This week, we have witnessed the first scandal of the Obama Administration-to-be. Or so say the media.
Barack has invited evangelical pastor Reverend Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Rick Warren is one of the religious leaders who give a powerful voice to the activists of the religious far-right which has supported the Republican party for years, and the Bush Administration in particular.
This move by Obama can be seen as a brilliant one. Keep your friends close and you enemies closer. By inviting someone representing the very people who hate him the most, those who call him a Socialist Muslim terrorist who eats babies alive for breakfast, Obama is sending a signal that he won't be the President of the people who voted for him only. He reaches across the ideological divide. He explains his move by repeating his mantra: "We can disagree without being disagreeable."
Warren, among other negative and positive -- he notably encourages Christians to confront problems like AIDS and climate change -- characteristics, is anti-abortion and anti-gay, which makes his participation at the inauguration of Obama very controversial. The gay community, in particular, is very upset.
The anger of the gay community is very understandable. Warren -- whose church refuses non-repentant gay people and sponsors programs to cure gay people -- equates gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. This kind of statement is clearly unacceptable and shocking.
After the shameful passage of Proposition 8 in California, a proposition banning same-sex marriage a few months after it had been made legal by the California Supreme Court, many gay people already feel that their fellow citizens are doing everything they can to deprive them of the right of the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.
After the announcement of Warren's presence at the inauguration of the President they overwhelmingly supported, they understandably feel betrayed.
However, there is one aspect of the whole thing which I think should be very controversial but that the media have not mentioned at all. Not even the very liberal media like MSNBC.
What in the world is a religious leader doing at the inauguration of the President of the United States?
Even a representative of an activist group called Association for the Separation of Church and State has protested against the participation of Warren on the grounds of his homophobia but has never mentioned that this should not even be an issue, since no religious leader should be praying the Lord at the inauguration of the President.
I have mentioned to a friend of mine who happens to be a quite liberal Southern Baptist pastor that it seems strange to me that the separation of church and state does not guarantee that religious leaders will not participate in the inauguration ceremony. He replied, That's the American tradition. Just like "In God We Trust" stamped on the banknotes. It's ridiculous.
It is a tradition indeed. It is so ingrained that it is not even questioned when an anti-gay pastor is invited to give the invocation at the inauguration of the new President. It is so deeply rooted in American society that people will tell you that this is what the Founding Fathers wanted. They simply ignore that most of the Founding Fathers were a bunch of atheists disguised as deists.
When tradition keeps people into such apathy, it is time indeed for change.
Obama's move is a bold one indeed, and I am pretty sure that he will regain the favors of the gay community by other bold moves. After the Warren participation was announced, Barack declared at a press conference that he was "a fierce advocate of equality of rights for the gay community." I do not think that any president, or any major candidate had declared such a thing before.
However, I wish Barack had made an even bolder move, by not including any religious act in his inauguration ceremony.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I, like so many of my gay friends, gave a lot of money to Obama's campaign. We worked tirelessly to get him elected. Now Obama decides to invite Rick Warren, who equates gays to rapists and child molesters; and who excludes gays from being members of his church to do the invocation? How many of Warren's followers do you think gave as much to the campaign as gays did? How many of Warren's followers worked as hard to get Obama elected as gays did? Warren is to gays what a Grand Wizard of the KKK is to African Americans. Obama has made it perfectly clear with this invitation how he feels about the gay community.
Do you think Obama would have had as much of a landslide if it wasn't for the gay community? I don't think so. I hope for his sake that all the evangelicals he is pandering to move over to his camp come reelection time; gays will be voting for a third party candidate from now on. It's been made perfectly clear that the Democrats don't want us. Good luck to Obama with his presidency. I don't support him any longer. I, like so many fell utterly betrayed.
Thank you for your comment.
As I wrote, I completely understand the anger of the gay community, or at least I sympathize with the gay community -- I can't be pretentious to claim I fully understand.
You expressed a feeling of being betrayed which completely makes sense. Warren has had dehumanizing words regarding gay people and, as I wrote, it is completely and utterly unacceptable.
The debate and the anger spurred by the invitation of Warren is absolutely justified.
That was the first point of my post.
However, there is a second point that I wanted to make, and which does not seem to be a debate in the media. That point is the following: if there is separation of church and state, there should not be any kind of pastor involved in the inaugural ceremony.
This issue is neither more important nor less important than the issue angering the gay community. I am simply surprised it is not an issue at all.
To end with an optimistic note: maybe I am too idealistic but I still feel confident that Obama is going to do more than any other president in favor of the equality of rights for the gay people.
What? And cement the image of a godless heathen in the far-right?That's a Republican fantasy come true.
While I agree that there is obviously a need for separation of church and state (which, along with the pursuit of happiness, is one the founding fathers' ideals), if Obama decided to change it now 47% of the US would flip out because we would have elected a suicide bomber. Who else, pray tell, would DARE to separate church and state?
I agree that Warren is a shrewd political choice and that Obama is exercising his "agree without being disagreeable" mantra. He has made it clear that he does not support gay marriage--which I disagree with, but still support the guy. He's appointed two Republicans to his cabinet and has vowed to have a Team of Rivals.
People who disagree with this choice should look at the larger picture--after the inauguration, who will Rick Warren be to anyone? Nobody except that guy that caused an uproar because he had a 10 minute role in the ceremony (which, as you pointed out, should not even happen anyway). He'll be less significant than Sarah Palin turned out to be.
Ok I changed my stance on this. I thought Rick was going to be a little more general and blatantly using the prayer to preach.
I hated that. Made me so mad.
Post a Comment