Great post, Al! The exlusionary aspect of this bothers me. Just because the other side does it doesn't mean that we should too. In fact, it should be a point of pride for us that we do not.

Amen, atheist brother Al! The left has really begun to look more and more like the right with their bit battles. I get not agreeing with somebody's beliefs. I get being angry that you lost a battle that you hoped you would win. What I don't understand is how we can hold such a narrow vision as to how to move this country forward together. Is America going to pull through the crises that we are in with only members of the left?

do you get inclusion by embracing a man who preaches exclusion?

I had a feeling you would get around to posting about this at some point. The outcry over Rick Warren giving the invocation just seems petty, immature and ultimately counter-productive -- all aspects of political organization that you have stood against time and again.

It's like you said: it's just an invocation. As a Buddhist and big time believer in separation of Church and State, I find the whole tradition of invocations at the Inauguration to be against the spirit of the Constitution and our values, but I honestly don't remember who gave it at the inaugurations for Bush or Clinton. I doubt I'll even remember about Rick Warren four months from now. I'll be too busy remembering whatever Obama says.

On a side note: won't it be funny to see the wingers flip out when Obama speaks his middle name?

I am so very tired of this guilt by association outrage!   As much as I love the DKOS and ThinkProgress communities, I need to take a break for a while.  As I stated on these blogs, we will NEVER move past these divides if we can't listen to one another.  People who are outraged, really don't know much about PE Obama.  Like the reason he was elected President of the Harvard Law Review.   The Conservations voted for him because they thought he would at least listen to them - not agree but at least listen.  During the process however, they ending up listening to him.

Thank you for this post.  It is truly uplifting!

As always, Al, you are the cooler head that prevails.  Nice to have this oasis when everyone else in the blogosphere is being so shrill and self-righteous. Of course, these are the same folks who didn't think that Obama was ever hitting back hard enough whenever he was attacked.  

 

Me, I'd personally like to see the rabbis, imams and lamas all up there, too.  The more the merrier.  Maybe some coven members for good measure.  A gesture does not a policy make.  

 

 

Imagine that: a big tent. The only one missing now in this mosaic is a prominent Muslim.

The Democratic Party grew in numbers during this campaign season due to the promise of inclusion and of unity.  While it may come as a terrible shock to the progressive left (I am one of them, or so I thought), a lot of people who voted for Obama aren't in favor of gay marriage either, and many of them voted in favor of Prop 8.  We have very severe economic problems, unity is required. I also agree with you, Al, that as conservative preachers go, Warren is no Falwell.  I don't have a problem with Obama picking Warren, because I get what he's doing there.

Warren's prayer is now going to get more attention, and is going to be listened to by more people, than it ever would have been without this nontroversy. I don't know if the networks would have cared about broadcasting the invocation before, but you can bet they will now.

The other irony is that the prayer will be totally bland. Can anyone name a memorable invocation or benediction at a previous Inaguration?

Another atheist chiming in agreement.

 

This feels a little bit to me like when the Rev. Wright thing was hot.  From my perspective, any politician that has a pastor has a "pastor problem", but, unfortunately, that's the only kind of politician that's viable in our society.  So, I long ago had to make my peace with the big obnoxious role that religion plays in American public policy.

 

So, given that there WILL be an invocation, the fact that it will include an idiot who has reprehensible views on gay marriage is only slightly incrementally worse than including an idiot who doesn't.

 

Plus this cuts both ways.  This could be interpreted to be an endorsement by Rick Warren of the views of President-elect Obama as much as the reverse.  And that ain't all bad.

You can put me down as one who doesn't understand why we're always including religion in our secular functions, but that is the country's tradition...so this choice doesn't bother me. Rick Warren isn't going to be writing some kind of Invocation-related policy.

I personally don't like Tom Vilsack for Ag secretary, as he's corn-dependent Big Ag redux. And he'll be in an important position to make food policy--something that needs addressing badly and that we like to forget about in between food safety scares. That appointment I can get more worked up about. Rick Warren giving a short prayer? Not so much.

As a very few on this board know from my posting here over the past year, I’ve been researching the messianic components within the three major religions since 1999. It’s for a project that is taking forever to complete. I’ve done the Christians, about 35% of the Muslims, and been working on the Jews for two years (their 1640 AD spin-offs are fascinating because they were running Turkey until July 2007).

That said.

The messianic divisions within the Christian religion, especially modern-day Christianity, are complex. If this stuff interests you, knock yourself out with this broad-brush overview of just the pre/post millennial crowd. Whew.

Rick Warren is a fascinating pick because of his appeal to the general Christian (not necessarily Catholic, tho’) public. He feeds the homeless daily on a massive scale. His book The Purpose-Driven Life sold 20-30 million copies in the English version alone. He claims to donate 90% of his earnings to his church causes. And unlike the dispensational premillennialists Ron Parsley and John Hagee, who preach war and hatred against those they disbelieve in via (illegal in my view) political intervention and a wholesale re-writing of actual history, Warren’s not into the Rapture or the wrath of God. His critics accuse him of trying to replace the Bible with his books because Warren committed the sin of quoting from Aldous Huxley and 17th C mystic nuns and other “New Age” personalities to promote the idea that God is ‘your friend out of love, not fear’. Warren rejects the ‘you should be afraid of the wrath of God’ line.

And although I wrote above that Warren doesn’t necessarily appeal to Catholics, he pitches his tent to include Catholics and Mormons in his descriptions of Christians. (Warren came out of the Baptist church teachings.) Some consider this apostasy.

I concur with you, Al, about the inclusion bit. I think what Obama is doing is goddam brilliant, if I may be allowed to swear around this august subject.

My thoughts exactly... how easy it is to forget that what drew so many to Obama was the pledge to be "everyone's" president; the pledge to listen to those with whom he disagrees. Anyone who didn't hear that wasn't listening... in a comment above, akonuche says that the left is beginning to look like the right and I would agree. The strident demand for purism at the expense of real movement and change is distressing. I am taken back to Obama's acceptance speech when he said "and for those of you who didn't vote for me, I will your president also." That was not just another campaign promise, but a core value. My only problem is what Alexa mentioned ... we need a Muslim in the mix.

Al - this post is the reason I keep coming back again and again to read you.  Thanks.

To reinforce my point above about this cutting both ways, I just found this on the Huffington Post:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/pro-lifers-hate-warren-in_n_152...

The right wingers see this as an endorsement of Obama by Warren.

He drew a circle that shut me out...

Oh love and I, knew just where to begin
Yes love and I, started a circle to spin
Oh love and I
We drew a circle, a beautiful circle
A wonderful circle that took him in

The more inclusive includes the less inclusive.

Old song Circles by Toni Tennille

okay, I don't win a battle by wanting to exclude others but I'm supposed to be cool with including somebody who DOES want to exclude others.

I think I'm getting the fuzzy end of that lollypop. in fact, I think we all are.

during this campaign I heard straight up racism and straight up bigotry against gays discussed as legitimate political positions. you ask a guy like Warren to break open the champagne bottle on your ship of state then I think it's fair to get ready for a LOT more of that stuff.

 

Al,

I completely disagree - I think Rev. Wright should give the invocation.  Just kidding!  Thanks for this post.  

I'm so looking forward to Obama's inauguration and now that it's just a little over a month away, it no longer seems like an incredible dream.  So many great things to look forward to, including the possibility of Obama speaking in the capital of a majority Islamic nation in his first 100 days.  I do hope that rumor turns out to be true.

Catherine

Al,

you articulated in this post what I have been trying to say to all those outraged on dKos

they shouted for the last 8 years against the exclusion of the other from the Bush administration, and now they want to do the same thing for the other.

 

I truly believe that these "progressives" :
-Never read Sol Alinsky, because if they did, they would have learned something or two about how to win the battle to change hearts and minds.

-they really..really..REALLY!..love the sound of their voices.

Posts such as this one are why I contribute to the Field. It is one of the few sane places on the net. In the meantime, PE Obama's pick for Secretary of Labor is much more important than whom he selects for an invocation at the inauguration. It appears it will be U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis. This is a far cry from Bush's first choice for Sec. of Labor, Linda Chavez, who withdrew her name. The post was later filled by Elaine Chao, wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell.  That should tell you enough, after all the recent auto loan "hearings" (blue-collar bashings from Republican Southern senators, compliments of Sen. McConnell). 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=hilda_solis_is_great

As always Al, you bring much needed calm and reason to the blogosphere. I cannot believe that this Rick Warren inclusion has caused such an outcry. Wait a minute, yes I can believe this because these are some of the same people who thought the world would end when Obama voted for the FISA bill, who nosh their teeth over each cabinet pick and scream "this is not change" at every turn. All of this faux outrage before the President-Elect is even sworn in!

You know, I never before followed politics this closely until this election season. I have voted since 1992 and have always voted for the Democratic ticket. I really didn't know what a "progressive" was before this year. I thought I was a progressive, but after the constant indignations and so-called buyer's remorse I hear constantly from the "left state", I am running to moderate town and staying there.

The main reason I was attracted to Obama is because of his beliefs, coupled with realism and pragmatism. If any of these proclaimed progressives read his two books, they would know that Barack believes in inclusion and practical solutions. This is not to say that he doesn't have progressive ideas, but he knows that it will take realistic goals and compromises to get anything accomplished.

It seems to me that all of this nontroversy that seems to spring up and gets overblown by the progressive left, far right and the MSM, just continues on the long road to distractionville. When there is actual policy that needs to be changed or debated, then everyone (right, left, middle) should participate in the discussion and take appropriate actions when necessary.

Thanks again Al for your insightful analysis. You and Jed continue to be the beacons of reason on the net. Your writing keeps reminding me why I support the Authentic Journalism. I just donated $100.00 to the fund.

I'd like to dissent from Al's point, but frankly, I can't. Still, playing devil's advocate, I'll offer the following:

Those objecting to Paster Warren are not suggesting that he be excluded; they're suggesting that by giving him the most visible role of any clergy during the ceremony, Obama is sending out a symbolic message of approval, and symbolically slapping the progressive community in the face. So why couldn't Warren be invited without handling such a key role?

Answering my own question, I think the problem with this position is that Obama simply is not endorsing Warren's positions by having him at the inauguration, in any role.  And if any sybolic message is being sent, it is that Obama respects people with different points of view.

Nor is there much to the idea that progressives are being disrespected somehow.  In my opinion, some people simply don't want anyone with a non-progressive view anywhere near the White House, even if those views are contrary to Obama's stated views.

We are caught within the frame set up not just by the Republicans but our own interest group methods from the 60's and 70's. 

The politics of grievance worked for a while, but then it burned out and burned us out because the escalation of the sense of entitlement fractured us -- it didnt bring us together.  Each group resented the other's success instead of building on that path to increase the group, pull others in and thereby meet all the needs of the people. 

Of course change always brings on all sorts of transitional awarenesses and I guess this is no different.  Still, it is painful to see -- particularly the ironic lack of empathy.  That one person who perceives himself/herself a victim could then in turn victimize and exclude someone else using the same arguments used about them.

I totally know that exclusion from a group can be a powerful device but inclusion is even more powerful.  Shedding the burden and pain of resentment and anger will one day result in the release of enormous energy that we can use to do the hard work ahead

About whom you are so exercised, Al, I respectfully disagree with much of what you have written here. I’m a gay man, a Californian who benefitted from same-sex marriage before Proposition 8 passed, and one who opposes the inclusion of Rick Warren in a speaking role at Obama’s inauguration. Throughout your post, you rightly condemn censorship and banning others from speaking. But other than Obama and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, no one is entitled to speak at Obama’s inaugural. All other speaking roles are by invitation only. It is the choice to invite Warren to which I object. Thus, when you complain:

The objection to Warren is that he opposed gay marriage through California's Proposition 8. Well, guess what? So did a slight majority of Californians. Should they be disinvited to the inaugural, too?

Of course not. But is each Californian who opposes gay marriage entitled to a speaking slot in the program? Or each Californian who supported gay marriage? Why aren’t all of us allowed three minutes to talk too? We’re being censored and banned from speaking, oh no!

We're not talking about a policy position here. It's a fucking prayer, that's all. (As an atheist, shouldn't I be offended that anyone - even gay-rights friendly Reverend Joseph Lowry, who will give the benediction at Obama's inauguration - will be erasing the separation between Church and State at the inaugural? But that would be silly on my part. I don't feel that my disbelief is threatened by believers stating their belief, nor that policy is formed by it. It will be many generations before there might be an inaugural without clergy. In the meantime, I've got bigger fish to fry.)

It’s Lowery, by the way. Great guy, and an excellent selection for historical and ideological reasons. I applaud Obama’s team for honoring Lowery with a role. And just as I respect your decision that you have bigger fish to fry than fighting for the removal of prayer from inaugurations, I hope you also respect those whose “bigger fish to fry” include causes that are not tops on your agenda. Like marriage equality is for me, for example.

Identity politics groups - on race, on gender, on sexual orientation and every other matter of diversity - have for a long time relied on tactics of censorship. Speakers at universities have been interrupted or blocked, both from the right and the left. Some gay rights leaders and groups have played out those tactics over and over again, as have right-wing groups of Christian fundamentalists. Through their shared tactics of seeking to silence and censor dissenting voices they look the same to me.

Ah yes, a classic false equivalency. Those who promote civil rights for LGBT Americans are no better than those who oppose them because you find similarity in the tactics employed by some members of both communities.

By inviting Warren to the inaugural to say a prayer, the president-elect is acknowledging that he and his followers are also part of the United States. And if you compare Warren to most high-profile evangelical preachers, he's a friggin' liberal by comparison: urging and organizing for compassion (and medicines) for AIDs patients (I remember when that was more of a priority for the gay rights movement), telling his flock that Jesus wants them to help alleviate poverty... and, oh, damn, he is one of the 51 percent of Californians that opposed gay marriage in the last election. For that he should be banished into the proverbial "cone of silence"? Gimme a break. The guy has a huge microphone already. He's been on the cover of TIME and his books sell like hot cakes. It's not as if anyone has the power to silence him anyway, so all this teeth-gnashing is more about symbolism than substance.

If Rick Warren is a friggin’ liberal among evangelicals, then why give ANY evangelical a speaking slot at the inauguration? There are hundreds of different religious denominations that are non-evangelical yet still Christian, and hundreds more that are not Christian at all. Where’s the inclusion of their beliefs?

I’m glad Obama reaches out to and courts Warren and his followers. I really truly am. This is part of how Obama is changing politics for the better. I get that. But Obama is reaching out to hundreds of different organizations and advocacy groups, some of which I support and some I do not, without inviting their leaders to take a speaking role at his inauguration. Does the fact that no one from their cause is speaking at the inauguration mean that NARAL, HRC, the UAW, Jews, Muslims and atheists are being banned or censored?

And you are correct. Rick Warren is fat, rich and happy, and has the ear of millions of Americans already. He did the day before the inaugural, and he still will the day after, whether or not he is one of the people chosen to speak there. Obama advances no new ground by giving such a celebrity the spotlight, compared to how he could have helped shine that light on a little-known pastor doing great work in the shadows with undocumented aliens, the homeless or the addicted. I was not personally aware of the life and career of Joseph Lowery before today. That’s what being selected to participate in this ceremony can do.

Rick Warren is less to blame for that defeat than the organizations that ran the referendum campaign on our side: they virtually ignored African-Americans and Hispanics, and got caught up in the same old insular debates among white people, and later complained when more black folk voted against their position than for it. Rick Warren didn't cast a spell on them to make them politically stupid. They did it all by themselves. And seeking to ban or censor voices like his from a bit part in a ceremonial setting will only further postpone the day when all people will be able to marry or not as they wish: straight or gay.

This paragraph is beneath you, Al. Another thing that some of us apparently did wrong, by your logic, was to make the Obama campaign our primary focus of time, energy and money. I feel bad enough about the passage of Prop 8, and second-guess my choice to put Obama’s campaign first in my own life, without getting crapped on like this. I saw that the No on 8 campaign was faltering, but continued soldiering on for Obama because I decided I was better off with a President who was pro-LGBT rights heading the executive branch of the Federal government, even if I lost the right to marry in CA, than had the reverse outcome occurred. I figured that if things turned out as they did, I could still count on the CA Supreme Court to reaffirm its May decision. Shame on me.

I thought it was ridiculous when some of the same voices wanted Obama to ban gospel singer Donnie McClurkin from performing in South Carolina last January. And I think this is equally ridiculous now.

I thought that was over-the-top as well, however, at the time, Obama was still widely unknown and engaged in a primary fight with Hillary Clinton, who had a lot of (undeserved) support in the LGBT community, and the McClurkin fiasco was exploited by Clintonistas to attempt to drive a wedge between Obama and gays. I didn’t fall for it. And McClurkin was part of a regional campaign targeting one subset of prospective voters, not the national public celebration of Obama’s ascendency to the Presidency. You’ll notice that Obama didn’t invite McClurkin to participate in the inaugural. Is that censorship or banning?

I don’t believe that inviting Warren to participate in the inauguration means that Obama is a homophobe either. I just think it was a tone-deaf and ill-considered choice from among the hundreds of thousands of spiritual leaders who could have been recognized for this honor.

In sum, you don't win inclusion in society by campaigning for exclusion of others. Period.

Interesting. Funny thing how the Mormons strengthened their alliances with Catholics and Evangelicals by rallying together with them to campaign for the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the right to marry. Does your proposition only work on the progressive side of social movements?

In sum, Al, I disagree with you that objecting to one of the participants selected and honored with the privilege of speaking at the inaugural is an act of censorship or banning.

Anyone speaking at an inauguration is a reflection of the new administration's outlook.  It is not a policy debate.  It is not a seminar.  It is symbolic; a PR presentation of the new administration.  It is not censorship to only include those that reflect the views of the new administration.

Would it have been okay if instead of Cardinal Cushing, JFK had had a racist minister known for promoting the anti-miscegenation laws so popular in the South in those days give the invocation?

And no, I don't think this matters much in the long run, as long as his policy is sound.  But it is a gratuitous slap to a much abused and attacked minority that supported him strongly, and which has had a history of being used by Democratic politicians to get elected, and then abandoned by them once sworn in.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act ring any bells?  I don't blame them at all for perceiving this as a "spit in the face."  Is it the end of the world as we know it?  No.  But it is a tone-deaf mistake.

Well, I think that the above comments are pretty representative of what you could expect from the variety of people in "the big tent".  If Obama was president of "The Field" and not the United States, I would think his choice was pretty ham handed after Prop 8.  But...his choice was for the United States, Democrats and Republicans.  Given his, and the Democrats in general, move to include Evangelicals in their growing fold, Rick Warren is a no brainer.  It reflects the reality that he is ruling from a centrist position, not a left wing position.  Obama had to weigh the pros and cons of including Warren, the obvious golden boy of the Evangelical establishment, with the negatives for his more progressive supporters.  He felt the pros outweighed the cons, and made a choice, and in the end, I think it will serve him well. Well played.

ha ha Al, you like hanging your balls out there every once in awhile don't you? :p

He's not just anti-gay marriage he equates it with pedophilia. That's way beyond the pale. He's also is anti-choice (A HOLOCAUST!), anti-science (Gays disprove evolution!!), and for the God given right to assassinate Mooslims. He apparently told a Jewish woman that she's going to hell so it appears he's also an antisemite. The only thing he apparently hasn't said in public is that he hates black people and that's about the only ist that Obama seems to not reach out to. Though it's interesting that he's unwilling to reach out to Farrakhan or his former pastor Rev. Wright. Or to White Supremists. He only reaches out to fundamentalist Christians it appears.

Warren is not inclusive. He says his views are not up for debate. There is no win here. There is no strategy here. Warren will use this to gain power and then he will attack Obama. Remember how much more effective attacks from Clinton were because she was apparently on Obama's side? Similar thing here. Obama legitimizes him and then he gets attacked by someone he has shown respect for. The attacks will have more power not less.

This is an EPIC FAIL.

Allan - I respect your difference of opinion and it is well stated.

From my perspective, if Warren got up there on Inauguration Day and engaged in a rail against gay marriage, clearly that would be troubling. But despite his horrific views, he's a pro at the public relations game and I'm sure will be adult enough to keep his few words on the side of unifying and peace-making.

I'll speak to your point about "If Rick Warren is a friggin’ liberal among evangelicals, then why give ANY evangelical a speaking slot at the inauguration?"

Evangelicals are 26.3 percent of the United States population. That's one out of every four people in the country. White Evangelicals, of course, have been the right-wing's political base for 28 years now.

Interestingly, 24 percent of them voted for Obama (as compared to 21 percent for Kerry four years prior). As I said on Election Eve, elections are a game of inches. That shifted the vote by almost a full percentage point nationwide. And part of how he did that was by appearing - with much criticism against him at the time - on Warren's Saddleback Forum.

A commenter here made a point: does anybody remember what religious figures spoke at the Bush or Clinton inaugurations? Or what they said?

Evangelicals are a larger group of Americans than Catholics (23.9 percent), Jews (1.7 percent), Muslims (0.6 percent) or Mormons (1.7 percent). I think of their traditionally lockstep thinking and voting as a bomb that is not yet fully disarmed, and see in this move another cutting of the wires in a series of them by Obama.

In highly polarized and hostile political environments, the minority group almost always gets crushed by the larger group. Changing the tone of politics - certainly something Obama made clear was among his priorities - I think will go a longer way toward ratcheting down the hatred and violence against gays and others than allowing the polarization to fester.

And when I criticize the people running the No on 8 campaign over tactics and strategy, and how they allocated their resources, I'm not criticizing you or any other volunteer in that effort, but, rather, the decision makers: I'll be that among the volunteers, you have your own critiques of it.

I was 18 when I accepted an invitation to perform with my guitar at a gay rights rally in Western Massachusetts. That was in 1978, during the Anita Bryant crusade and the orange juice boycott. And there I was, on the evening news, half the valley then presuming that I was myself gay. For years on talk radio haters would call my show and call me faggot and everything else and I'd just say, "oh, are you asking me on a date, Sir? Could you send me a photo?"

Similarly, I've never been married or been in the military: neither were compelling enough for me all those years, and I see both institutions as flawed, but saw and see the justice in making sure they are open to those that want them even if I don't. I suppose if they made me king of the world I'd more likely rule to outlaw both institutions! But as long as they're with us, there should be equal access and protection under the law.

A lot of us - gay or straight - have been on the front lines of the gay rights movement and seen real progress on it (just as men have been in the women's movement and whites have been in the Civil Rights movement), and I think I have as much mileage on the odometer in that as a great many leading gay activists, and I think that gives me the same standing as any other participant to, after the referendum, criticize what I think were unproductive political moves by its leadership.

That's not blaming some group apart from me. That's exercising democracy and self-critique inside something I've been part of, and will continue to be part of. And my view is that this way that Obama is disarming the bomb is strategically and tactically the way to go, and that, yes, people on my side of the barricades have been fueling the bomb in the name of disarming it, although I respect those that disagree. It is a disagreement over tactics and strategy, not over the goal itself.

@Alexa, And another thing about Rick Warren...

so, what kind of millennialist is Rick Warren?

The issue isn't that I disagree with this man (although I do). The issues are these: Obama's invited someone to speak at the inauguration who (1) lied outright about the "cone of silence" during the presidential debates, (2) discriminates against segments of our society, and (3) advocates the assassination of foreign leaders.

Anonymous - If Warren brings any of those three things up at a religious invocation I'll eat my hat. But that's not going to happen.

I get it: Some people - on the right and the left - still think that if somebody says something wrong or offensive about a different matter they should be cast out of all public appearance and discourse on any other. I have a profoundly different way of viewing the world and of how change is made, and will only point out that the censorious impulse - and yes, you've got it big - has failed to change anything and has probably set back lots.

Eek. Don't even go there...the varieties of baptist, let alone broadly evangelical, eschatology is too confusing.  But, I think he would fit most comfortably in the post-millenialist camp, as this is the usual position of proponents of the so-called "Social Gospel", which Warren's anti-poverty focus suggests he supports.  I think that is actually a big criticism aimed at Warren by rightward leaning evangelicals in the US.

And for all you do and have done for LGBT equality past, present and future.

As for my comment about evangelicals, good points all.  And after I wrote it, I wanted to change it to say:

If Rick Warren is a friggin’ liberal among evangelicals, then why give ANY evangelical a speaking slot at the inauguration?  And if an evangelical, why THIS evangelical?  Why not one of the ones who actually endorsed Obama for the Presidency and generally agrees with his vision?

I'm not asking that anybody be cast out. I'm just saying W.T.F?

If I got an email from Obama for America back in October asking me to help bring about the day when Rick Warren could usher in his new administration I would have said W.T.F. why should I act any differently now?

 

as far as I'm concerned, gay people and people who love gay people have every right to consider this a W.T.F. moment.

asking W.T.F. is not about shutting anybody up - it's about feeling like we have a say.

we still do, right?

Cage Free Brown - If I read you correctly, you're seeing something I'm noticing too: Some of the reaction is Kabuki theater, in that - whether intended or not - Obama's choice of Warren to say a prayer at the ceremony has put gay rights back on the front burner, gotten all the organizations invited onto the cable shows, will probably lead to better fundraising efforts, etcetera. It has its plus side as well as its minuses. By all means, use the opportunity to make noise if it helps the larger agendas.

Am I blogging and commenting about Rick Warren because I think who gives a prayer at the inaugural matters much in the grand scheme of things?  Of course not!

It's a teachable moment and an organizing opportunity.  Because of this selection, more people than before know Rick Warren's odious comments equating gay marriage with incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. 

 

My email distribution list of 100+ people, almost all of them heterosexual, is buzzing with energy about the Warren nod, and I'm getting more people signing up to see Milk this Saturday, then participate in the Light Up the Night candlelight vigils.

A lot of my straight progressive friends share my general queasiness at the power and influence of the "Christian" "right," and anything that can feed their passion and strengthen their resolve for LGBT equality is a win for me.

I just don't buy that the right-wing position is the mainstream position and that we are the ones that need to be reaching out.

 

to hear a lot of people talk it would seem that an Obama Administration has got to be "The Giving Tree" and make nice with the right.

I'm all for making nice, who isn't? I'm just wondering how far out this has to go before I'm not a divisive character. I mean, does it have to get to John Bolton or a guy like that? then can I squawk without being an intolerant bully?

I mean I hope it doesn't get there but do you see where I'm coming from? the value voters got to cock a doodle do and feel like they were calling the shots after Bush/Kerry. I'm not asking to cock a doodle doo and I don't want to call the shots.

I'd like to feel like progressives have a seat at the table - that we aren't being asked to go back to the kid's table until it's check writing season again.

I really don't think that's too much to ask.

I've been torn by the Warren selection.  I was initially angry and shot off an e-mail to change.gov.  Then I remembered that Obama was doing what he said he'd do: talk to people who disagreed with him.  He's a bigger person in that respect than I am.  I also know Obama doesn't do anything without thinking it through completely.  His plan may have simply been to include someone with whom he disagrees but with whom he is still friends.  Or, he has a much larger agenda that includes DOMA and DADT.

Anyway, thanks for a calm perspective.

 

He drew a circle that shut me out --

Heretic!  Rebel!  A thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle

That took him in.

 

Some poet quoted in my Christian Sunday School

Al, your viewpoint is always a light through the storm.

This is an issue where I deeply appreciate both sides. 

After reading your analysis of the realpolitik choice Obama had to make re: putting Warren onstage for one single prayer, I realize I *can* stick to my own middle path: if Warren's anti-gay words are the problem, then anger and energy should be directed at Warren, not Obama.

In fact, I hereby declare that for me, Barack Obama is no longer a Symbol, and none of his actions are Symbols; none of the people around him are Symbols and ditto their actions; furthermore, nobody I agree or disagree with is a Symbol or Sign.  Neither is Barack Obama going to Save me or my community or anybody -- that is up to me and my community, to get ourselves into teaching mode and go engage our opponents like human beings.

Oh, yeah, you already did, Al.  You're the bomb.  WE won.  I didn't win, you didn't win, no one person here won.    We won with a coalition.  The truth is that there are millions of understandings of the word "change."

We may not like it, but there's a whole lot of delicious variety among Democrats and among Obama supporters.  We will only continue to win only to the degree that we are willing not just to hear but to listen (or vice versa) and live with offensive but largely virtuous ideologies.  That means we can't let the purity of our ideals destroy us.  If we do, well, we'll deserve what we get: a dying planet, dying poor, dying sick, dying economy, and dying nation.

Choose life and be an example.

For whatever it's worth, younger evangelicals are much more accepting of gays than their elders.  I know this because I had some in-depth conversations with some of this group who were volunteering for Obama in my local community.  They also stated they were enthusiastic about Obama because he had convinced them he would not demonize them as many on the left have done. (Respect, empower and INCLUDE).

Obama's strategy here is forward-looking, looking towards this younger group whose support he (and we) need for his policies in all areas over the next four years.  If we want to eventually pry this new generation out of the clutches of their bigoted elders, we need to reach out and show respect.  Was this the way to do it?  I suppose we can argue about that.  I will withhold judgment until I hear Warren's words. But I approve the goal here - it's one of the reasons I worked so hard for this ticket.

 

The inauguration is a media event. I've heard estimates as high as 5 million people showing up, to the point where people there live will have to watch it play out on TV screens set up along the mall.

So this whole discussion, in my view, quickly becomes a house of mirrors, where the medium starts to become the message. What I mean by that is if this was not being broadcast/Web streamed/blogged worldwide, who would really give two flips who gave the invocation -- who would even know?

But our media culture inflates these matters beyond their literal substance to create media symbol firestorms that distract and sidetrack us in so many ways.

Warren is nothing without the TV -- since his power flows from the media culture. Obama, now with the president's ring, has the real power here, and he can amplify and direct it through skillful manipulation of these media events.

And I see that as precisely what's going on here. Now, that doesn't settle the argument as to whether Warren should have been invited or not in the micro sense, but that argument, minus the media, as I've already argued, lacks any real punch.

But the one thing I know about symbols is they often mean different things to different people -- a diamond like quality in that they refract light differently depending on the position.

So as we move around this diamond, we can see a lot of points of view, and it's good that we discuss them, appreciate the beauty of this diamond as a whole, but also realize it is really nothing more than a glorified lump of coal when reduced to its essence.

Warren is little more than a collection of digital bytes on a two-dimensional TV screen; really, that's all he is to most of America, all the power he really has. 

In the media culture, it's not the medium that matters, or even the symbol; it's our reaction to it that matters. And if it takes a Warren reciting some neo-paganistic incantations [a prayer from another vantage point on the diamond] to get us to focus on these important issues of civil rights in a way that leads even a few more people to open their minds to a broader spectrum of humanity, then more good is done than harm as I see it. 

 

 

 

It's getting to the point where I'm reluctant to post here because I agree with Al too much (although I disagreed with his last post, but why quibble?).

If nothing else, the Obama transition period has revealed that Democrats are not good at managing "the win." Every day a new special interest group emerges to be offended about something. Long in eclipse, the Big Picture is fuzzy to us.

But, folks, it's the deep currents, not the surface waves, that move the ship along. Obama is doing exactly what he promised: unifying the nation. Maybe that's hard to process. Maybe folks would be happier if the status quo was maintained. Maybe some Obama voters didn't bother to listen to their candidate. Not me. For me, THIS IS CHANGE. Inviting someone you disagree with to speak at your own inauguration is the immediate realization of campaign promises. 

Somehow folks believed that Obama's pledge to changing Washington involved only making Jane Hamsher, Dave Sirota, and Rachel Maddow happy. Sorry, it was deeper than that. 

I have spent most of today trying to articulate the same thoughts that you have so beautifully expressed here.  Thank you for doing so in such a cogent and beautiful way.  I would like to add that I believe that this issue is going to create a backlash against the backlash.  I have already noticed many of my family members (who are African Americans) expressing anger that the LGBTQ community is purposely trying to sabotage the inauguration.  They are wrong in that assessment it seems to me and yet the resentment is there.  I believe that this may have long-term negative consequences for organizing. 

 

A segment of fellow-citizens have their very humanity (sexual attraction, a most basic human quality) spiritually/psychologically assaulted every hour of every day.

A man ran to lead the country as President.  An important principle he emphasized was that all humans must be treated with respect and equality.

Another man leads millions in the country as a "religious leader".  A principle vital to his "theology" is that the humanity of certain people is not valid and consequently not worthy of respect, or equality. 

The newly elected President has the opportunity to "honor" a very limited number of leaders on the world stage in celebration of his inauguration.  He has thousands of leaders to choose from.  

From those thousands, he chooses to honor the man who condemns the humanity of millions and who every single day overtly betrays (in fact continually exploits the betrayal for his own benefit) the very principles the new President says he insists upon.

This is intelligent? This is shrewd?  This is consistent?  This is commendable?  This is moral?  This is progressive?  This is acceptable?  This is change?

Millions of citizens accused of sub-humanity should shout "Bravo" and "Amen" ??

OR at least STFU in appreciation and honor of an effective brilliant Saul Alinsky political tactic? 

I don't think so.

 

This is political symbolism, no way around it. It is just the way the game is played.

However, there are other evangelical pastors out there who could have been called on.

I think Joan Walsh got this one right (and I spent a good deal of the election squirming when she got it wrong, particularly her aversion to facing up to the mess of the Clinton campaign). Here's an excerpt:

Beyond his noxious political views -- Warren has compared homosexuality to incest and bestiality, supports the Iraq war, and, in fact, just gave George W. Bush his first-ever "international medal of peace" (yes, peace) -- I have come to distrust Warren personally. He looks to be from a long line of religious leaders more concerned about their own glory than the glory of God. I didn’t like him high-fiving with Obama about their million-dollar book deals, or complaining with McCain that $250,000 isn't rich in Orange County. I didn't like him misrepresenting the rules for the August forum -- he claimed McCain had been in a "cone of silence," but when that turned out not to have been true, he accused Obama supporters of "sour grapes" for complaining. It became obvious to me that the well-fed, well-coiffed Warren is full of himself, and Obama shouldn't contribute to his campaign for self-aggrandizement, especially at the expense of gay people and women, two groups who gave Obama strong support . . . I object to the full Warren package, I think he's a force for division, not inclusion, and a terrible symbol for this inspiring new administration.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/12/19/rick_warren/

There is absolutely not equivilance in how the radical religious sects have waged a war against the LGBT community and how our how our commuity has fought back and tried to defend itself.

I actually wasn't terribly upset about Obama throwing the gays under the bus until I started reading comments from straight liberal 'allies'.

Just fucking wow.

 

 

Now that Barack has been elected, I am trying to find the right balance, trying to figure out which disagreements with Barack are battles worth fighting, and which ones are distractions.

One thing I can say about Rick Warren is that there may now be millions of people - people like my sister - who will listen to Barack on January 20, when they might not have otherwise. Or maybe they will listen to him in a different way, with less mistrust than they would have otherwise. I have been appalled at the information about Barack that has been circulating in evangelical circles, and I believe that choosing Rick Warren to speak will provide an opportunity for Barack to move forward with what he said he wants to do, which is to be the president of even the people who opposed him.

I believe that actions like this from Barack will engender broader support, support that Barack will need as he tries to get our country back on track. Barack is all about taking the long view, and I agree with those who have stated that as he acts to include more and more people, that will serve to discourage exclusion in the long run.

I was crushed and felt incredibly angry and disappointed when Barack went back on his word on FISA.  That was a really long week as I struggled to come to terms with what I felt was a huge betrayal. In the end, I think that decision by Barack was all about taking the long view.  If he hadn't voted for FISA we would have heard about it for months as his opponents would play the fear card - "Barack won't keep us safe". And now he will be our president.  It's all about the long view.

That doesn't, however, take away from how it feels when Barack lets you down on the issue that matters to you most.  Allan, you have done so much great work in helping to personalize Proposition 8 - it makes me sad to think that you and so many other people may now be feeling the way I did about FISA.

Does anyone else find it odd that criticizing this choice (and it is a choice and a very public one...and CERTAINLY, Obama's excellent staff knew 100% that the reaction would be like this...) has been linked to the desire to place Warren in a 'cone of silence'? This guy was invited, chosen, vetted from a large number of possibilitites...that is very different from someone showing up to a lecture on campus and shouting down a speaker that they dont agree with...

The idea that the Obama team (or those of us with an opinion) would be 'silencing' or 'shouting down' or 'blocking' this jerk by NOT inviting him is logically unsound. How can NOT choosing him be equated with silencing him? Does that mean that b/c Obama has not invited (fill in the blank) he is also supressing that person and thus going back on his promise to be inclusive? 

Sorry - the logic here escapes me - and while I think it is perfectly fine to build that great big ol tent I would have preferred if Obama had chosen someone else. After all, if this guys is rich and famous now, he will exponentially increase his wealth as a result of this gig.  It works both ways and to ignore that is naive; I would not be surprised to see his book sales and viewership increase over the next week or two.

 

 

The Barna Group is a private for profit corporation that focuses on supplying evangelical ministries with teaching tools, videos and the like.  It also does top notch professional religious polling. A poll released September 2007 surveying 16 to 29 year olds showed significant negative views of "Christianity".  What surprised the pollsters was one of the major sticking points was evangelical treatment of homosexuals.  http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=280

A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism & Frustration with Christianity.

Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

is the author of the poem. ("He drew a circle to shut me out.")

No disrespect to Toni Tenille! :)

Here's another poll showing stunning shifts in American religious participation from the Barna Group.  This one was done in 2004.

Number of Unchurched Adults Has Nearly Doubled Since 1991

May 4, 2004

(Ventura, CA) Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%. During that same period the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million - a 92% increase!

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=...

Nancy M. - Thanks, I appreciate your kind words.  And know that digesting the FISA vote gave me heartburn too.  I hear you on the long view.  Keep your eyes on the prize.  I cut my teeth protesting Anita Bryant in the 70s and I have seen dramatic change in my lifetime regarding LGBT equality.

Nancy C. - That's fascinating information.  I keep having it confirmed in my daily life.

During the election, I had Obama and No on 8 yard signs in front of my house.  They were repeatedly trashed and I replaced them three times.  Then someone started taking a shovel to my front yard and turning the turf in a section that can't be seen through any windows.

Each time my signs were taken, a few more neighbors noticed and commented to me how terrible it was, and several of them asked me for signs so they could display them too.

And when neighbors noticed the vandalism to my yard, they were stunned, one woman even cried she was so upset FOR ME.

But one thing I noticed was how the teenagers were really pissed off by how I was being treated, and volunteered unsolicited criticisms of the Yes on 8 campaign and the Mormon church for the role it was playing.

Whoever was trying to hate me, and marginalize me and make me feel afraid and unsafe in my own home, was actually having the opposite effect.  Because of them, I now know many more of my neighbors, many of whom are more galvanized in their support for gay marriage than they would have been if not for watching how I was treated for being who I am.

Alan, I don't want to deminish your powerful post above. Thanks for sharing! Block, by block change is coming.

I laughed out loud reading this Judith Warner NY op-ed:

"....Caroline doesn’t have to be a fairy-tale princess anymore. She can be her own white knight, vaulting the Kennedys proudly into the 21st century, if only she plays by the rules and waits her turn."

 

He’s Post-Millennial. And Joel has it right: don’t go there; it’s too confusing. Parsley and Hagee hate him because he doesn't go along with the Islamo-fascist Straight out of Mother Goose rewriting of history that Parsley came up with, or Hagee’s CUFI/RJC political shit.

Warren is popular among moderate evangelicals because he preaches doing things that Jesus would do, like caring for the sick and hungry and poor.

@Anonymous

(3) advocates the assassination of foreign leaders.

Not the way I heard it, but you can watch the original vid right here where it started on Hannity -- and from which the viral screech that he wants to assassinate foreign leaders !!! comes from -- and here’s the blurb about it from ThinkProgress.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/04/warren-stopping-evil/

Appearing on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes last night to promote his new book, Pastor Rick Warren made a brief foray into foreign policy. Responding to Hannity’s assertion that “we need to take him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out,” Warren agreed, saying that stopping evil “is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”

[BTW, I think I forgot to enter my name for the @Jesus and @Anonymous post. That was me.]

IMHO, Obama is neutralizing Parsley and Hagee. These two mean-spirited crockpots completely rode off with the evangelist banner during the Bush years, influencing foreign policy with instant access to the Oval Office, alienating many of the sincerely Christian-not-Catholic crowd, and causing a real rift in the evangelical world. Remember that Christian guy who worked for Bush who quit because Bush wasn't taking care of the poor?

I was following one of the deeply Christian sites that objected strenuously to Parsley and Hagee's brand of evangelism for over two years. I saw two letters written to whatever their group leadership is, can't remember, signed by Rick Warren, among 15 other bigtime pastors. There were words like "returning to Christ's ministry" and "hijacking of the purpose of Christ's teaching of peace."

If Obama gets the Warren-based evangelical crowd on board, he can marginalize Parsley and Hagee as outside the purview of US national interests. Read their sites for their positions.

Ahem, believer here. 

Dave asked, do you get inclusion by embracing a man who preaches exclusion?

Jesus said, don't repay evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.  It's the way to win. So, the answer is--yes.

I don't have as much time to comment these days, so quickly:

As a PFLAG Mom, I too was incensed as soon as I heard about the Warren invocation. But I quickly saw it as another political move and promise kept by the O man. What I think will be an even more important "symbolic move" is if Barack states his entire name when he takes the oath of office. On Warren, however, I hope that this helps to open people's eyes to a lot of his "whack-o" policies and statements.  We all should remember that O is President, period. He has shown how he somehow makes people come around to his views, not the other way around.

From last post: I'm not from NY, but I have family there. I am totally for CK as Senator. Not only is she a true friend in the Senate for O whereas Hillary would not have been (brilliant again), but let's compare "rich people" and their understanding of middle class and poor folks. Bushes: rich and clueless. Kennedys (at least since Bobby and including Teddy and Joe, etc.): to be so rich, they really "get it". The Kennedys really do serve for the right reasons; the Bushes--not.

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

For many of us, the joy of Obama's election was already tempered with sadness over the massive step backwards this country took with the passage of Prop 8 and anti-gay measures in AZ and FL. And now Obama gives a position of prestige and honor to a homophobic, warmongering, anti-choice nutbag? As commenters above said, WTF?

I understand the difference between substance and symbolism. I get the need for inclusion. I'm not saying Warren and his ilk should be walled off in a compound or forbidden from attending the inauguration. But my gay brothers and sisters were already hurting, and elevating a homophobe like this pours salt in their wounds. And it was unnecessary. There are white protestant preachers out there who aren't hate-filled troglodytes. Obama could have picked one of them.

I just don't see the upside here. Does anyone seriously think people who agree with Warren's horrifying views on LGBT people will be moved by this? But the downside is real: With this move, Obama has seriously diminished the enthusiasm ardent supporters who worked their asses off him have for the upcoming inaugural. Hope the trade-off is worth it.

that unfortunately is a fact, they believe homosexuality is a sin, and the way to deal with these people is not to shout at them, and wag our fingers and assume that we are some how morally superior , or that we know better. This is how the left lost it's battles over Vietnam and all it's causes for the past 3 decades...by being obnoxious and totally un aware of how the other side thinks.

 

The way to get equality is first to topen a dialogue, get some rights for homosexuals, adovocate civilk unions, make life easier for integration....this will take time, no civil right battle or a progressive fight comes easy or quickly.

 

We are talking about a strongly religious beliefs held by a significant portion of the society, and liberals better realize that being hostile to them is not counterproductive to what they are trying to do.....and that is equale rights.

Every valiant battle took time, effort, and sacrifice, and this one is no different......

How can we forget how Obama won?

Change comes from the bottom up, and not from the top down.

Having Warren and people like him who are less hostile in their approach is the first step is bringing these people into the tent.

 

Things change, opinions change...but we have to work at it in acivilized manner that wins friends and allies and not in the hostile way the liberal bloggsphere is advocating.

 

What if McCain had won the lection, and he invited Wright to give a prayer?  I'd think, "Wow, this guy is actually trying to heal something."  So maybe that's the way to look at this.

I'm just trying to get past my own reaction (that would be 'disgust') about Warren being up there, taking a deep breath, and thinking, "OK, this unifying the country is going to be hard, for a lot of reasons."

And mostly, I voted for Obama because I think he has a special gift, that he holds real promise for this country.  So I'm just going to have a little faith.

Coughing up a little more cash, that is.  This post IS why we come here.  Thanks, Al.

I wish I didn't need it, but I do!

And remember your contributions to The Field are tax deductable!

From a community organizing perspective, the lunk-headed, anti-jujitsu, business-as-usual, Democrats-never-learn, Dick Morrisesque invitation to provide the highest possible media platform to someone whose views are clearly not the candidate's own is a freakin' great opportunity for progressive Americans who despise anti-gay bigotry.

Teaching moment indeed! PE Obama unwittingly held up Rev. Warren for a public whupping, and the attention that equal rights for my LGBT brothers and sisters will now receive over the next month is priceless.

I say: go to town. Protest with every tool available. Light up the mall with the sound and sight of dissent. Turn the new President's mistake into a bigger movement, and roll that on into policy.

It is hardly censorious to object to the bestowing of the largest media audience in many years on a person whose ideas aren't those of the people who helped make the inauguration possible. Meeting with Rev. Warren, dining with Rev. Warren, being Rev. Warren's friend, discussing differences with Rev. Warren - all of which I honor - is entrely different from the awarding of The Obama Pulpit at its highest zenith to Rev. Warren.

Trying to appease the religious right got Bill Clinton nowhere fast. And it will get Barack Obama nowhere just as quickly.

I'm just curious whether you would still consider it "just a fucking prayer" if one of Warren's primary issues was the fight against profanity and subversive language on the Internet, and if he had used his pulpit to spread fear of "what might be taught in the schools" if people like Al Giordano are allowed to write whatever they want on their blogs - and if this actually led to a passed ballot measure making it unconstitutional for blogs like this one to exist.

In other words, it's easy to dismiss things that don't strike close to home, by claiming you have "bigger fish to fry," but when it's your civil rights that are being traded away for political "inclusiveness," it's the biggest fish out there!

 

 

 

Al I normally agree with you but I feel you are just flat out wrong here.  Allan already summed up most of it better than I ever could so I will address a few of your comments afterwords.

 

You pointed out that Obama won about 3 percent more Evengelicals than Kerry did but left out that is almost entirlely due to lower turn out of Evengelicals to the poles and not to a swing in their allegence or viewpoints.  You are right that politics are a game of inches but this is not a group that is moving an inche any time in the next 3 election cycles.  The groups that make up the moveable terrority are hispanics, catholics and mainline that make up the majority and of course the ever growing secular block.

[quote]I get it: Some people - on the right and the left - still think that if somebody says something wrong or offensive about a different matter they should be cast out of all public appearance and discourse on any other. I have a profoundly different way of viewing the world and of how change is made, and will only point out that the censorious impulse - and yes, you've got it big - has failed to change anything and has probably set back lots.[/quote]

The change I thought I was getting with Obama was that people would be held accountable and that all view points would have a voice if they acted in good faith.  Warren fails on both counts.  Warren has said that he agrees with Dobson competly except in marketing, he believes Gays disprove evoultion as part of his faith and he says that you are wrong if you do not agree with him so there is no accountablity coming from him.  He repeatly says those that support choice are the same as those that support genicide despite evidence in the bible that says anything about a fetus.  These deal directly to the task he is being asked to do.

 

Warren also fails in acting in good faith.  He supported prop 8 on the basis that to protect his right of free speech, gays must not be able to have there rights to be treated equally under the law.  During his debate he lied about the cone of silence than made comments after wards that he and those that share his views can't vote for Obama or anyone that is for choice.  Again he has the right to say that but it is bad faith to invite someone under the pretense of a fair hearing while all along knowing you are going to blindside him.

Inviting Warren is not listing to the other side but rewarding opposition that acts in bad faith and unaccountability.  Warren will profit from this in many ways from an increase in books sales which is damn sure going to happen being linked to Obama like this to a greater influence but most damaging of all it will show the right wing bigots that if they dress up there bigotry in nice langague and keep the hate just below the surface that they will be take seriously by power.

 

Seenos - The analogy fits perfectly. Banamex (now part of Citigroup) did try to shut down this site and my work in particular through a supreme court case in New York. Robert Rubin, the chairman of Citigroup (and a corrupt former treasury secretary) has been given a platform by Obama himself as an economic advisor to his campaign and his transition. During the September Wall Street crash, Obama gave Rubin a key speaking slot at his press conference about it.

I could protest that, but I acknowledge that - whether I like it or not - Citibank and its CEO are also part of America.

I'll give you an even better analogy: Warren has never called on imprisoning gay people. But there are many, many politicians and law enforcement officers that will be part of Obama's administration that have spoken and voted in favor of imprisoning nonviolent drug users. Imagine if NORML or groups like that then took that stance: "Oh no, he's giving a platform to these people who imprison us." I don't think they'd get much solidarity from the folks now protesting the Warren thing. They wouldn't get it from me, either. I would consider that unrealistic.

The better path for them would be to go out and organize to change the context and the objective conditions on their issue. There's actually a path to that in California - put the repeal of Proposition 8 on the next ballot and run a better campaign and win it this time. That, I would support enthusiastically.

But once we buy into a vision of politics that says people with certain views should not be invited to any respectful platform even if it is to talk about something different with those views, people with views as unpopular as some of mine will not have any platform from which to speak. The arguments being used against Warren can just as easily be used against me or you. I guarantee you that we each have some views at least as unpopular or offensive to large swathes of people as his views. That kind of censorial climate always hurts the true radicals more than the haters.

This is the right time of year to give what you can afford to the Fund for Authentic Journalism - I just made an all-too-small gift in appreciation of all the hours of (mostly civil!) conversation I've enjoyed over here this last year, and I urge everyone to do the same.

My view is pretty simple: if you're a regular here, you have to give something or erase the bookmark...

Those of you who are lucky enough to be attending the Inaugural in person:

I am encouraging everyone who disagrees with Rick Warren's stated positions on LGBT issues to hold aloft a rainbow flag and turn your back to the podium during his invocation.

I diaried this simple request at Daily Kos to start spreading the idea around.

If we cannot include our opponents at this most minimal level -- not really even engagement, if we cannot in peace have them come to and participate in this national event without malice, how can we ever engage them in anything more substantive?  How can we bring traction to deal with changing their minds?

Are we to assume that we arent ever going to do anything but stand and scream at them or exclude them?

Ok - lets say that Obama bows to the screaming and ranting and withdraws the invitation to Warren.  What exactly is the victory here?  How does this help the gay community or anyone else(including me), who disagree with the substance of his views?  Are we somehow vindicated?  Can we celebrate - "So there, THAT will show 'em"?

Really?

Glad I could throw up a softball for you!  I appreciate the clarification and hear what you are saying.

At the same time, while I think Obama has every right to pick Warren to give the invocation if he feels it serves his purposes (and I don't claim to know right now what those purposes might be), choosing someone who has been a leading voice against change on the civil rights issue of our times creates a important choice for Obama.

If he uses the opportunity to speak to an expanded audience drawn by Warren's presence to give a strong "closing argument" that moves the country toward a clear majority in favor of gay civil rights, then I will bow in admiration (yet again!)

If he glosses over the the gay rights issue out of deference to his "agreed disagreement" with Warren, then it will give the appearance that gay civil rights is an issue he's willing to trade for political capital among evangelicals that he can use to advance his other policy goals.

I'm not sure which path he will choose, but as the parent of a gay son who will likely have to live in this country long after I'm dead and buried, I hope it's the former, because although I support Obama's other policy goals, I don't want them to come at the expense of my son's civil rights.

By making a big deal of this, by turning your back on the invocation prayer, you are sending exactly the wrong message in my opinion. I respectfully ask you to think what that says. It is essentially like clapping your hands over your ears and saying "la,la,la" to block out what someone wants to say.

In this instance you are blocking out the benediction for the inauguration -- not all that this guy has said in the past. You also stick a thumb in the eye of the New President, who, while you may disagree with him, does have a right to his point of view and his attempt, right or wrong, to organize this event to suit the message that he wants to send. Are you saying that he doesnt get a choice in this ?-- whether its a right or wrong choice is definitely open to debate and personal view.

 

There is no easy way to engage this discussion with our adversaries -- especially those with social agendas that are divisive and judgemental. Our only counter to this is not to play the same exclusion strategy but to offer another example. We are not going to move this debate forward by blocking -- only by engaging. And what more symbolic and important time and event to do this than at the inauguration.

 

There is no better time in my opinion, with all respect.

Read ex-Evangelical leader Frank Schaeffer on HuffPo:

A big slice, but the original is worth reading in toto:

I'm pro-Obama, pro-gay rights. I'm a former once burned, twice shy, ex-evangelical, son of a founder of the Religious Right, now a writer excoriated by the right as a traitor. And Let me tell you why Obama is -- again -- wiser than his critics in picking Warren to pray at the inauguration.

 

Unlike his lefty critics lamenting Obama's ideological impurity, the President-elect is actually positioning himself to help gay rights. That is because he is going to actually govern, not stand on the sidelines complaining. As such he needs to do all he can to soothe the idiots, when it comes to the tough social/political issues that are the residue of 30 years of culture wars. [...]

As noted by Jim Wallis in his "Hearts and Minds" Sojourners post (December 19, 2008) a leading evangelical -- Richard Cizik -- who is progressive on environmental issues and gay rights, was just fired from the vice presidency of the National Association of Evangelicals for only daring to say he is warming up to the idea of gay civil unions. [...]

Here's the point for all you progressives that only talk to yourselves and haven't a clue about the "other" America: in a country where a national evangelical leader is fired for just voting for Obama, and thinking friendly thoughts about gays, the new progressive president has his work cut out!

If you all -- if we -- bitch each time Obama makes a strategic move, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. Pipe down, and give him a chance. And by the way, America faces bigger problems right now than the window dressing at the inauguration.

Progressives are too used to failing. Stop worrying about little battles, you just won a war. It's all about real results now, not words, and not symbols. It is time to think like winners. The issue now is governance, not symbols.

Change not only comes from the bottom up, but from face to face exposure to those with whom we have difference. Having grown up in conservative religious home, I can speak to the fact that a change of ideas around these loaded issues comes slowly and at great cost to one's perceived values. Warren's statements likening gay marriage to incest and pedophilia were reprehensible, yet we must understand that they are based in a deeply held religious value system; the fact that he has accepted the invitation speaks to his acknowledgement that we must find common ground. His acceptance of the invitation gives some legitimacy to other evangelicals who despite the issues of abortion and gay rights, voted for and support Obama. I can assure you that many evangelicals who supported Obama struggled around the issues of abortion and gay rights, but felt that the challenges this country faces, and Obama's adherance to the values of human dignity and social justice, were enough to tip the scale in his favor. However, we are being naive if we think they did not have second thoughts. Warren's participation on some level solidifies the support of those individuals. An interesting side note, is that Warren is being slammed by far right fundamentalists about his participation.

How do you change beliefs that are embedded in a value system? Through exposure and dialogue.

In 1969, barely 20 years old, I married a young black man. While we were in California, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. These were the years of Angela Davis, Eldridge Cleaver, Huey Newton, the Watts riots... all my family knew about Black folks was gained from the newspaper, and they were fearful for me. This was complicated by the religious teaching against interracial marriage. What changed things was the face to face exposure; and of course, the birth of my first child. When diaglogue begins, barriers fall.

I shared a story on another blog, but find it relevant to this discussion. I teach parttime, and had a class in Adult and Family Development. As we moved in to talking about families, and deciding what constitutes a family, it became clear that the class was having great difficulty around the idea of gay and lesbian families. The class was mostly African American women, and most had convservative religious backgrounds. While we had good discussions and debates in class, it was very difficult for the students to make a leap that was contrary to deeply held belief. Finally I decided to invite a couple who were long time friends of mine. These were two dads, a biracial couple, who had adopted a son at less than a year. At this time he was two and he came with them to class. They were invited to speak to the class for an hour, but the class would not let them go. They spoke of their relationship, how they met, why they decided to become a couple, and what led them to adopt a child. Watching the light of recongition in the students' eyes, as they saw these two men as parents; as they observed the bonding between them and their son; and as they saw the love that surrounded this family and heard of their inclusion in a small Baptist church. The dialogue that took place after they left was moving. One woman said, "that changed my life." Many were moved to tears.

Warren's participation in the inauguration opens the opportunity for dialogue on both sides. While I wish for someone else, from the point of view of the large number of conservative evangelicals, his participation forces a diaglogue.

I guarantee you that we each have some views at least as unpopular or offensive to large swathes of people as his views. -- The Lord

I grew up off and on in Colorado Springs, arguably the heart of the Evangelical powers that be. I even remember a few times as a child, being afraid to go to church because every once in a while some of the crazies purporting to be Evangelicals would call in bomb warnings and other threats—all because the paster happened to be gay.

I'll admit that I too was irked about this when I first heard it, not because of Prop 8 or Warren being an Evangelical, but I had more of a problem with him reportedly comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, a claim that is just plain wrong and an affront to science. It's that kind of thinking—the spouting of complete fabrications and distortions—which has the power to completely tear communities apart, as I've personally seen in the Springs. It's really hard to talk to someone and change their perspective if they're just pulling “facts” out of their ass to justify bigotry.

That said, there are a lot more important things to be angry about, and I just don't see a need to waste energy and valuable time on this. I mean, what are the goals here for the activists decrying Warren? Do they want Obama to suddenly pick somebody else? There doesn't seem to be very much of a real strategy, other than to say, “Hey, We're pissed off about this and we want you to hear us too!” Well, that's fine. That's what Democracy is all about. But my instincts tell me that the anger from this will dissipate and be forgotten by most after the event is long over.

It's reality. And nobody is saying you have to like it.

he won't allow "unrepentant gays" in his church and we are supposed to ... what exactly? shut up about it?

is all this "reaching out" a one way street? we should just shut up and be doormats and let a guy who thinks gays are defective stand in the spotlight of this impatiently awaited new administration?

we progressives were INVITED. we voted, we wrote checks, we knocked on doors. now we are supposed to shut our pie holes? we don't get to say "pee you" when something stinks?

I thought the Bushies were leaving town!

pee yoo! something stinks! I'm yet to be convinced that this is a mutually exclusive situation. nobody's trying very hard to be persuasive. I don't like gay bashing so I'M the basher!

wtf?

I guarantee you that we each have some views at least as unpopular or offensive to large swathes of people as his views. That kind of censorial climate always hurts the true radicals more than the haters.

But Al, I am so pure of heart that none of my opinions could possibly offend even the most fainting flower.

Really, though, you again hit the nail on the head.  Too many Obama supporters had messianic fantasies about him, no matter how much you or I or anyone else, including Obama himself, tried to explain how inclusive his community organizing model is.  Now that the model is coming alive America is learning what the real agenda is: building consensus on the issues we can, and building on that consensus to move people beyond their comfort level.

I'm glad that we're all uncomfortable.  It means we're actually doing something.

Al, I'm so glad I got to know ya'.

Thanks for your feedback.  I disagree.

I am calling for a silent symbolic gesture.  It will not disrupt the proceedings or silence Warren's voice.

One of the things that has been overlooked in the discussion of the Warren selection is whether there IS any common ground with parts of the religious right.

There is a significant Dominionist vein in the evangelical right which is actually opposed to the US Constitution.  They wish the Bible (or specifically, their literalist, exclusionist interpretation of the Bible) to replace the Constitution as the foundation for American law.

If we don't agree that the guiding principles of the US Constitution should govern America, then how can we find common ground?

Allan - That I don't insist that you or anybody else find common ground with anyone. But when I or anybody else - even if that's the president-elect - tries to find common ground, nobody can come between that. You can choose with whom you associate with. As can I. Neither of us can choose who anybody else associates with.

But, for example, if a fundamentalist preacher, or anybody else that has offensive views on one topic but is willing to work with me on another, I'll do it in a heartbeat. Freedom of association is part of that Constitution. I've organized in environmental battles with hard core racists, but the topic wasn't race. I've organized with priests and nuns that oppose abortion on housing issues, but the topic wasn't abortion. Okay, I'm a slut: I'll organize with anybody as long as that person wants to win a common goal and is competent at doing so. Frankly, a lot of them showed even more tolerance by being willing to organize with me.

That said, I think your protest idea is completely appropriate and well thought out to strike the right balance, and not that you need it, but it definitely has my blessing.

I've been reading here since the FISA debacle and I rely on it for clarity and yes sanity on issues. I also want to say that I'm African-American and voted no on prop 8 and prop 22 in CA. So did everyone in my immediate family. To Allan: I get that you and the LGBT community are enraged over Warren,with good reason. So let Obama have it, having Warren there make me uncomfortable. But a word of advisement. If gays do some sort of large visual protest at the inauguration of the the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, black people (and I say this with a general broad brush), will never forgive them and that will extend into the voting booth for a long time.  And not just the ones who take time to write in blogs online.

@Allan, I am equally alarmed at the Dominionist movement, which did grow out of the post-millenial movement and believe it is a dangerous movement. However, it is not mainstream evangelical belief at all, and I don't believe that Warren can be defined as a dominionist. There is common ground if we look at Warren's work for AID'S relief, and his call to other evangelicals to make alleviation of poverty a priority -- something that the evangelical community has lost along the way. We may find ourselve co-belligerants rather than allies; but that is way better than out and and out enemies.

thank you...daily, I come to hear a real voice of reason..I have no idea now what link led me to you, but my sanity thanks you!

Allen, You say that you know there is no common ground with anything that Warren stands for and I think that you feel that emotionally, but not sure that is indeed the case. I accept however that for whaever reason - YOU dont want to engage him or people who support his views and seem to be characterizing him as not even a person who upholds the constitution.

 

It is clear to me then, that you really don't want to talk about it, much less change any minds. That is your right. However, you should not have an expectation that everyone else should follow your lead, which by your own statement seems to say that you do not want to engage.

 

Of course, I am not sure how you get what you want politically unless you plan to brow beat or otherwise coerce opponents to your view. Again, having the issue close to your heart as a source of pain and resentment can be an end in itself. Now, on the other hand, if changing that is what you want to do, well, you might want to rethink your attitude and strategy.

 

Lenore, you are right. We are now all uncomfortable and I believe that we ARE moving forward. We drag a lot of painful baggage so the way is hard right now..

 

Anonymous: Oh please -- lets not kick THAT beehive. I am black, am against Prop 8 (though I don't live in CA), but I don't even want to begin any implied threat to the gays who want to display their opposition to Warren at the inaugural. If they are peaceful and follow decorum, they should do in their hearts what they believe and we should be supportive of that. I might argue that it might not be effective in getting more support for gay marriage, etc., but it is their right and I would not want to imply the threat that blacks will no longer support gay rights because of a breech of decorum! Sheesh -- just what we need -- MORE melodrama! Lets everyone here just get a grip...

I think I've got a grip. my grip is fine. let's stop talking about grips.

the guy I voted for said he opposed that measure then announced it's most visible proponent to usher in his administration.

That smells HINKY and I get to say so. this doesn't reflect on ME, it reflects on HIM.

my grip is fine.

I just tossed a little coin into the Fund's pot.  Wish it could have been a whole lot more.  You're the best, Al!

In places, the Pacific Ocean is eight inches above the Atlantic. Let's say that Ark Obama wants to transport as many folks as possible from today's lows to something higher, broader, and more peaceful. Where does he take us? Through the Pan-ob-ama Canal, of course.

He starts with music and the 'All aboard!' by Senator Feinstein. Then Rick Warren invokes the pairs of opposites, the 'where we are' as a nation. The change hasn't happened yet... we're just all on deck, gazing at each other through narrowed eyes.

The oaths of office draw our attention, and Barack's inaugural address points us in the direction of our travel. In 'Renewing the Promise of America,' we discover that we have risen to new levels of awareness and commitment. Joseph Lowery ratifies our rekindled resolve to establish unity in diversity. And 'where we are' as a nation has changed.

There is an interesting post by Frank Schaeffer on HuffPost.  Frank has been in the Religious Right but now is shunned by them for 'seeing the light'.

What do you think, Al?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obama-was-right-to-pick-w_b_152330.html

Thank you Palgirl, James, Tom, Allan, Fai and everybody else that has given to keep things going here (and has used the comments section to jiggle the reminder bells for other readers). I've been having this horrible nightmare of having to send my reporters to Warren's soup kitchen for xmas, but thanks to you I think they'll be spared this year!

I donated yesterday, but forgot to mention it! Posts like this - and the great comments attached to them - are why I keep coming back again and again to The Field

is a time for celebration NOT protest. A time for celebrating our common humanity NOT our individual uniqueness. A time for playing in harmony NOT one violin string drowning out others. A time for coming together NOT dividing into antagonistic camps. A time for breaking down barriers NOT building walls between us. A time to practice accepting love and NOT demonstrating fear filled anger. A time to practice patience and prudence NOT refusing to trust it is always progress not perfection.

A time to choose to get involved where each of us can to effect the changes that are important each of us AFTER this glorious victory is celebrated. Obama is still inviting people to get involved in house parties, report on the discussions, and help set to agenda. Risking to dialogue face to face with others is a challenge. Yet that is what works.

Happy holidays to all!

 

 

 

Cage free brown -- you absolutely have a right... my comment was not personal so sorry that you took it that way

 

Damn Strait -- nice vision.  I'm there.  :-)

Pls keep up the good work.  Much more work ahead...

Al's analysis is absolutely correct, and what the critics of Rick Warren's appearance don't get is that this is not a religious or partisan political occasion -- it's a civic occasion intended to mark a fork in the road of our history.  Obama inherits a political culture which has become accustomed, thanks to the religious right, to the injection of divisive religious views into politics.  The poisonous spear of this culture is the intolerance of those who have different views, whether political or religious (and this is true of dogmatists on the left as well as the right).

Obama has said he wants to change this culture.  To do that, he has to attract support for his brand of tolerance from conservative Christians who are uncomfortable with fire-and-brimstone haters.  Rick Warren styles himself as tolerant and compassionate, which is almost certainly how he'll present himself in his invocation.  So all the non-hating conservative Christians in America will see this preacher radiating goodwill toward Obama and blessing his presidency.  You don't think that won't have an effect on a sizable portion of the 20 million people who've read Warren's best-selling spiritual self-help book?

As for progressives who'd just as soon pitch Warren off the platform as listen to him, they're forgetting that social libertarians are seen by the Christian right as radicals on the left, just as they see Obama -- and the left obliges this caricature, by screaming bloody murder about the same social issues from the other side.  Here's the indelicate truth: For many on the left outside the GLBT community, as well as the Rush Limbaughs who exploit conservative Christians, Proposition 8 was just another bloody shirt to wave, rather than a human rights issue that ought to transcend the left-right political war.

Obama is using Warren as one signal that he's not going to wage that war anymore -- he's going to do everything he can to drain off its poison, identify what common ground can be stipulated, and co-opt people who've stepped into his tent to support whatever he's got that they can live with.  This is shrewd beyond the comprehension of either the political media or those for whom administering progressive purity tests is more important than building a substantial majority in favor of a rational, civil, tolerant political  discourse.  The intolerant right will self-marginalize in that kind of culture, while the non-dogmatic left will prosper in it.  Do you want an enduring majority for a tolerant, liberal America, or not?

It's not just that Rick Warren thinks being gay is a "lifestyle" and not an "orientation". It's all of the things he thinks gay people "are"; he perpetrates all of the horrible and false stereotypes against LGBTs. He forbids them to join his church. (Of course, I know a lot of churches that do that. Years ago, our church choir was asked to sing at another church; the sign on the front door said "Men in dresses and women in pants not welcome"...on the church door! Our choir director said we wouldn't come in--our organist was openly gay and a respected and well-loved member of our church.)

There was Black anti-gay-rights minister on NPR today trying to justify Rick Warren because he fights HIV/Aids and feeds the poor, etc. Well, good for him. That's what Jesus told him to do.

Jesus also said, "Come unto me ALL who labor..." and I always ask people like Rick Warren: what part of "ALL" don't you understand?

I understand Al's point, and sorta understand what O is trying to do.

But I'm still angry that Rev. Wright was so vilified because of a few clips from a couple of sermons from over 40 years of otherwise good works and illuminating sermons. He was the Marine given the responsibility for keeping President Johnson alive during a surgical operation! A lot of people now have the wrong idea about Black Liberation Theology; and they're not Black and didn't need to be liberated from centuries of oppression!

But I digress.

I think there could have been a better choice for "reaching over the divide" than Rick Warren. This is giving a platform for those who believe some of the horrendous things he's saying about people--it goes way beyond rights to their actual human-ness.

I understand trying to work with people you vehemently disagree with. But I don't understand giving them such a prominent place on YOUR day for the entire world to see.

O said he is the President of "all" Americans. But Rick Warren doesn't see himself as being the Pastor of "all" Americans, just the ones he sees as "real people".

I understand what O is trying to do. But I don't like this choice for this time in history.

 

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

Nice job.

Except Reagan's 2nd, which they moved indoors because it was 17 below.

 

The Secret Service has issued rules banning signs, banners and flags from the Mall, howeverthey've relented so that signs up to 3 feet by 20 are allowed along the Parade Route, likely after reading the litigation from 2001.

 

I'll be at the NW corner of 9th and Pennsylvania, in front of the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building, with a 3 x20 "STOP GOVERNMENT SPYING" banner.

 

 

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Thanks for saying it so well, Al.

I'd also like to put in a word for accuracy. During the election, people tried again and again to define somebody, frequently Obama, by the most alarming possible interpretation of one sentence out of thousands. Obama's opponents liked shock and drama to rally around.

Warren listed people who he didn't think should be married. He included gay couples, polygamists and "young girls". To actually equate gays and pedophilia, you'd have to say something like "Gay couples who want to marry are an abomination and should be in prison alongside pedophiles." Warren did not say that. He also didn't say that we should assasinate foreign leaders. See http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/04/warren-stopping-evil/ for what he did say.

I'm defending accuracy, not Warren.

 

 

If you're going to criticize me, elie, at least do me the courtesy of getting what I say right before disagreeing with it. Please reread my post and tell me where I said that I "know there is no common ground with anything that Warren stands for." I'm a pretty careful writer, and you'll notice when you reread the passage you misinterpreted that I posed my statement as a question, and not specifically about Warren, whom I did not directly accuse of being a Dominionist.

One of the things that has been overlooked in the discussion of the Warren selection is whether there IS any common ground with parts of the religious right.

There is a significant Dominionist vein in the evangelical right which is actually opposed to the US Constitution. They wish the Bible (or specifically, their literalist, exclusionist interpretation of the Bible) to replace the Constitution as the foundation for American law. If we don't agree that the guiding principles of the US Constitution should govern America, then how can we find common ground?

See that phrase "parts of the religious right?" I was moving from a specific discussion of my issues with Warren to a broader question that has been nagging at me about that part of the religious right that actively opposes the US Constitution, and how one would find common ground with a group that disagrees about the underlying rules of the game. I meant it as a question, that's why that post ended with a question mark. I truly wanted to hear what others thought about it.

My question is, if I'm on the field playing the game of soccer and you're on the same field and playing the game of football, then everything you do is a foul to me and vice versa. Don't you first have to agree what game you're playing and what rules govern before you can decide what's right and wrong?

Your exact quote: "One of the things that has been overlooked in the discussion of the Warren selection is whether there IS any common ground with parts of the religious right.

There is a significant Dominionist vein in the evangelical right which is actually opposed to the US Constitution. They wish the Bible (or specifically, their literalist, exclusionist interpretation of the Bible) to replace the Constitution as the foundation for American law.

But here is the part you leave out above..."If we don't agree that the guiding principles of the US Constitution should govern America, then how can we find common ground?"

I guess I need to ask YOU, then why alude to the dominionist movement and whether there is any common ground if that is not central to your statement in this post. Please tell me then, if you were not trying to say that Warren had links to that movement and therefore wasnt worth finding common ground with because he was a Dominionist, weren't you hinting at that? And if not, what were you trying to do? Help me out here... you were leading the reader down a path and now you are saying that was not where you were going and that somehow I misinterpreted you. Ok tell me what you WERE saying because you were making a connection between Warren, the Dominionists and being anti Constitution. These were links that YOU make explicitly in your statement, not me.  What does the link in the third paragraph relating to the constituion refer to? 

Not a problem for me though...the problem is for YOU.  You are seeking a justification for not communicating, not me.

Believe me, the religious right make my blood boil too.  But that is why I know we have to move this thing along some kind of way...

I'll be making a donation, Al, just as soon as I get money transferred to my Pal Pal account.

Tribunus, your brilliant post reminded me of one of the reason why I love The Field so much. So many times I'll read a fantastic post from Al, followed by equally fantastic comments from other readers. Yours was great.

And he is very much a friend to GLBT folk.

As for Warren:  I suspect that all this controversy is making him happy, because it shows him that certain people fear him and see him as a threat.  In the meantime, at least one gay activist fears that the massive overreactions of his fellow gays is going to have the negative effect of reinforcing negative stereotypes about gay people.

Comments like those of Tribunus about the "intolerant left" cause me to reflect on the words philosopher Karl Popper wrote in the aftermath of WWII in his work "The Open Society and Its Enemies" about the paradox of tolerance.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Any thoughts on this in light of my earlier question about finding common ground with people who will not agree that such a thing exists?

There are three main objections to Rick Warren, neither of which have to do with gay marriage:

1. He compared gays to people who commit incest and pedophiles LAST week!

2. He bans gays from membership in his church.

3. He calls those of us who believe in the social gospel Marxist (Evangelical code for Godless) tools of the Democratic Party.

The guy is being brought up there to lead a national prayer. But he doesn't believe that all citizens of this country can be believers if they so choose. So therefore, this unifying, national prayer is actually exclusionary. See the problem?

Want to invite him to the Inaugural Ball? Fine, I don't care. But when you invite him to give the invocation, you're legitimizing his extremist, out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints as "civil," which Warren has already claimed the mantal of being.

The only way out of this for Obama is to invite another pastor to give the invocation with Warren. That pastor should be a gay or lesbian pastor. They can alternate lines, and pray for what they have in common: their country and their planet. But that won't happen. I hope that Warren goes way off message. I hope he leads off what is supposed to be an "inclusive" ceremony by praying that homosexuals will be "cured" of their "illness" so they will no longer engage in the "abominable sin" of being themselves.

Indeed, this whole thing brings me back to a truth-or truism: Social Progress is easier when the economics are good. Civil Rights and social freedom gained traction during the boom times of the 1960's and the relatively economically secure (compared to the 1980's, that is) 70's. Politicians can vote for-and other institutions advocate-social change from a basis of security. It's worth remembering it was the Vietnam War, not Civil Rights, that led to the long eclipse of Democratic Presidents. LBJ would have been re-elected otherwise and perhaps have had more time to implement his social safety net and Civil Rights agenda. Who knows how much further things could have gone legislatively? But the impatient and strategically clueless Far Left gave us Nixon-and through Nixon, later Reagan. They also gave us the 1994 Congress by demanding that a novice President Clinton go for "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" before he had created enough political capital by passing Health Care reform or turning the economy around.

The same principle applies here. Obama gets people back in their houses, back in some jobs, passes real health care reform-and if some advocates are patient, educating the public and doing their public relations homework in the meantime-then he and Congress have enough political capital to get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and DOMA without fearing that to pass repeal would lead to their defeat. (And for those who think that's not important, think about those would be elected to replace them, and what their agenda would be.) So repeal sails though Congress and those who vote for repeal stay in long enough for America to see that the sky doesn't fall without those measures. If Warren isn't rebuffed, and those who listen to him can see that Obama can bring real relief and that Obama really respects them as people, that is one group that the Reactionary Right can't use to overturn change either.

Dominionists come out of Postmillennialism, but Postmillennialism are not necessarily Dominionists. If I remember correctly, the Pentacostals are considered a Dominionist 'sect'.

I remember talking to one of the people connected with the synod that Rick Warren is a part of, the national org of Evangelicals. This guy had been a Rapture guy and was now campaigning against them with his own weekly radio show. He was Postmillennial. A woman called into his show one day to ask a question. He cut her off like a knife through butter. Since I didn't understand the reason or even the argument, I asked him why later. With unbelievable derision in his voice, he dismissed her as a Dominionist. First I'd heard of the group. I must admit I didn't even understand the subtleties of his arguments. But the was hot under the collar.

I think the 20th C must have produced more splinter groups within the Evangelicals than anyone can keep track of. I eventually lost interest; I didn't need that much granularity for what I was researching this stuff for. The anger and intransigence I saw over liturgical nuances and interpretations of short biblical phrases gave me a splitting headache and made me want a stiff drink and cookies. Besides, the messianic Jewish sects were turning out to be far more fun: the crypto-group that ran Turkey until July 2007 (Donmehs) engaged in wife-swapping and kinky sex on high holy days, part of their religion.

allan, i have a question about your post that ended with "If we don't agree that the guiding principles of the US Constitution should govern America, then how can we find common ground?"

my original sense of that post had been that you were stating a position, even if you did end with a question mark. but after reading your follow-up post, i am now wondering if your original post was intended more as an invitation - in the spirit of rachel maddow's "talk me down".

Al, I donated the $25 that I could afford, but I woke up this morning wondering about this...

What happens if we don't make it to the $10,000 mark, or at least somewhat close to the mark?  

Nancy - Then I would have to make some hard decisions both in terms of cuts to the projects we've outlined for early 2009 and will have to spend more time myself on the Narco News side of this operation - and less time here at The Field - to fill the void.

Just a thought of mine on that tangent: Most politicians and players say they support the "guiding principles of the Constitution" but in deed do not. That goes for most Democratic members of Congress as well as most Republicans.

That a crazy faction of the religious right admits it doesn't make them effectively worse than so many that claim to adhere to those principles. In a way, it makes them less hypocritical. But I don't see much daylight between "mainstream" politicians and the radical right in terms of defending the Bill of Rights.

So, the thought occurs to me: If Rick Warren represents the line of scrimmage of the kind of person that the president-elect should not give the microphone in his inaugural or elsewhere, there are hundreds of members of Congress to whom I would have to apply the same exclusive standard... And then we're just out here on our tiny island of self-marginalization. I don't accept that he is operationally worse regarding gay marriage or gay rights than the Democrats that fed us "don't ask don't tell." If we're going to apply such screens of exclusion, moral consistency requires us to apply them to about half the people in power in the federal government!

395 US 444 (1969)

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Warren has an unconditional Right to preach intolerance. Distinguish criminalizing his preaching from the question of Obama's offering him a share of his high profile forum.

 

 

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Yes, Nancy, that's precisely it.  I'm looking for some feedback about where we go from here in light of my observation about some sects of the right and the Popper quote above.

At anonymous, I believe that's you elie (and would you please contribute to the Fund and become a co-publisher if you want to be a regular participant here?  Internet bandwidth ain't free!): if I'm reading your latest retort to me correctly, you missed that in my self-quote, I DID include precisely the sentence you accuse me of failing to include.  I'd enjoy conversing with you more if you got the fundamentals of what I say correct.

You say that I am "seeking a justification for not communicating."  I'm not finding that in anything I have written.  What I am doing is asking HOW we communicate when we are speaking different languages.

Let me offer one thought that might help advance the conversation.  One of the things I believe to be true is that this conversation with the right is NOT ONE THAT I SHOULD HOLD.  Understand, elie, that doesn't mean the conversation should not happen; it means that I am particularly ill-suited for that conversation.

The people who ARE suited for that conversation are people of faith who speak their language and can be more respectful of their traditions and underlying precepts of their culture.

When Christians who are supportive of LGBT equality get upset because they read people like me saying things that they perceive to be Christian-bashing, the cure for that is not just to complain to ME that I am not being fair to "all" Christians and think their work is done: the cure for that is for those Christians to work on their Christian brothers and sisters to moderate their views and actions so that Christianity is no longer equated with gay-hatred in the public sphere.

And yes, I appreciate that Obama is a Christian and he is one of the people who is well-suited to have these conversations with Christians with whom he disagrees.  I encourage those conversations.  I wish him bon chance. 

And maybe AFTER having those conversations with Rick Warren, and gaining from Warren an appreciation that his rhetoric about LGBT people is NOT Christian, THEN perhaps Warren could give the invocation at Obama's SECOND inaugural.  But not yet.  Not now.  Heal the pain he is causing first.

Note the following sentence in Popper's quote:

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

I also appreciate that he was of European heritage and had fled to New Zealand during WWII to escape the Nazis when he wrote those words, and that he was not yet as immersed in American constitutional precepts as he would become later in life.

I believe in my most recent post above, I do make another argument against Warren being given this platform that does not involve repressing his right to self-expression.  As have I and others elsewhere in this thread.

I know your goal was not to depress me on this fine Saturday morning, but yikes! That's the kind of thing that makes someone like me want to throw in the towel and move to Canada.

Fortunately, as you say, the issue of "the guiding principles of the Constitution" IS tangential to the Warren debate. And the issue is specifically to whom Obama should give the microphone at his inaugural. As is always the case, this story will play out over the coming weeks and the outcome will likely surprise many people.

My perspective re: Warren is this. Warren is now undergoing the scrutiny of the media in a way that he has never been inspected before. Like John McCain, he has built a carefully crafted "Mavericky" image - he's not your father's fundamentalist. He's a kinder, gentler, more compassionate conservative (sound familiar?). As a result of this selection, people are looking at video clips and reading his words on topics ranging from LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, the right of America to assassinate foreign leaders, the human rights record of Syria, and on and on. And the more people see, the less I think they will like.

His interview with Ann Curry may turn out to be the Sarah Palin/Katie Couric turning point in his career. His self-professed lust for women that leads him to an uncontrollable addiction to internet porn so severe that he needs his wife to play the role of his cyber-nanny and block his access to sinful sites was a huge Ewwwww moment for millions of people who tuned in to find out more about this guy.

Could it be that he will fry in the media spotlight like a bug under a magnifying glass? Stay tuned...

You quote Karl Popper arguing that the cause of tolerance permits being intolerant of intolerant people, even to the point of criminalizing their intolerance.  I'm sorry, but the negative of a negative isn't necessarily a positive in our non-quantitative, messy social world.  Popper's formulation seems another way of saying:  Only if someone is initially willing to reason with you should you reason with them; otherwise you can kill them.  But that vitiates the working assumption that those with rational propositions must retain:  If we reach out with rational ideas, there are people out there who will listen, and we should try to expand their number.  And that's what Obama is calculating with his selection of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation.  He's saying: A lot more people will pay attention to me, who otherwise would not have, because this guy who they respect is basically telling them to.  The great presidents have done everything they could to enlarge the size of their pool of potential listeners and thus collaborators, and not to shrink that pool by refusing to listen to them.  Lincoln turned down radical Republican after radical Republican who wanted him to jail all the rebellious northern copperheads and to slap down the ambivalent Kentuckians for flirting with the South.  He refused, and took tremendous abuse from his own base for it.  But he was right:  He kept Kentucky in the Union, and he kept a lid on northern opposition to the struggle to save the Union.  If he hadn't reached out to those in the North and border states who'd insulted him, much less disagreed with his policies, you and I might not be here today, having a debate about the future of these fifty United States.

@Kat and @Alexa:  Every writer loves every appreciative reader.  Many thanks to you.

 

 

 

When Allan writes:

Warren is now undergoing the scrutiny of the media in a way that he has never been inspected before.

...that's it!

Silence would not have brought this about. The President-elect's mistaken understanding of the landscape - I don't believe in his callousness, as others have suggested out of anger and malice - has turned into an opportunity to school him and other mainstream Democrats (and Americans for that matter) about the clear fact that we're in another vital civil rights struggle here.

When you open the door to change, you don't necessarily know - or control - what's going to come marching through...

Hi Allan:  I hope you're right...

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

I feel like banging my head against the wall by saying, "He's excluding us by including him." That kind of us vs. them, culture war mentality is exactly what creates the conditions for preventing any progress whatsoever.

As for the argument that Obama wouldn't invite David Duke... from Lincoln to LBJ, every president who has sought to fight injustice imposed by the majority have done so by reaching out to his opponents. The role of the president is different from the role of the grassroots activist.

As for stuff like this:

I hope that Warren goes way off message. I hope he leads off what is supposed to be an "inclusive" ceremony by praying that homosexuals will be "cured" of their "illness" so they will no longer engage in the "abominable sin" of being themselves

It just goes to show that many are hoping for the worst because they want ideological warfare, not genuine progress. I supported Obama precisely because I was tired of ideological puritans dictating the terms of the debate and putting their half-baked ideas before the good of the country.

 

Ellie, sorry to single you out. I was trying to make my point forcefully. my point is that I feel like those of us who have a problem with Warrn are being characterized as hysterical and unreasonable.

when Barney Frank moved to remove transgender people from the Employee Non-Discriminaton Act - Candidate Obama said things that led us to believe that he would stand up for gay, lesbian and transgender people more than they had ever been stood up for before.

once again, Obama, THROUGH HIS ACTIONS, has given me doubts about his strong positions as a candidate. I'm not being hysterical - I'm pointing out that this is a cold glass of water in the lap of people who had every right to expect something differendt because of WHAT HE SAID.

 

go ahead, reach out, I'm all for it. why not reach out to the people who just got the cold water in their lap? for the same reason that a truly progressive man of the cloth wasn't invited to give the invocation - because all the Big Media people who micro-manage consent would never sit still for it.

 

that we aren't sitting still for Warren and getting the "intolerant angry left" treatment strikes me as a sad double standard. we must reach out to agents or intolerance or we are agents of intolerance. If Obama had talked like that back when Barney Frank was in the hot seat I would have felt differently about him.

 

I feel differently about him now. he says he'll stand up. when he does maybe I'll change my mind. he hasn't. until that day...

@Allan

At anonymous, I believe that's you elie (and would you please contribute to the Fund and become a co-publisher if you want to be a regular participant here?  Internet bandwidth ain't free!)...

Please don't cheapen supporting Narconews & Al as some sort of speech tax.  I am fortunate that I am in an economic position that I have been able to pitch in financially many times.  However, I sometimes feel "less" because l am not a Field Hand and appreciate the hands on work others contribute.

Please forgive the lecture.

Al, I've been watching the thermometer and will be adding a bit more before the end of the month since it's the end of 2008 tax free contributions.

It took me about half an hour to find it, but I finally located an article about Barack that I had read last January. The title of the article is The Incremental Revolutionary. The article is quite long, but the premise of the article seems very relevant to the current conversation.  I recall a second article that I think would also be relevant, but I haven't located that one yet!

Here's an excerpt from The Incremental Revolutionary:

"Though in speeches he sounds like an idealistic revolutionary out to take back the capital, Obama's record suggests he is actually more of an incrementalist. On the stump, he speaks in the grandest terms, but in practice he inches his way toward a goal. At times he has settled for a piece of what he set out to achieve in hopes of getting a little bit more the next time around. If Obama is selling any revolutionary idea, it's a celebration of compromise.

That's a rare concept in Washington, where getting nothing done is seen as a victory, and giving up an inch to the other side a defeat. "Since the founding, the American political tradition has been reformist, not revolutionary," Obama told Harper's magazine in 2006. "What that means is that for a political leader to get things done, he or she ideally should be ahead of the curve, but not too far ahead. I want to push the envelope but make sure I have enough folks with me that I'm not rendered politically impotent."

 

allan @ 11:15

You talked about how the story will play out and said you think many people will be surprised at how it does. I agree. You also wrote about this process shedding light on Rick Warren's record, perhaps as the silver lining to the choice of Warren for the opening prayer. I agree with that, too.

One area of disagreement: I don't believe that either the response to the Warren pick or how the story will play out will be a surprise to Barack.

I believe that Barack took all of that, and more, into his calculations.  I believe he decided that choosing Warren to lead the prayer will advance the ball by expanding support for his administration and for his progressive agenda in general.

I would bet that Barack believes that welcoming Warren and putting the spotlight on him at the same time will also advance the ball on social issues like equality for everyone. I believe Barack knew exactly what he was doing. I see it as kind of a push-pull move, pull him in and then push back on areas where there is disagreement.

After the election most of my family around the country didn't communicate with me for awhile because they were unhappy about the election results and didn't know what to say.  Even as my family couldn't manage to do it, my one friend who opposed Barack for president managed to figure out what to say to me after the election, acknowledging how I felt and still remaining true to himself. He said, "I hope that a year from now I am as happy about the election results as you are today."

In that same vein, I want to say that I hope that Allan and others who are so upset right now about the Barack's choice of Warren will be able to see positive changes come about in the next few months as a result of the Warren choice.

I think it may help (me, at least) that I can view this through my own progressive lens as well as through the eyes of people like my very conservative and very religious sister.  For two years she and others have listened to fear mongering from sources that I dismiss but that she and others trust.

I believe that choosing Warren is likely to help calm the fears of millions. When people are afraid, it's almost impossible for them to be open to anything new or different.

So I will ask this question of Allan and others. Assume for a minute that I'm right, and that as a result of the Warren choice, millions of people will be more open to Barack and his agenda.  Would that outcome make it worth the pain you are feeling now?

I’ve been thinking about the Warren thing and it simply doesn’t make sense to me for the standard reasons out there (i.e., an in with the evangelicals, defusing Warren as an opponent, being inclusive) and, in fact, it seems needlessly cruel at this moment in time after thousands were stripped of their equal rights.

Obama does not appear to a needlessly cruel man nor does he appear to be a thoughtless or heartless man. All I can think is that he sees the moment, as you do, as a great opportunity to organize a new movement for equality. Despite his protestations that he’s against gay marriage I doubt he really cares that much and it’s really just political speak but if there was a movement – a real movement – how could he resist pushing towards true equality?

Equality for gays is the premiere civil rights issue of the day (and I’m not saying that there still isn’t massive inequality racially but that’s caused more by problems in the system than any massive population of racists trying to hold minorities down) and I’m sure Obama recognizes that.

Now I’ve only read a little about Saul Alinsky so I could be way off base but it appears one of his community organizing tactics was to “rub raw the sores of discontent”. As I understand it this means to get people so pissed they get off their duffs and do something rather than simply complain. What better opportunity to get people agitated than using his inauguration and what better time than now?

In this context, and no other, I can fully understand the Warren pick. I ask myself if a man can be that calculating but I doubted Obama at moments during the primaries and presidential campaign only to be shown that he did have a plan all along. I don’t see why it would be any different here.

I see that other right-wing evangelicals are now attacking Warren for agreeing to speak for Obama. 

Obama has effectively divided the evangelical right-wingers. Conquering is the next step. As usual, the man is ten moves ahead of everyone else.

on edit: clarified some things

Point taken.  However, if my words motivated any one at all to contribute, for the first time or the latest time, I will take the heat for saying so.  I want this corner of the internets to prosper and grow, and I can be a relentless fundraiser for causes I hold dear.

And specifically in that individual's case, not being a co-publisher and not signing in consistently was making it challenging to identify his/her comments as originating from the same contributor.

why we didn't see this outrage when Obama made an appearance at the Saddleback forum.

The inconsistency of the suddenly-discovered moral standards leads me to believe that a big chunk of the netroots is just bored and compulsively needs some "other" authority to oppose to give their lives meaning.

yeah that must be it. it can't possibly be because they're pro-gay rights and thought Obama was too. any openly gay people in the cabinet yet? no, It's not a quota but its a fair question. maybe if there were one or two then this would go down a little easier. I'm not bored - I'm concerned and have long been concerned about this issue. It would be nice if a god damned Democrat would show some interest in it AFTER they get elected for a change. many griped loud and long about saddleback. many thought it was a set-up. frankly, I think it was. Warren got to look like his support of McCain was considered and not knee jerk - the questions were NOT on an even keel between the two. still, Obama got out of that mess with a lot of class. let's see how he manages this one.

where is the Rabbi and the Imam and the...

Juan Cole has a fascinating post up tonight about Rick Warren's appearance at the Muslim Public Affairs Council annual conference, where Melissa Etheridge also appeared. I strongly recommend that everybody read it.

A highlight:

Warren's book does have some strengths. I was struck that Warren's section early in the book on the notion of "surrender" to God is the best explication I have seen in English of what Muslims mean by Islam. Since he was talking about Christianity, these passages are an unwitting argument for the unity of religions.

So imagine my surprise when I heard Warren talk at MPAC and found that he is a genuine, likeable man. And more than likeable, he seems admirable. A lot of pastors would tell the story of building their congregations and saving souls as the pinnacle of their lives. For Warren, that was only the beginning. He and his wife had an epiphany six years ago when she read an article about there being 12 million children in Africa who had been orphaned by AIDS. They started going to southern Africa, and Warren became devoted to helping those orphans.

But then he began thinking bigger. He has identified 5 major problems he wants to address:Spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, disease pandemics, dire poverty, and illiteracy. He wants to do job creation and job training. He wants to wipe out malaria in the areas where it is still active. He is convinced that religious congregations are the only set of organizations on earth that can successfully combat these ills. And he is entirely willing actively and directly to cooperate with mosques to get the job done.

As Cole notes, some of the worst Islamophobia comes from evangelicals, so I found this report very surprising - and very hopeful.

I am a huge fan of Al Giordano, and I also feel that it has been important to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in his early decisions, but I can't agree with the choice of giving such a prominent position to someone who has been so intolerant.  It is not just that he is against gay marriage--I understand that there are Democrats who feel the same way and I am, in fact, ambivalent, about the issue.  Warren goes much further than that:  he compares homosexuality with bestiality, incest and bigamy.  He suggests it is like alcoholism, a disease that can be managed through abstinence.  And those are just his thoughts on sexuality--we're not even talking about his endorsement of American wars of aggression and his reluctance to criticize that oh-so-Christian principle of torture.  

 

Maybe you don't mind someone like that being given such an honored place at the Inauguration of someone we all fought so hard for.  I do.   

Related to this post, this is one of the many fantastic events that I envision having occurred by the end of Obama's first term: Rick Warren publicly apologizes for homophobic and pedophile language (and of course, true to his REAL calling, writes a book about it and makes more millions) and asks for gays and lesbians to join his church.  Along with it, millions of Christians now are viewing gay rights as equal rights and not a religious matter.

While I truly think this will happen, there is a possibility of course that it won't. But there would have been absolute certainty of it not happening had he not been invited by President-elect Obama to conduct the invocation at the Inauguration in Jan. 2009.

I have been feeling pushed away from DK, which was once my favorite site, by the hatred and anger that seems so similar to the stuff we've heard from the far right for so long.

I hated that George Bush acted as though he wasn't my President because I'm a liberal, so I certainly don't want Obama acting as though he's not the President of evangelicals.

Besides, I see this more as Rick Warren endorsing Obama than the other way round. And that is a very powerful endorsement with a lot of people.

Sean Hannity?, Rush Limbaugh? Rick Warren is not about tolerance and caring for all people. So many better choices out there. I sometimes feel everything I went through in the last year was for naught. Yes, a democrat is in the white house, but I hoped Barack would be different than the Clinton's and Bush's of the world. His pick of Warren makes me believe he is just the same as all the rest of the shit politicians who came before him. I hope I am wrong, big time wrong, and have to eat my words in four years, but he is not even in office yet and I am already sad & disappointed in more than a couple of choices he has made. Ok, end of rant. Happy Holidays to all the Al & all the fieldhands.

Al, you state "The objection to Warren is that he opposed gay marriage through California's Proposition 8." I don't believe that is completely accurate.

As a gay man, it doesn't bother me that Obama doesn't support gay marriage at this point in time; since I think doing so would be committing political suicide. So suggesting that the reason why people are objecting to Warren is because of his position on gay marriage, doesn't make sense since he has the same position as Obama. Right?

In an interview that is circulating on TV and in the Internet, Warren lumps together gay people with people who participate in pedophilia and incest. Statements like that are why people are opposed to having Warren participate in the inauguration.

 

A good article from the community-organizing point of view:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-gay-marriage-is-the-w_b_1...

@Christina Covelli. Thanks for calling attention to this Huffington Post article. I particularly found the rest of the Belief.net interview, in which the comment equating gays, incest and pedophilia was made. Rick Warren comes across as a complex, multi-layered person.

 

Q: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family - divorce or gay marriage? A: [laughs] That's a no brainer. Divorce. There's no doubt about it.

Q: So why do we hear so much more - especially from religious conservatives - about gay marriage than about divorce?

A: Oh we always love to talk about other sins more than ours. Why do we hear more about drug use than about being overweight? [Note: Warren is quite overweight.]

From those that oppose it. What strategy is going to be deployed that will demonstrate a firm withdrawal of support for Obama that lets the incoming administration know they've crossed a line? Where is the organization?

 

Rick Warren has been jockeying for his position - which is not just religious but political - for three decades. Where's the counterpoint movement? I've read from individuals who volunteered for No on 8 who are upset as well as other gay rights advocates and it's a fractured movement at best.

 

When you have a bulk of white people who are LGBT speaking on behalf of an entire movement by excluding people of color and offering crumbs at those who wish to sit at the table as allies and expect equality not just inclusion - and they don't want to acknowledge that how far do you think you will get?

 

When the decision-makers misappropriate the efforts and language of Civil Rights (which was church-based) by claiming Gay is the new Black it is highly insulting on so many levels and a mistake.

 

You can feel free to say that Obama is triangulating but the voting trends of this election were clear in that he got more support from those claiming to be Evangelicals than white gays & lesbians. So there needs to be a discussion or some thought put into why that was because McCain was certainly not supportive of gay rights and Clinton opposes gay marriage.  

 

The one thing the religious right has is unity, financial support and plenty of foot soldiers. As well as a planned strategy and a lot of patience. Progressives, liberals, whatever you want to call them need to have cohesiveness - and also realize that every other liberal or progressive doesn't necessarily speak for them.

 

When there is a solid plan in place with a course of action completed, people will not be left howling at the wind and showing up late for the party, demanding to be included (or not ignored).