I have a tendency to stay up late, and OS is monopolizing my online time recently, but even a vision-impaired pig finds an acorn, now and then.
This post (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html) at politico.com came as an unwelcome surprise.
I'm evangelical, but no longer Evangelical, but except for some regretted "you're a queer" language in junior high, I've never seen a Biblical imperative to persecute someone for whom they might love, physically or otherwise.
When the whole "What Would Jesus Do" movement blossomed, I never doubted what He would do. And it wouldn't be to champion discrimination based on personal preference (my marriage isn't threatened by my neighbors' love for each other - or even their lust).
Setting aside the theology, though, I've never subscribed to the thought that America was founded as the castle keep of Godliness. In fact, if America is anything, it is a sanctuary for nonbelievers. The Bible is clear that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Far short.
So what differentiates the sins committed by "they" from the sins committed by "we?" Or me. N-O-T a T-H-I-N-G.
So I don't have to judge. I'm a sinner. So are you...and she, and he, and they, and we.
So how in the name of the Constitution does Mr. Obama justify the symbolic gesture of inviting Rick Warren to offer the invocation at his Jan. 20 inauguration? Did Barack Obama participate in the same election season I did? I think he was rather involved in it. Is THIS the message he takes from his victory?
The symbolism is bad, bad. Politically, it buys the Obama administration nothing, and if Mr. Obama and his advisor believe it does, then I'm even more disappointed. This is a cynical ploy that has already backfired.
Personally, I didn't vote for Gabriel to wield a sword of destruction. But neither did I vote for Rodney King/Can't we all just get along?
Rick Warren is not an unintelligent, nor an irredeemable man. He's obviously a talented practicioner of his craft/calling. But unless the Rev. Warren has a Jimmy Swaggart moment where he renounces his offense against his fellow man, I cannot be happy with the Obama decision to include Warren, a leader of the discrimination initiative in California, as the most prominent clergyman on the Inaugural dais.
But I'm certain you OSticated people are capable of expounding further. Expound away.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Barbra anne
hyblaean- Julie
Frank Apisa
m. a.h
Chicago Guy
Lea Lane
Salon.com
Comments
Why, Barack, why?
Who exactly calculated that this (naming Warren as a spotlight participant in the Inauguration) would be a smart move?
His premise is that the progressives will not abandon him no matter what, and from some of the hero-worshipping gush I've seen on the OS, he just may be right. The only thing that can stop this "pragmatic" drift is real blowback from anti-rightists of all descriptions and so far that has not happened. Maybe in the righteous afterburn of Prop 8, Warren will ignite such blowback. Here's hoping.
supporters are feeling let down with this. I am so glad I
tuned Obama out a looooong time ago. Having said that,
I am disappointed as well. It sucks.
And on Jan 21st when that faith table is set it shouldn't be used to lobby the christian agenda to the exclusion of other religions or to placate the hysterical right but to include all religions as a platform towards greater understanding and tolerance of faiths.
There was a time when Jim Jones ruled California politics...it's a lesson we should not forget.
I caught a little of AC 360 tonight and the discussion around this very topic. Hilary Rosen is mad as hell about it (pardon the use of language) and Robert Zimmerman expressed disappointment with Obama's decision.
This also comes at a very bad time -- after passage of Prop. 8 in California -- and has to be pretty demoralizing to LGBTs. I know I am disappointed with this choice.
Thanks for posting this!
But here's an interesting piece from the Gay Newsnet Blog:
"This Father's Day, one of most popular pastors in America will open his megachurch to homosexual dads, an event that would usually signal an extreme weather alert from old guard Republican evangelical leaders.
"But by welcoming gay fathers into his Southern California flock, Rick Warren, author of the "The Purpose Driven Life," is not just living up to the highest standards of Christian fellowship, he's turning the page on a particularly embarrassing part of our politics.
Just to refresh: it was televangelist Pat Robertson who predicted "earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly even a meteor" would hit Orlando for inviting gays to Disney World, and Rev. John Hagee who blamed Hurricane Katrina on a vengeful God angered over a gay pride parade in New Orleans."
http://gaynewsblog.net/2008/06/rick-warrens-church-welcomes-gay-dads.html
In this event gay dads and their children attended the church, after which they had a private dinner with other families from the church.
While Warren's view are obviously not "liberal," I think it's quite inaccurate to say that he "bashes."
The issue is whether or not we want a president who tries to make people feel like he's the president of all the people. We face some extraordinarily difficult times ahead, and if having Warren at the inauguration builds some good will on the other side, I think that's a good thing.
We have to find a way to get beyond the split between "Jesusland" and "The United States of Canada" that was satirized in the famous map developed after the 2004 election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
But your point is well taken. The headline is, perhaps, hyperbolic. Warren is not Hagee (who is himself not irredeemable), or some Wichita hatemonger.
But, as a Southern Baptist (historical, not current version), I've experienced how great preachers with inimitable skills at their vocation can career off the rails and diverge from the model of the Christ.
Rick Warren, bless his soul, may just have it in himself to someday repent of his intolerance. Wouldn't it be just dandy if he did so on January 16th?
As I mentioned in a recent comment on another blog, there are many thoughtful Christians who oppose same-sex marriage. They have worldviews consisting of many elements that deal with sexuality and marriage. These elements include various passages in the Bible, the proper use of the body, the order of creation, sexual morality, the view of the family, a two thousand year old tradition, and so on.
In other words, for these Christians same-sex marriage is not a "standalone" issue or belief that can be viewed outside of the context of the total worldview. I wouldn't say that that makes them irrational.
Eventually, over time, I believe that even conservative Christians will come to think differently (as they have over the years with divorce), especially as the younger generation of Christians begins to hold positions of influence in the church.
But it's not going to happen tomorrow or next year, and there has to be a way to continue the dialog long-term. In that regard I don't think that terms such as "bashing," or questioning of rationality is helpful.
I'm all for continuing the dialogue. But saying "you may be right" is not the answer. And I don't see that you're saying that, at all. I don't seek to demonize anyone, but rather to explicate that there is no reason under God to impose temporal punishment on other sinners.
Granting the worst interpretations of the pro-discrimination viewpoint (which I won't grant, actually), my sin is no different in the eyes of God than any other person's sin.
It is grace alone that grants me absolution. I may not, in my belief system, "discriminate" by calling my sin acceptable while labeling another's sin unacceptable.
I think Rick Warren would agree with me on that point, narrowly drawn as it is.
If the bible is all you got
Vote not