes hypocrisy of the whole rest of his life's work. This ongoing expectation of perfection, perfect behavior always, of leader is odd to me.
3. Lets drive home "separation of church and state" and be rid of any manner of religious speaker at any official government event. That will make me happier and end a huge chunk of this debate. =^-^= {include cute emoticon for levity}
Agreed, no one is perfect. Some people do a lot of good with some bad, some do a lot of bad and some good and history will only remember which made the greatest impact.
Hell, Gandhi was a racist! (He HATED Black people.)
Agreed, no one is perfect. Some people do a lot of good with some bad, some do a lot of bad and some good and history will only remember which made the greatest impact.
Hell, Gandhi was a racist! (He HATED Black people.)
I had to read through the entire thread to hear someone express what I had been thinking:
"Lets drive home 'separation of church and state' and be rid of any manner of religious speaker at any official government event. That will make me happier and end a huge chunk of this debate. =^-^= {include cute emoticon for levity}"
Indeed. Why include any individual figure or religion in this high profile event at all? The perceived "promotion" of that individual or religion will only serve to offend a large proportion of the population, no matter who or what the choice.
If Obama would like to exercise or express his beliefs and keep them separate from his role as President (see Article Six of the Constitution, and the First Amendment), even if he is privately against equal rights for gays, he should be free to do so.
I wish I knew who to write to, so that someone who runs things knew how people who voted for Obama feel about this choice. I'm disappointed and frustrated. I didn't see the man I voted for taking this route to reach out to the right.