rssObama Steps Over the Line
Monday, December 29, 2008 at 9:05 am
- 11 Comments
In an insightful column in The New York Times Sunday, Frank Rich attributes Obama’s choice of the Rev. Rick Warren — the megachurch pastor who has likened gay marriage to pedophilia, incest and polygamy (watch it here on CNN) — to arrogance. The decision “was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong,” writes Rich, a notion that eerily echoes George Bush’s hubris over the last eight years.
Let’s hope that the decision is just arrogance, as opposed to bigotry or political expediency. Bigotry would be a slap in the face to minorities of all kinds that worked so hard to get Obama into office; political expediency would put the lie to Obama’s claim that he’s all about change.
Unfortunately, Obama’s justification that he wants this “to be the most inclusive inauguration ever” is wholly unconvincing. “We can disagree without being disagreeable,” he said of the invitation to Warren.
But can we? Aren’t there some views that are so bigoted and dangerous that they ought to be denounced? Would Barack Obama invite a prominent segregationist to speak at his inauguration? Aren’t there some views that simply don’t deserve a seat at the table?
Surely, Obama wouldn’t have given such an honored position to a pastor who equated interracial marriage to immoral and criminal behavior, though historically that was the prevailing view and some people likely still see it that way.
Perhaps mainstream society isn’t as far along in its support of gay rights as it is in support of the rights of other minorities — as we learned from the passage of the arguably illegal Proposition 8 in California in November. But wasn’t Obama elected to lead the country to a better place? And as a member of a group that has suffered the humiliations and violence that accompanies the sort of discriminatory views Rick Warren now espouses about gay people, shouldn’t we expect him to know where to draw the line between a political disagreement and hateful bigotry?
Sure, Warren has been an important and influential advocate on issues like poverty, climate change and AIDS, and a prominent advocate on those issues should be included in the inauguration. His unfortunate views against abortion and stem-cell research could arguably be considered religious or political disagreements. But hateful discrimination cloaked as an acceptable moral and political position steps very clearly over the line.
11 Comments
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Are you going to make an argument or just a list of questions? Are rhetorical questions really convincing? Are they a way of actually avoiding a sustained argument? Did Lyndon Baines Johnson rely on any Southern votes for the passage of the Civil Rights Act? Can Obama afford to ignore such a substantial proportion of the American people? Won't there be a better chance of getting gay marriages if the opposing side doesn't feel demonized? Does Frank Rich really have any credibility left?
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 7:49 am
Maybe we should wait and see just what Mr. Warren has to say in his inaugural invocation before we all start deciding it was such a bad choice. Maybe… just maybe… there will be some surprises!
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 8:18 am
You know what? I think Warren's views on gay marriage and abortion are wrong. I also think they reflect the views of millions of Americans, many of whom have probably fought and died for this country. To eliminate them from social and political discourse because of their views on these issues would be very undemocratic indeed. I would go so far as to say it would be un-American. It would be the kind of thing you'd expect an ayatollah someplace to do. Or a jihadist. What's the next step? You want to line everyone you disagree with up and shoot them?
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 8:22 am
bamo-'s not interested in your political power. he's interested in his. how can he win another landslide without the churchie vote? one televangemercial is worth a million Brokeback Mountains. lieberman uber alles!
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 8:49 am
Bush was the most divisive president we have ever had and systematically turned America into an 'us and them' society. You saw this so clearly in the contentions and bitter election campaigns. It was scary to see how much hate and ignorance was seething just below the surface. It is time for Americans to unify, regardless of how difficult it is. While including Warren prominently at the inauguration is controversial and no one is calling it acceptable, it is true that it is opening an important dialogue that is long overdue. I think Obama is showing us that we can't make the same choices if we are going to truly change America, and it won't be easy. I'm with him 100% of the way.
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 10:06 am
I love to read blogs and reporters that have not done their homework. To take and make comments off of an article written is wrong because it only is skin deep. How many that write know who Rick Warren is? By many comments written it is easy to see many really don't know his views, but are writing views bases on reporters views. Go to his church web site and see his views and be resposible to write a blog that has meaning. When you have done your search for the truth, then come online and write what you have investigated and know. Put the arm chair quarterbacks in their place when you see how far off the mark their comments are. His church site is; http://www.saddleback.com/index.html. Rick Warren is not against gay people, he simply quotes the Bible. God created man & woman, designed for each other. The design was not made for man & man or woman & woman. God loves a gay person and should be treated with love ALWAYS. Rick is not against gay people. If he were do you think he would be such a big supporter of helping people with aids around the world? If you look aids hits the gay population very hard, so by working against aids is actually helping many gay people. Do the research. Be the educated person writing a blog. Be the one to expose the truth, not the emotions off an article. Lastly, be the voice of reason in a world that has lost it's focus in many areas.
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 10:12 am
A presidential candidate who sincerely advocates engagement with one's “enemies,” competitors, and distractors is walking the walk. Those who want to gripe about it simply lose their own credibility in my eyes.
Look, if you folks want to field a candidate to run for the presidency that will do what you all think is right. Go for it!!
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
puhl leeeze – gripe and whine – whine and gripe – the scary people are those like miss daphne here who think everyone who disagrees with them should be gagged – note to ms. eviatar ; you are the hateful intolerant one – p.s. there are MANY reasons why those who love gays can still oppose gay “marriage” – this is a fact which no doubt you would like to deny, but a fact none the less – get over it already and stop misquoting people just because someone else did – you basically are bigotted and incompetent as a journalist OR else you are a bigotted, dishonest journalist – one or the other – that's for sure
Comment posted December 29, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Wahhh religious pastor believes things commonly believed by religious pastors.
Liberals who take the first opportunity to throw punches aren't liberals at all.
Plus, crying over nothing. Waaaaaaah
Comment posted December 30, 2008 @ 5:24 am
Wahhh religious pastor believes things commonly believed by religious pastors.
Liberals who take the first opportunity to throw punches aren't liberals at all.
Plus, crying over nothing. Waaaaaaah
Pingback posted December 30, 2008 @ 6:39 am
[...] Obama Steps Over the Line The Washington Independent – Washington,DC,USA Would Barack Obama invite a prominent segregationist to speak at his inauguration? Aren’t there some views that simply don’t deserve a seat at the table? … [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
