Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Neff: Pastorgate II
Barack Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20 is building up to be one of the most monumental in contemporary American history.
Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration is certainly the biggest letdown of the transition from the campaign trail to the White House.The Obama team, responding to the criticism that followed the announcement that Warren would give the prayer, acknowledged that the two men disagree on gay equality and reproductive freedoms, but “agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including fighting poverty and moving toward a sustainable planet.”
Is Rick Warren the only minister in the United States who wants to fight poverty and protect Earth?
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor of some 20 years until he was tossed under a bus for too forcefully pointing out that back-of-the-bus attitudes still exist, might support a sustainable planet and the eradication of poverty. He also would travel far beyond Warren on social justice issues.
Obama’s post-election decision to select Warren for the invocation and his primary fight decision to distance himself from Wright make me think about labels and perceptions, definitions and perspectives, especially in regard to race.
The black minister’s perhaps most controversial statement suggested a causal connection between the U.S. intervention in the Middle East and terrorist attacks against the United States. When the Wright videos were playing in greater rotation on cable than “Seinfeld” episodes, how many of you heard friends, family and neighbors say Obama’s association with the minister showed bad judgment, that Wright’s statements were appalling and anti-American? How many people did you hear vow not to support Obama for his association with Wright and his attendance at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ?
You might go back to those people now and ask them how happy they are with the president-elect’s selection of Warren.
But you also might ask them if they were appalled when two white evangelists — Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson — suggested that American liberalism invited the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Falwell, appearing on Robertson’s “700 Club,” said, “God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”
Robertson replied, “Jerry, that’s my feeling.”
Curious. Falwell and Robertson talk about America getting punished for politics and policies and they get invited to White House consultations, praised as patriotic and all-American. Wright talks about “chickens coming home to roost” and gets buried, denounced as subversive and anti-American.
Warren may not preach the hate of Robertson or James Dobson, but he has shared their beliefs on issues of abortion and homosexuality, and Warren is not a moderate.
In an e-mail sent prior to the 2004 election, Warren said for Christian voters issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research were non-negotiable, “not even debatable because God’s word is clear on these issues.”
Until very recently, the Web site for Saddleback contained the statement, “Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at [sic] a member of Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church — we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.”
And, this past election season Warren encouraged votes for Proposition 8, which amended California’s constitution to deny gays the right to marry.
Warren has said legalizing same-sex marriage is like redefining marriage to allow incest and pedophilia.
In defense of the Warren choice, the Obama team promoted the inauguration as “the most open, accessible and inclusive inauguration in American history.”
Obama was quoted as saying, “During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that’s how it should be, because that’s what America’s about. That’s part of the magic of this country.… We are diverse and noise and opinionated.”
Of course I welcome the president-elect’s calls for unity and inclusion, but I just don’t understand and certainly don’t find any magic in giving Rick Warren the honor of delivering the inaugural invocation.
I don’t know what Warren will say on Jan. 20, but I’ll remind you of what he said approaching a vote on Proposition 8: “About 2 percent of Americans are homosexual or gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population determine, to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years. This is not even just a Christian issue, it’s a humanitarian, a human issue.”
I still don’t understand why there is an invocation to begin with. This is the inauguration to the highest political office in a country that claims separation of church and state. No inauguration to any political office should have anything in the itinerary involving any religious practices of any denomination.
Its called hypocrisy. We say there is a separation of church and state, but it is a lie. We say we are about freedom and equality and go to war with other countries to prove it, but that is also a lie. We claim to be a classless society, but that is a lie. We claim that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it protects all our citizens, but that is a lie. It’s like being in a gay chatroom where 8 inches is actually 5 inches. We hold dearly to our illusions because reality would make us no better that many of the other fascist theocracies we claim to abhor.
Well 365gay.com, it’s about time you came back on line. You have been gone during one of the biggest issues so far that the LGBT community has faced with President elect Obama. I am extremely diappointed in the fact that you just decided that gay news was not important for the last couple of weeks. Too bas, as other LGBT websites out there have done an outstanding job on this issue.
Any religious leader who claims that Jews are going to hell, and any people of other faiths also because they don’t believe in what they believe, shouldn’t be given that honor.
Plain and simple. I’m so sad by the whole thing, I’ll skip the event completely.
Tiger–HAHAHAHA! Well done!
Y’know…back in the 70s, one of the cool things was that many (most?) churches were letting go of the insistence on running your life for you. It was assumed you could do things for yourself, including having your own direct communion with God. That was also the time of cults. Remember not just the Moonies, but the fear that families had? That a son or daughter would vanish and then re-materialize, months later, thoroughly brainwashed against their past life and wanting to hand you a flower before you got on a plane?
The cults won. Rick Warren and people like him are people who can’t handle the responsibility of people thinking for themselves. Members of Saddleback–like Mormons, Southern Baptists and others–actively seek someone to tell them how to rear their children, how to interact with others, how to live their lives. And that’s sad, because they don’t just run away from the freedom to be themselves, they do everything possible to deny that personal liberty to everybody else in the society. How is subjugation any kind of freedom? It’s freedom from individual responsibility, but the same could also be said of the Moonies.
I was in a hospital waiting room on Sep 13th 2001, and I remember Falwell and Robertson on CNN with all their crap. I saw the footage of Jeremiah Wright. Wright at least presented a coherent base for his comments, beyond pointing a finger to the sky. Wright wasn’t just demonized; he was too good at being scary. But he didn’t say anything that hadn’t already been said–but he did challenge the martyr complex which has entrenched itself in this country after 9/11.
And do we need a preacher to validate our Presidents? No. If the US were like Quebec (culturally Catholic, not religiously so), it’d be a different matter. As long as “religious” outfits continue to grab for secular power, they de-legitimize any claim to be present for cultural or symbolic reasons.
Tiger Tzu, I think I love you!
In virtually any modern comparison of the USA and other countries in the world, the USA is most notably usually compared and contrasted with third world extremist theocratic societies as being “better than”.
Is that the goal of the USA? To be slightly “better than” Saudi Arabia? Iran? Juntas and banana republics?
Medical care. Child care. Work hours. Annual leaves. Percentage of population living in poverty. Number of citizens in prison. Gap between the rich and the poor. Rule by religious zealotry rather than law.
The very idea that in a society supposedly protected by a constitution which demands equal protection under the law for ALL citizens it is necessary to be on a list of “protected classes” in order to actually have equal protection under the law dependent on the religious views of government and the majority says everything that needs to be said about the REALITY of the United States of America.
It’s a lie.
And it’s imposed at the end of a gun resting on a bible.
Okay, going to address a few things in the comments primarily. One, the issue of the invocation itself. There is an invocation because religion in general exists. Separation of church and state as far as I define it doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t pretend that religion doesn’t exist and ban it in all forms, that would in and of itself imply an endorsement of atheism in my opinion. My basis for believing this is my understanding of the meaning of the word ‘respect’ in the phrase “And congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, which is give weight of any kind to something whether it be for OR against.
Unless you can cite a law REQUIRING there to be a invocation it’s not a violation of ’separation of church and state’ because nothing is said either way. I’m not sure you guys will want to hear it, but banning religion of any kind on that basis is a violation of religious freedom as it basically tries to say that political figures are not allowed to have religious beliefs.
Second, to what ozzy said concerning religious tolerance. Going by that definition NO religious figure of any real authority would be viable for giving an invocation. The very nature of most religions is EXACTLY what your trying to denounce, that is that you need to follow what they say or you are going to have a bad spiritual existence. Christian may be more blunt about it but do you really think that a Buddhist is going to say you’ll go to achieve enlightenment or whatever their ‘good afterlife’ is even if your the most worldly person in the world? No. (Apologies if what I’m saying about Buddhist beliefs is incorrect, I am no authority on buddhism.) Religious tolerance isn’t about believing everyone is right, it’s about believing that everyone has the right to DISAGREE on the subject.
Jews are a hazy subject religiously, as there’s two different kinds of Jews. Take my Uncle Paul for example, he is a Jew who is half portugese and half mexican. How is this possible? Because there’s jewish ancestry and there’s judaism the religion, and my uncle is the latter. Saying Jews are going to hell referring to those who follow the jewish faith can be perfectly accurate and non-racist, as Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. Saying Jews are going to hell and meaning race is of course NOT acceptable and is another matter entirely unrelated to religion.
365gay.com. Where have you been? Did you take a vacation? I’ve never known a news service to take a vacation. I about gave up on you guys.
The late Coretta Scott King stated very clearly and more than once, Gay People’s equal civil rights, including the civil rights of marriage, was something that she not only herself believed, but strongly stated that her husband, the late Hon. Rev. Martin Luther King, would joined the fight for Gay Peoples equality in all civil rights.
When Mr. Obama stated in his weak justification, of inviting Rick Warren, he said that we are going to have differences on (social issues). Mr. Obama, thinks the equal civil rights of Gay People are just a mere (social issue).
I know now exactly what his mindset is. We are not deserving of equal civil rights, he doesn’t mind discussing certain (social issues) with us, but that’s as far as he goes.
It’s more than a slap in the face to invite a religious fanatic to such an important historical event, especially one that opposes our equal civil rights, not our differences in (social issues).
I would have respect for Obama, if he invited a number of enlightened religious and non religious speakers, a Rabbi, Priest, a Imam, Rev, as well as an Atheist, from around the world as well as here, enlightened people, that speak words of hope, not just for us, but to the entire world, words that not only bring hope but hope and equality for everyone.
It’s par for the course. I would like to say that it shows equal amounts of bad judgment Saint Obama sat in Wright’s church as inviting Pastor Warren. But the honest fact is that they are equally calculating. Saint Obama sat in Wright’s church for political gain, only. His move to have Warren as a prominent speaker at his coronation is political as well.
Rev. Lowery, the guy giving the benediction, is also against gay marriage..
“The Obama team, responding to the criticism that followed the announcement that Warren would give the prayer, acknowledged that the two men disagree on gay equality and reproductive freedoms, but “agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including fighting poverty and moving toward a sustainable planet.””
Hmmm – I wonder if a racist pastor who believes in fighting poverty and moving towards a sustainable planet would have been considered?
It doesn’t matter how it is justified – it’s just plain wrong. I respect many of Warren’s opinions. He says some sensible things about world peace. He has done some admirable work for various causes. But then so have many, many other people, and they don’t accompany their good words and deeds with vicious bigotry.
Warren has been picked so Obama can reach out to the religious right. It’s as simple as that. They can come up with excuse after excuse, paint Warren as a saint, but the fact remains that he is a bigot. It doesn’t negate the good he’s done, but it doesn’t mean he should be rewarded for it either.
And the crazy thing is that I really actually like Pastor Warren. I actually like him a heck of a lot more than I like Saint Obama. At least with Warren you know where he stands.
But the simple fact is that Pastor Warren is adversarial to gay equality. He should not be given a public and prominent forum.
Trace – Wow, your ignorance never ceases to amaze.
Warren is dead wrong when he says that every single religion supports that marriage is between one man and one woman. Islam has always permitted polygamy and up until the tail end of the 19th century, so did the Mormon cult. In fact, all religions are cults if you look closer.