Rick Warren Selection is Great for Faith and is Obama at His Best
Thursday December 18, 2008
Whether one is a fan of the next President or not, any fan of faith should be cheered by President-elect Obama's choice of Rick Warren to offer the inaugural invocation. Once again the President-elect shows that he will confound ideologues...
Filed Under: barack obama, barack obama's inauguration, inaugural invocation, politics and faith, public prayer, religion news, rick warren
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About Windows & Doors
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right: Finding Faith Without Fanaticism. Listed as one of the nation’s 50 most influential rabbis in Newsweek, and a regular commentator on Court TV, he is the creator of the popular series, Building Bridges, airing on Bridges TV, and the co-host of the weekly radio show, Hirschfield and Kula. More About Brad
 IntelligentTalkRadio.com |  clal.org |
  |  |
I won't disagree that the decision was very "big tent" or that Warren has done a good deal of good. But that doesn't mean it was a good choice. I respectfully disagree.
We have a great paucity of powerful moral leaders in this country. As far as great voices, we've not had any I can think of since Heschel and King passed away. Rick Warren is certainly not that, and taking a person already so well known (and divisive as he is) Obama is making a cowardly move.
He should have picked someone he did agree with a bit more. Someone with "moral grandeur and spiritual audacity,' in Heschel's words. He could have used this moment to propel some new voices into our nations discussion - how amazing would it be for there to well known religious leaders who are not conservative evangelicals! How about Jim Wallis or Rev. Welton Gaddy! Rabbi Saperstein or the Right Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori! Or YOU!
Warren may be popular now, and I'm glad he has focused some of his attention on the poor, but he is no spiritual great and not the profound voice we so desperately need right now to offer moral clarity - or even close to that.
These all would have been better choices. And I'm sure there are many I can't even think of. This was a cowardly choice and I'm ashamed of Obama for making it. It's great to go "yes, we can disagree and be nice" but when is the time to say "we need a more profound moral vision" than someone who calls the social gospel "Marxism in new clothes."
I don't know what a url is.
The 4th paragraph states"Obama challenges us to remember that blessing can be found with all people-even those with whom we
differ sharply." This is not true- if it were true why is WHITE
AMERICA having a problem with Rev. Wright. THIS IS A LOT OF
GARBAGE.
From what I've read about Mr. Warren, it sounds like he is a conservative moderate. So of course the people on the far-right, and the people on the far-left won't like him. Most people who lean left won't feel totally comfortable with his views either, but may be willing to meet him half-way. Ditto for people who lean right.
So for the most part, I believe it was a good choice and an outreach to the members of the conservative camp - many members of which were against Obama going into the election.
But as always, opponents of Obama will paint this decision as horrific. I'm sure fellow B-Net Blogger Michele McGinty will have a field day with this. If Obama found a cure for AIDS she'd claim he was undercutting the healthcare system.
We will see. =)
I've no problems with gays or such. I've worked with people who are gay or who have HIV/AIDS. My take is that the presidency of the US is not just about gay rights. If that's the case, Obama will only have to nominate just one person to his cabinet - the secretary of gay rights. Gays have to step outside themselves to see that the US & the world is not just about them. The US is facing the greatest financial crisis in history, climate change & 2 wars. So gays should stop behaving like spoiled brats.
It's good you are so happy with Obama choosing Warren, Rabbi Hirshfield, because after reading comments all over the webs news about 50% of Americans voting for Obama think he made an error. Rev. Lowry will make up for most of the error, however. I don't understand your reasoning that this is good for Faith; to have a Bible literalist who disparages the GLBT, that I feel is an abuse of a huge part of God's children is not a good way to present Faith before the world.
Forgot, again.
Ulysee, why do you think this is only the Gays who want equal rights for themselves? There is huge segments of the United States citizens who feel that the GLBT have been ignored, abused, disparaged, and their families that raised them for too many years. If you think that doing this to a part of U.S. citizens is below the seriousness of all of economic, health, and war troubles this is something lacking in understanding here. Suppose we decide that there is something about you that we should take your equal rights away for? These are our people in the U.S., and they should come before all problems and be added to all the rest of us priviledged Heterosexual people as one.
Gee Rabbi, would you be so happy about the choice of Warren if he had made anti-semetic remarks about Jewish people? Hmmmmmmmm.....?
Ulysee: "Gays have to step outside themselves to see that the US & the world is not just about them. The US is facing the greatest financial crisis in history, climate change & 2 wars. So gays should stop behaving like spoiled brats."
Sorry we're so selfish as to ask for things when there are any other issues in the world to deal with. But we just don't feel like waiting until the US is a utopia to get our problems solved.
>>> Ulysee: "Gays have to step outside themselves to see that the US & the world is not just about them. The US is facing the greatest financial crisis in history, climate change & 2 wars. So gays should stop behaving like spoiled brats."
To be spoiled one must be given something in the first place. All gays have gotten is hard-won civil liberties taken away.
Granting those civil, secular rights would in no way distract from the problems facing America. In fact, it is the very people in charge who've made such a huge 'issues' out of GLBT rights as a distraction from the same issues you mentioned. They use us and our fight for civil liberties as a scapegoat, a smoke screen, and it works every time.
You know, not so long ago there was another government who chose a segment of the population to use as scapegoats. History repeats itself, eh?
You're ire is wholly misdirected.
If you would like to contact the members of the inauguration committee, and I hope you would, to ask them to reconsider their horrible decision to invite homophobe Rick Warren to give the prayer of invocation, use the links below. Please, speak out and help protest this shockingly bad choice.
Simple question to ask these officials: Would Obama permit a minister who opposed granting equal rights to interracial couples to deliver the invocation at his inauguration?
Parrag Mehta , President-Elect Obama’s LGBT liason on the transition team.- parag.mehta@ptt.gov
I, too, disagree that Warren is a "good choice". It isn't merely his opposition to equal rights for gay American citizens, it is his rabid denigration of gay Americans themselves. Demeaning, diminishing and debasing other human beings with his false comparisons of loving, committed, consenting adult human relationships to pedophiliia, incest and polygamy do not make his point or help his cause. These are hurtful untruths (aka the bearing of false witness, aka a lie, aka a sin). And as such, they belie Warren's claim to Christ's name.
I am saddened that Obama has chosen a man to stand in front of him on a most awesome day that is so intolerable of other people. How can a man say he is a "man of God" and teach hate, intolerance and even advocating outright killing? Warren has called for the assassination of Ahmadinejad! No matter how bad someone might be, it is not up to the man in the pulpit to advocate hate and violence. I am so upset Obama chose him. And yes, on one level I can, he is trying to reach out to all and is probably afraid of any choice he would make. But to chose a man that is so intolerable of others and yet stand in front of millions and say his way is the right way...reminds me of so many evil men in history! This is a time we ALL should teach tolerance.......Not hate or violence. Haven't we learned anything?
Where do you people get the idea that Pastor Warren hates the gay population? Do you think he would ban gays from attending his church? I think not! If you read the Bible,which apparently many of you do not do,you would see what God has to say about homosexuality,and it has nothing to do with hatred of the individual,because God is all about love, but He does hate the sin,as witnessed in the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah.Afterall He did not create Adam and Steve. I personally don't believe in gay marriage but have nothing but love for the individual and believe they should be given the same civil rights that we heterosexuals have but as civil unions not as married couples. Do you not believe that one of the purposes of a man and a woman being married is to procreate? Unless I have forgotten my Biology 101 that would be an impossibility between two people of the same sex.
Rick Warren? Why not David Duke? There really is not significant difference. Rick Warren actively supports imposing his bigoted religious dogma on civil society and if he has to alter the Constitution to implement his religious based prejudice, that is fine with him.
Any American who values individual liberties including the separate of church and state should realize that Rick Warren has no respect for the Constitution. It California, Rick Warren supported the changing of the State Constitution which said that the right to Marry was a fundamental rights and an individual liberty which could not be abridged due to other people's religious dogmas. If this principle stands, then no group is safe. If enough Thumpers do not like us Jews (and there re fewer Jews than gays in this country), then we can be excluded from holding political office.
On December 5, 2008 Rick Warren called for the murder of Iran's President because Rick warren has decided that Prez. Ady is "evil." Rick Warren says that there can be no compromise with "evil" His exact words were: It
“is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”
Guess who else are evil abominations in Rick Warren's eye? All Gays! Taking Warren at his own words, he believes that the role of government is to punish evildoers, e.g. Gays. Rick warren wants the government to murder foreign leaders that Warren decides are evil and to punish Gays and other evils abominations to fulfill G-d mission.
I think Obama's selection of Rick Warren is of the utmost, GREAT! It's amazing how just one group within the nation thinks they can bully their way to get whatever they want. They have been slinging mud at so many people that it is really sickening. The morals and foundation that Rick Warren stands for are biblical. He hasn't pulled them out of thin air. He has called a wrong a wrong and a right a right. He hasn't redefined morals as some in America have. Yes, God calls the immoral acts of GLBT's as an abomination. Live with it! God said it and that's final. Don't like it, change. God didn't make you that way, you have a social disease and blame God for it. That's not fair. So, to continue to finger Rick Warren and what he stands for proves that men of God are not loved in this world because SIN cannot coexist without controversy.
This morning, I saw a TV interview with Rev. Warren in which he equated homosexuality with promiscuity and went on state that, as such, it was the same as his own desire to "have sex with every beautiful woman I see", which he claims to dutifully suppress (Perhaps we should research that to see whether he's as "virtuous" as many of his hypocritical colleagues?)
I find this hugely offensive, because equating homosexuality with promiscuity is like asserting that all Scots are stingy, all Irishmen are drunks, all Italians are mafiosi, etc. Does Mr. Obama really want to honor that sort of ignorance and prejudice with a role in his historic inauguration?
True "change" would be for Mr. Obama to openly state his support of gay marriage, in which we know he must believe if he truly is the sort of progressive he claims to be.
If you want to see righteous ire in action, step on the one issue of a one-issue observer. And you are likely to find that the one issue has only one side.
It is interesting to hear the most liberal and politically correct amongst us speak lovingly of inclusion, but that seems to be a good thing only when the "included" are also liberal and politically correct.
I am not an Obamaite, but I am pleasantly impressed with many of his Cabinet nominations and with his choice of the Rev. Mr. Warren. I know little of Warren except what his enemies say about him, but you can tell a good deal about a fellow by who his enemies are.
I wish Sen. Obama and Mr. Warren well.
Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, etc.
Scott is a sanctimonious fool.
Rick Warren hates the Jewish Bible. He analogizes same-sex marriage to polygamy. The fact is that polygamy is an accepted Biblical practice, engaged in by the avot (patriarchs), Moses and especially, the golden boy of the Hebrew Bible from whose lineage the Messiah will come: King David !
"Your Name" says that G-d didn't create Adam and Steve. But G-d is the Creator of everyone, so it IS G-d who created Adam and Steve.
The inauguration of the "president of change" should not have to include people who, themselves, are not inclusive. Reach across the aisle to the thumpers later. The thumpers did not put him into office. The ones who WANT to be included did - read, the GAYS and LESBIANS. So, why push our faces into the dog-crap of the homophobic paster rick warren? Well, I was not for one moment fooled into thinking that Obama was going be some wonderful saviour of the U.S., unlike my fellow left-wingers. Still, Obama must really be stupid if he thinks his choice is ok. Just entirely unnecessary, especially in light of warren's stance of Prop 8. There were plenty of others that could have been chosen that were less inflammatory. Well, just another stupid politician who only listens to himself. My only consolation is that the old man wouldn't have been any better. Yes, I am Jewish (Reform, thank you) and Yes, lesbian (and yes, I go to synagogue and am excepted by my Rabbi and congregation, thank you very much...)
A civil union does not offer the same rights as a marriage. A civil union is only recognized in the state the couple resides in. And a domestic partnership is only recognized on the state or local level.
Many benefits are denied to civil unions at the state level, such as Assumption of Spouses Pension, Automatic Inheritance, Automatic Housing Lease Transfer, Bereavement Leave, Burial Determination, Child Custody, Crime Victims Recovery Benefits, Divorce Protection, Domestic Violence Protection, Exemption from Property Tax on Partners Death, Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse, Insurance Breaks, Joint Adoption, Joint Bankruptcy, Joint Parenting, etc.
1,138 benefits and protections are provided by the United States government ONLY to legally married couples. All of those benefits and protections are denied to partners in civil unions. Among them are, according to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office: Sick Leave to Care for Partner, Bereavement Leave, Access to Military Stores, Assumption of Spouses Pension, Immigration Insurance Breaks, Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner, Social Security Survivor Benefits, Tax Breaks, Veterans Discounts, Visitation of Partner in Hospital, or Prison.
Any benefits that are available to unmarried couples at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For instance, under federal law, when gay employees include their same-sex partners or spouses under their health coverage, the fair market value of that health coverage is added to the gross income on which the gay employee must pay taxes. But the value of that health benefit is NOT added to the heterosexual employee’s gross income before assessing his or her taxes.
I am disappointed that a reverend with such a narrow perspective attracted the approval of the President elect -- a man with such an open mind and a devotion to civil rights. No "man of G-d" can preach that people who love each other cannot come together in "matrimony" by a definition other than his own. Shame on those who recommended this man to invoke faith at the inauguration.
It is not too late for the President-elect to invite a gay clergyman or woman to participate, as well. Now THAT would be the Barack Obama who caught the nation's collective attention!
But until then, it seems obvious that the desire for evangelical support over gay people's rights to join together in matrimony no less than heterosexual people, has prevailed. But who knows? One day, we could learn of the right Reverend's escapades in a bathroom stall or with young boys, yet still espousing gays' nneds to be healed and highlighting their misdirected sexual lives.
Obama's selection of Warren is in keeping with his leadership goal of demostrating that differing opinions are an opportunity for dialogue and understanding and need not simply be an excuse for further division, derision, discord and disdain.
The notion that something of value would be served by excluding those who are inclined to exclude others is precicely the opposite of the direction in which we all need to be headed.
Rabbi Hirschfield,
I agree with you on your post that Obama has made a good choice and worked at his best by choosing pastor Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation. This is great for faith, too.
We need to stop demonizing each other. Obama is wise enough to know that.
Thanks.
Eric
This is no a matter of differing opinions or "views." In a recent interview Warren likened marriage between two adults of the same sex to a man marrying a young child, or a man marrying six women, or a woman marrying six men. This is sheer bigotry, not a difference in opinion or a different view.
Tom's post is an interesting one, as it decries the way in which "domestic partners" are treated under the law in his particular state. That has little to do with morality, and much more to do with legislation. Rather than bastardize the definition of "marriage," why not address the specific legislative issues that are at hand? I find it amusing that Tom is most upset about the treatment of unmarried people under the tax code - this is something we closed-minded redneck conservatives have been objecting to for years.
The other aspect to Rick Warren's choice is that his views on homosexual marriage parallel those of Barack Obama. Obama stated that he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, supports civil unions for same sex individuals and like many conservatives, opposes changing the constitution. I guess he's really one of those "bitter clingers" that he railed against in San Francisco, minus the gun.
The United States has become a country that is void of the truth.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. A great speaker tells their audiance what they
want to hear. Obama is a great speaker. He can pick whoever he wants
as he no longer needs the votes of minorities, homosexuals, those on
wellfare, those who think his best qualification is his 12.5% black
African ancestry, those on Wall Street that were his second largest
contributor to his campaign fund, etc. He is a man with little gov't
experience who has very rich friends on both sides of the law in this
country and others so he can do what he wants untill he has served
his purpose.
When I read that Obama chose Rick Warren, I thought his choice was a stroke of genius. While I am no where near a fan of Rick Warren, what he stands for and what he preaches, Barack's decision is just one more brilliant move that he has made since his being elected to US President.(gosh that sounds good!)
For those who disagree with his choice, please try to be more tolerant of a choice made by an intelligent, compassionate and wise leader who understands that decisiveness and partisan politics are not part of his game. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA AGREES WITH RICK WARREN! Who knows, maybe some of these religious fundamentalists will vote for him in 2012, 2016 and 2020. ; > )
Thanks, Rabbi Hirchfield for sharing the "light".
I meant to say "divisiveness" and not decisiveness.
I get the big-tent claims. But no matter how you slice it, it is not the same thing intellectually or morally for person A to call person B bigoted and object to person B's public advancement when person B denigrates person A's life and takes action in the political realm to make the law of the land reflect their negative views of a certain portion of the population, on the one hand, and for person B to take that public and legal stance vis-a-vis person A, on the other hand.
I completely accept that many people believe homosexuality is a sin - because of their religious views, of course. I disagree with their view but fully accept their total right to hold that view and live by it. What I do not accept is taking that personal and religious belief and using it to shape public policy / law that would control another portion of the population whose views are different.
Rick Warren can preach to his flock that homosexuality is a sin and it may irk me, but it is ultimately none of my concern - unless I choose to engage him in discussion or debate in the attempt to broaden his view. But when he, because of his religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely believed, advocates a particular legal / policy position that affects the lives of millions, he has crossed the line and is no longer a religious leader so much as a demagogue who would damage our republic.
Religious leaders would better spend their time leading their people, teaching them how to live by their principles, than trying to shape public policy.
Other than his conclusion that the Surge did not work BEFORE he visited Iraq, has Obama made any other blunder this large? I exclude Rev Wright as Rev Wright was a situation which pre-dated Obama's decision to run for office. No matter what one personally believes about the Surge's effectiveness, no one can justify reaching a conclusion BEFORE the fact finding tour.
My point is this:
(1) Was Obama's asking Rick Warren intention?
(2) Did Obama ask Rick Warren because Rick Warren is a divisive anti-Gay bigot?
There is a reasonable argument that Obama remembers how Clinton's first disaster was Gays in the Military. That fiasco resulted in Don't Ask Don't Tell, but more importantly for Clinton, it was his first huge defeat. Gays are pushing for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Obama knows that this issue will be a big cause in Congress soon after he takes Office. More likely than not, Congress will pass a repeal and Obama will have a dilemma.
Obama believes that he can replicate Ronald Reagan and creating and long lasting Democratic political machine. Looking back, we know what Reganites mean and a decade from now Obama wants there to be Obamanites -- a coalition of take sucks away a significant portion of the GOP base.
Obama plans that these bigots like Rick Warren will play a significant role in his forging this new Democratic Coalition. They will not participate along side Gays. Rick Warren is perfect for Obama's message that Gays are outside the big tent. Rick Warren championed Prop 8 to deprive Gays of their unalienable right to liberty (see Calif A.G.'s brief arguing that Prop 8 is void as it infringes on the unalienable right to liberty). If one listens to Warren on Hannity, one sees that Warren believes that the government's purpose is to punish evildoers and Warren labels Gays as evildoers along with pedophiles.
Obama knows that the Gay Community will do nothing about Rick Warren. HRC prove Obama correct with its mamby pamby approach saying in essence that its feelings were hurt. Barney Franks was "disappointed." If Obama had selected David Duke would Barney Franksky have been only disappointed?
By purposefully elevating the country's most vocal anti-Gay bigot to center stage, Obama is telling all Democratic Congressmen, "You can ignore Gays who want to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. I spit in their face and they did nothing. You should do the same."
There is no gainsaying that asking Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation is a brilliant political ploy, but do we see a pattern emerging of throwing people under the bus? First the Rev. Wright, now the Gays.
Errata with apologies
(1) Was Obama's asking Rick Warren intentional*? (I omitted the "al")
. . . Obama will have a dilemma -- to sign or not to sign*
Since errors cannot be corrected, I'll compose off line and then post
For those who think that it is fine and dandy to feature and anti-gay bigot at the inauguration, how often to you apply this principle in other areas?
Hamas and Hizbollah run charities including food distribution and hospitals
The Nazis revived German's economy, Mussolini made the trains run on time, Herod The Great was a master builder, Enron was a pillar of Dallas society, every body loved Bernie Madoff, the list is endless. All these people and organizations were praised for their good deeds and whenever their dark side was seen, people said, "Don't look at the evil. Close your eyes to that. Just look at the good." This type of blindness is what allowed Madoff to fleece billions of more dollars between 1999, when he was first reported to the SEC, and 2008.
And once again, Einstein's definition of insanity -- doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Our entire economy is in the tank because all sorts of corruption and incompetence were ignored by telling us to look at the good. The reality is that Rick Warren is right wing bigot who believes that the government should be run according to Rick Warren's interpretation of what G-d wants. Sounds like Alan Keyes to me.
Warren wears his bigotry like badge of honor, but most people avert their eyes.
I find it interesting and telling that Obama chose a conservative evangelical pastor to give the invocation at his inauguration. It would appear his message is that he really DOES intend to include both conservatives and liberals on his watch, and is finding it’s to his advantage to be more centrist, if not a demand requirement, as president. To those who think that Rick Warren is a terrible choice and Obama should have “known better” and chosen someone more in line with the liberal values (pro gay, pro abortion) for which he was elected, doesn't anyone remember that Obama was associated with the Reverend Wright and what he stands for, attended his church for 20 years, DEFENDED him until it became impossible for him to continue to do so and continue as a candidate for the presidency, and was married by Reverend Wright? Pay attention! Obama's association with conservative christian views and values is consistent from when he was a young man. This is one area in which he is less liberal than those who voted for him want to believe. Why is it that people refuse to look at what someone DOES versus what they say? Obama's ACTIONS with regard to the churches he attended and attends, and the pastors in his life, past and present, express more clearly what his beliefs are than what he "said" to get elected. Obama is being Obama. Get used to it. This is not the only time we are going to see Obama taking a conservative tack. He's a very smart man and knows you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. He can't afford to alienate the conservatives any more than he already has. So, from time to time, expect to see a carrot thrown in a conservative direction.
To those who of you who describe Pastor Warren as a bigot I give you my take on his position. Although I don't neccessarily believe in all of his doctrine I do believe that he is nowhere close to being a bigot but follows the laws set by God Himself pertaining to homosexuality as seen in Leviticus 18:22 where God proclaims homosexuality as an abomination. For those of you who read the New Testament Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10 addresses the same topic.
This is not to say that God hates the sinner but he does hate the sin and he considers homosexuality a sin. Would you consider God a bigot?
To Robert Fenton-No matter you think about Pastor Warren his beliefs about homosexual marriages are Biblically motivated.What you are saying in essence is redefining what the Bible states as a marriage between a man and a woman. End of story!!!!
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.