Somebody needs to explain this to me, because I must be dumb: Rick Warren was somehow an inclusive choice to deliver the Invocation at the Inauguration?
Let's look for a moment at what an invocation is. It's that moment when the walls between us are supposed to melt, when we move beyond the mind and surrender our hearts into the hands of God. It's a prayer that we make as a nation, asking that God's hand be upon us, that He forgive us our errors, and that He bless our new President and his administration.
So having one of the more judgmental people in the ministerial world deliver the invocation seems odd to me, and extraordinarily cynical. Rick Warren has supported what would be the first legislation ever passed in the
The problem with that is that by the time you'd done it, even if you could do it, the prayer would be over. At that point on January 20th, Rick Warren will have been given even more of an exalted place in American culture than he has already, with more power to continue his crusade against gay rights.
Barack Obama was and is my choice for President, but in this one thing, he sure doesn't have my vote. He said today that he's a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans, but slaps in the face and advocacy do not go together.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I totally agree with you. We need to start pushing the homophobes out of the spotlight. No responsible Christian should highlight or honor a homophobe unless he/she repents of his/her sin of homophobia. We can love the sinner and hate the sin ;-)
Seriously, though, I think homophobia is a deep heresy. Think about it: in the early days of the church, heretics were declared for adding a single letter - an iota - to the Greek word homoousios, which said that Christ was of the same substance of the Father, thus making it homoiousios, of like substance to the Father. People were excommunicated for this single letter.
If a single iota in a bit of theological arcana describing Christ is enough to make one a heretic, how much more is it heretical to make the name of Christ, He who loves everyone unconditionally, into a name of hate? How isn't it heresy to represent Christ as standing against people of good will who just want to live normal lives free of discrimination?
Those who engage in hate toward LGBT citizens - including so-called "upstanding Christians" like Rick Warren, who's basically Jim Dobson with a goatee - are engaging in heresy. They are portraying Christ as a figure of hate... and I think it's time to call out what they do as sin, plain and simple. Homophobia - the advocation of discrimination of any kind against LGBT individuals - is sin, an act against God and against their LGBT brothers and sisters, and those who have engaged in it (like Rick Warren and his "Christian" Right brothers and sisters) need to repent of their sin and start working to undo the damage their hate has done.
All that said - he's going to say a prayer. He'll stand up, speak three minutes of spiritual platitudes with nothing even skirting controversy (I'll be surprised if he even says "in Jesus' name"), there will be the *thwomp thwomp thwomp* of some people clapping while wearing mittens, and he'll sit back down. He's not getting a Cabinet post or taking part in policy discussions.
This is a deeply offensive choice - and there are many prominent religious figures who haven't engaged in such rank homophobia - but there's a certain point at which proper reaction becomes overreaction. Some of my brothers and sisters on the left have crossed this line - for the right reasons, of course, and with every bit of sympathy and understanding from me, but things like "this proves that Obama is a liar" (when his position on this has been completely consistent) or "this proves that Obama doesn't really care about LGBT rights" (when he's taken just about every opportunity he's had as a legislator to prove that he does care) are a bit overblown.
Hey, cool it. This is just civil religion. It is not as if anything significant rests on it. It has nothing to do with worship, or real prayer.
If Obama wants to invite a friend to perform in that venue, it is fine with me.
I don't have to approve of an actor's moral or political views to be able to enjoy his performance or contribution to a play or movie that is terrific.
Hang loose!
I agree with Marianne Williamson blog completely.
I don’t agree with you Asinus Gravis. This is more than just civil religion. This prayer of invocation and who prays it is a highly symbolic act. The person chosen by the president-elect to give it is supposed to represent his/her spiritual values and beliefs. Does Rick Warren represent Barack Obama’s spiritual values and beliefs? As I recall Obama disavowed his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, because he said he did not represent his spiritual values and beliefs. Now he choses Rick Warren, who works to take away the civil rights of GLBT people and likens their love and commitment to incest or pedophilia, disallows “unrepentant” gays and lesbians to join his church and offers a “ministry” through his church to “cure” them. Obama does not, according to him, believe these things. Obama also believes that woman’s reproductive rights be protected and Rick Warren does not. Rick Warren is not the person to represent President-elect Obama or the greater majority of the American people by giving the prayer of invocation at the inauguration.
BTW check out www.soulforce.org for resources to support and minister GLBT folks.
Simple question to ask Obama: Would Obama permit a minister who opposed granting equal rights to interracial couples to deliver the invocation at his inauguration?
Contact Parrag Mehta , President-Elect Obama’s LGBT liason on the transition team.- parag.mehta@ptt.gov and protest Warren’s invitation to give the prayer of invocation at the inauguration.
Obama offered sound, compelling reasons for his choice of Rick Warren to give the convocation. I may not agree with Warren on some issues, but I agree with Obama's -reasoning- in this matter: and that's the reason we elected him - he is a thoughtful, reasonable, considerate person.
Those who complain about Warren's convocation on the basis of a single-issue are showing the exact same kind of intolerance that characterizes the politico-evangelical / neo-conservative mindset. We/you are bigger than that. Back up and look at the (far) bigger picture.
As for marriage... the bigger question is: should governments be in the "marriage granting" business at all? Shouldn't "marriage" be left to religions? Personally, I see no reason for a constitutional government (local, state, federal) to define or sanction marriage. At all.
At best, governments should offer a "civil union" which formalizes legal rights. Religion should be the only body performing a "sacred right." I don't want my government meddling in religious affairs. Except.... for special cases (polygamy, underage, etc.), I think government can and should define certain -limitations- of unions. Homosexuality is not one of those cases.
I support Obama, and I support his choice of Warren. I'm contacting his transition team right now and offering my encouragement.
You short-sighted whiners need to stop looking down at your feet and set your eyes on the horizon, and beyond. That includes you, Ms. W. - Merry Christmas.
"Yet now millions of gay and lesbian Americans in this country are supposed to...what?....bow their heads and surrender to the voice of someone who they know has tirelessly worked against their rights?"
exactly.... thank you.
I have too much respect for my rights as a human being to "tolerate" someone who advocates I be treated as less.
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.