[Above: Look, it's Jesus! Oh wait, it's just Rick Warren.]
Okay. Rick Warren.
No offense to the gays that hate him or the pro-lifers who resent him, but Rick Warren is not the problem; he's only a symptom.
Yes, I hate this man's Proposition 8-loving ideals and politics--but no, I was not surprised by Obama's choice. My feeling is that Obama is letting everyone in on the discussion, which is what he's known for, so why is everyone shocked and surprised? I don't agree with the decision, but that has nothing to do with the gays, and everything to do with the church.
I find it interesting that so many liberals are screaming 'UNFAIR!' and moaning about how we're being kicked in the teeth on this one. I wonder why they don't step back and see the bigger picture, which is this: the number one news story should be on the separation of Church and State--or lack thereof--and fuck Rick Warren's religious douchebaggery. There's not a minister alive whom I would be happy to see at Obama's inauguration--because they don't belong there in the first place.
It seems illogical to have the invocation of our presidential inauguration--you know, the highest rank in our government--being given by a man who makes his living off of Jesus... you know, Jesus-Jesus. So to the people who are screaming about his politics, I'm here to remind you who he is: an evangelist, speaking at one of our country's most prestigious political ceremonies, and the whole world will be watching; as a man of God, do you think he should have this kind of political platform or spotlight? I certainly don't, and hope to see a return to actual politics with this new administration; we've pandered to the religious right long enough. And yet now they have a center-stage seat during one of the biggest nights in our history--to me, this is unacceptable.
The Esq remarked this morning that this is one of the many ways we scoff at the invisible separation of Church and State: 'oh, we meant separation of non-Christian churches and State, tra-la-la.' Do I want Rick Warren to be the center of this inauguration? No. But the same goes for a pro-choice rabbi, a priest who supports gay marriage, or a bacon-loving shaman; even though we share the same beliefs, they should play no part in this government. Rick Warren's political views are deplorable, at best, but the point is: he shouldn't have a voice in this new administration. If we focused more on the politics of governing--of getting our country back on track--and less on choosing sides in a religious tug-of-war, we might actually get shit done for once.
For now, I watch from the sidelines and feel fairly balanced about Obama's choice: he had to pick someone, and he picked someone that both sides *hate*. Sadly, the only person who agreed with his decision was Elizabitch Hasselbeck, which I hope isn't a trend. Personally, I think he should have chosen someone we could all be inspired by, who has no ties to religion; that way, we'd be staring at our country's future, and not the future of religion in politics.
**Addendum: Does anyone else find it odd that there's another pastor on the inauguration list--socially progressive Joseph Lowery, who supports gay marriage--and it's just the liberals who are losing their shit? Interesting.
Posts
27 comments:
As much as it irritates me, this choice by Obama shows that he has a firm handle on RealPolitik. Perhaps its the same notion that guided Blackwater to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
Let's just remember: it sometimes takes a queen to make a straight flush :)
I totally agree--I understand why he made that choice. I just don't like the overall practice.
LOL--you're a queen. :)
Be careful what you say about bacon-loving shamans lest you incur their wrath and have to endure a baconless existence!
I can't wait to hear about the comments you'll get from your religulous fans about this one.
Manthony, I asked Bacon for forgiveness... I think I'm in the clear.
I'm sure it goes without saying, but as a Christian, I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you put away your 'snottiness' and turned to something constructive.
Fabricator (?), I'm sure you mean comments like the one from Anonymous. And away we go!
Anonymous,
Something constructive like... Jesus? Sorry, I'd like to get something in return for my money. You're paying for a fairy tale that's free.
Hey lady--
I understand where you're coming from, but I still feel like the reality is, there are millions of religious Americans, and we shouldn't count them out. I'm not one of them, but I still feel like hoping for something that borders on 'reconciliation'. I might be in wishful thinking mode. :)
Yeah, you are. :) But hopefully, we can find a way to keep religion out of mainstream politics, SOMEDAY. I'm not saying this year, or in my lifetime, but I'm surprised no one is talking about it.
I think its weird that we haven't heard from the GOP on this one... Joseph Lowery is pretty liberal, in my mind. Why isn't the right screaming about his pro-choice ways? Probably because they're too happy having Rick Warren on the stage
-Cor
True, but at the same time, I feel like the 'right' is laying low, until Obama *really* fucks up. And it's going to happen. There's not a president out there who hasn't made a big mistake; I'm just hoping his mistake is religion-free.
forget the person who is doing the inaugauration, he swears on the freaking BIBLE! as part of the ceremony.
True, Joan! I guess this is what I mean by the invisible line--I really wish it were more visible. It just seems weird. But I guess you have to swear on a Bible in court when you testify, or used to...? So another blurred line.
Slate's XX Factor blog has some interesting posts on this topic as well...
Oh, I like Slate! You always remind me to go there, and I always forget.
*forgetting, now*
I like this idea of "RealPolitik". I was wondering what "Hope" or "Change" meant, even.
I reckon the Obamabots are going to spin this into a positive...the whole reaching across the aisle thing. But as someone who voted for him for what I believed he wasn't, I'm a disappointed.
There's a potential recklessness to who you give a worldly stage. Just ask McCain.
Well, TO ME, the Obamabots are people who refuse to see anything wrong with him. Or people who are using him to live in this fantasy world of "Everything is going to be perfect from here on out!" I don't believe that. But I do believe he was the best candidate for the job.
I like that he's "reaching across the aisle" and all that bullhonky. John McCain never would have done that. I'm glad Obama isn't making an administration that's ALL DEMOCRAT, because what a world of hurt we'd be in; it would be a BAILOUT EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE administration. Bleh.
I hope he's going for 'balance', although I do feel like Rick Warren is political pandering in a way. That being said, I look forward to hearing what he DOES have to say during the invocation. My blog the next day will either be really positive, or die in my arms.
Heathen!
Idiot!
Frenetic - Obama's made from different stuff, it seems. Example: when Joe Lieberman disgraced himself and shat where he eats in front of a live and bored audience, Obama turned the other cheek.
What could be more patently theistic in nature as asserting one of the time-worn tenets of Christianity? Forgiveness! Unfortunately, the righties have replaced exclusionary notions into their jingoistic little heads, instead of these "convenient maxims" to forgive and let live.
The fact that Obama sees a more inclusive political fabric - with membership open to all - is encouraging to me, rather than discouraging. Dialogue is a starting point, but first they have to be allowed to speak, nay?
2. Heathen An adherent of a Neopagan reliion that seeks to revive the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Germanic peoples.
Is "Anonymous" referring to your Hit-lurve?
Oh, and Snotty, I've been talking (some might say ranting) about the church/state division problem for years. The Rick Warren/swearing-on-bible stuff is easily brushed aside by too many. They are examples of state-endorsed symbolism, imagery that is intended to broadcast specific mores within this country and beyond.
It is absolutely something that we should be concerned with. Every American needs to realize that unequal biases applied to legislature weakens a system that we all rely on. The Religious Right should be standing up to this unholy alliance, because one day it'll put them back in with the lions (where they started out).
I'll be interested to see what RW says as well. Not that I see any value in it, but as a novel amusement.
I guess I'm just a little saddened: this is the same person who knocked it out of the park with his 'Rev. Wright Apology' speech - and what I took from it was the notion of a political leader who was going to lead, and isn't afraid to address the topics that many polititions don't address if they don't have to. He has the charisma, he has the pragmatic logic, to enlighten people.
And he'd just as soon be invoked by this d-bag. I don't get it.
Ross, I like what you said. Yer a smartie.
Matt, I think 'Anonymous' is referring to my anti-religious, verbal diarrhea, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Plus, I'm *probably* a heathen, so it's not completely inaccurate. :)
Ben, I kind of get it, even though I don't like it. Hasn't he been picking a lot of center-right cabinet members, freaking people out? I'll suspend judgment until he's in office, and going down a path I completely don't agree with.
I always thought the Rev. Wright thing was ridiculous--why should someone apologize for *someone else's* beliefs? Bill and Hilary Clinton used Rev. Wright when THEY were in office, and no one said a damn thing.
I think Obama enjoys doing shit like this--shaking things up, and giving the 'normal' reason for it: not everyone has to agree, and by the way: over half this country is made up of religious people who agree with Rick Warren's politics. I understand the decision, but I don't like it. Hopefully, the end results will justify the means.
Post a Comment