First, because Inauguration Day is not a day for triumphalism, domination and a "See, we're the winners and you're the losers and we're now set to take over." Instead, Inauguration Day is a day for all Americans, Democrats and Republicans and social conservatives and social liberals to attend to the American duty of praying for a new President, saluting our new President, and dropping our differences for a day to celebrate the Great American Experiment in liberal democracy.
Second, because it has been the custom of American Presidents to invite to the podium -- for the invocation -- a spiritual leader. For years, both Democrats and Republicans, Presidents invited Billy Graham. Rick Warren is such a person.
Third, because Barack Obama has said from the very beginning that he would cross boundary line thinking, that he would surround himself with good and intelligent people, and that he would work for a kinder, more unified America. Inviting Rick Warren, someone with whom Obama disagrees on one issue after another, is such a move. It is the audacity of his hope that we can build a more unified country that respects diversity.
(When Rick Warren invited Barack Obama to his church a couple years back to address AIDS, I don't recall hearing liberal Democrats fussing and steaming that Obama went there.)
And I'll give you a fourth, and I'll make it a challenge to the liberal Democrats who are offended that Obama invited Rick Warren. It comes from Anne Rice, a famed vampire novelist recently turned Christian, who said these words:
I'll say this one more way: liberal Democrats who are deeply disappointed that Rick Warren will stand at the podium and pray for our President and our country and our world can remember one word of Jesus: "love your enemies."
I am a baby Christian when it comes to loving. I am just learning. So far were my daily thoughts from loving people that I have a lifelong vocation now before me in learning how to find Christ in every single person whom I meet. Again and again, I fail because of temper and pride. I fail because it is so easy to judge someone else rather than love that person. And I fail because I cannot execute the simplest operations -- answering an angry e-mail, for instance -- in pure love (from Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession, p. 225.)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
While I don't agree with Barack Obama on all policy issues (mainly fiscal), and while I don't agree with Warren on some of his theological positions, I for one and thrilled that Obama seems to be making good on some of his promises made in the election process. He is surrounding himself with diverse people, who may not agree with him at all times on all points, and he is attempting to bring unity amidst tremendous diversity at a time when our country could sure use it.
http://www.soulsticecommunity.com
Matt, do you really mean tolabel me either "uninformed" AND "ignorance" OR dishonest? do I get to choose? I guess I'll choose not to take the bait and respond in kind. That's the blast I should expect for taking my position.
It's getting kind of late to press on with this post (wrote a response last night, but when I refreshed the captcha, it reverted to an earlier post, and the current one was lost to the netherworld of beliefnet - after a few good weeks with beliefnet, that seems to be the new pattern - back to copy and paste). But anyway, just to set the record straight, at least for me...
For many years I strongly believed what has been repeatedly stated here
- marriage = one man, one woman - if it's something else, then it's not marriage.
- I'm all for rights for gay unions, to protect the stability of the families that they have created for the sake of the children and our society, but also for their own human rights
- all justice issues can be adequately addressed through civil unions.
Then about a year or so ago I read a very articulate op-ed piece in the NY Times from someone who carefully explained how this did not work out in reality. Yes I know, that was before California and it's not the same, but I've read similar commentary now about Prop 8. I don't know why not - perhaps it's the lag thing between legislation and reality - I think of the civil rights era where discrimination was made illegal, yet persisted for decades in all kinds of areas. I wish I could find the link to that NYT article, primarily because it was so tightly written, but there are many similar ones around. Perhaps they are all misinformed or dishonest, but all I can do is read and evaluate, so that's the best I can do.
I've come to a place where it's more important to me that there be justice for families of gay parents than whether the government calls that marriage or not. Though I do wish that they would issue domestic partnership licenses and let the churches deal with the covenant of marriage part.
I'm neither an attorney (but I'm the mother of one - does that count for anything?) nor am I a Californian (but I did get my degree from San Diego State), so I guess I have no expertise in this. And I guess I'm just an old-fashioned bleeding heart liberal, because the plight of those who are just trying to get by in their relationships and their families seem to have a very large deck stacked against them - as a Christian, for me, in my heart and mind, it's a justice issue.
While I think you have some good points Dana, I do take issue with "If a same-sex couple wants to tighten things down, they can do that by hiring a lawyer to draw up the instruments for specifics". I spend some time with the homeless and urban poor, and for those who struggle with all those issues plus this one on top of it, that sounds a bit to me like - let them eat cake. Prison, the military, medicaid, govt benefits - these are all a pain, but become a nightmare when you try to work in the gay factor. To be honest, I know of no one who really has either the extra time or extra cash to be pursuing their rights in court. IMO, that's what the law is for - so that each individual doesn't have to keep pressing the point.
So while I agree with the point that civil unions SHOULD make everyone's life just the same as a marriage license would, and I've oft repeated that mantra, in the readings that I've encountered, that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not at this point in time or in the very near future.
Onto finishing those Christmas cookies...
I'm getting rather weary of people stating that gay civil unions are adequate to cover the civil rights that gay families desire. The fact of the matter is, if Christians had actually fought (or were currently fighting) for civil unions to meet those civil rights requirements, there likely wouldn't BE a push for gay marriage today.
And I'm really waiting for Christians to put their money where their mouths are. If you're so OK with civil unions, then stand up, say it, vote for it, and make it happen! In reality though, many Christians only say such things in order to convince others not to stand for gay marriage, but when civil union measures are also up for a vote, they are suddenly silent in their support for civil unions, or they find reasons why they too are "ungodly." The double talk is absolutely sickening. I kinda thought lying and deception were sins listed in the Bible too, right??
Scot, while I have no personal problem with the Warren pick, I think that you're being "baffled by the reactions by liberal Democrats because President Elect Obama has invited Rick Warren to give the invocation" is PERHAPS a sign that you haven't adequately engaged those who oppose the pick.
It's not that opponents NECESSARILY have a problem with loving enemies and sitting down at the table with them for dialogue, but it's that they've also given him a place of prominence and honor. Now, while I find that to be perfectly in line with the Way of Jesus, I also find the argument for those in oppposition of the pick compelling: you can reach across the aisle, have as much dialogue, and be very inclusive (in fact, many want this!), but you can do so without extending him the honor of being so prominent in such a symbolic, meaningful ceremony. He could just as easily have found a pastor who was more inclusive for this ceremony, and still practiced inclusion in his administration.
Again, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with that opinion. But I understand it, and I'm far from being "baffled" by it.
Would it be more easily understood (i.e., would you be slightly less baffled) if framed this way: what if a pastor who was opposed to interracial marriage were offered to pray the invocation at the President's inauguration?
Unfortunately, it's not just liberal dems. Some conservative Christians have condemned Warren for accepting the invitation, so the angst is pretty equal to both sides of the aisle.
My heart is broken by this choice. As a Christian and a Democrat who lives in the South, I have had to endure the slings and arrows of those who say that we can not be 'Christians' and a Democrat... This has been a painful experience over the past 8 years or so and the preaching of Priests pushed me to leave the religion I was born into and practiced all of my life... Then to give a place of honor to someone who agrees with them... I believein reaching across the aisle - talking to all - but THE place of honor for a person of Faith - this is a slap in the face to all of us who had to endure and be hurt by so called Christians like him who promote intolerance and prejudice... How would Obama fel if the choice had been someone who opposed Integration? He would have been deeply offended and or hurt... What was he thinking? Have dialogue - I believe in that - but honor someone who had to stand up for him when it was difficult...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.