You Don't Get Inclusion by Calling for Exclusion

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.