BlogHer - Rick Warren and the Inauguration: Can We Find Common Ground? - Comments

Depak Chopra for one

Maria Niles — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:29:59 -0600

Linked above, Depak Chopra would agree with you that religion should not play a role in a government ceremony. And I would agree, too. I would rather that no one faith be singled out and highlighted at government functions. If a blessing must be invoked I rather it be non-specific and inclusive. I also would rather that marriage not be an issue and that the government not give legal sanction, privilege and benefits to any relationship. However, I do recognize that neither civil marriage nor invocations/benedictions at state events are going away any time soon, unfortunately. So, under those circumstances what do we do?

I still don't know. But thank you so much, Regina, for adding your thoughtful and passionate view and post to the discussion.

Separation of Church and State

Regina Varolli — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:53:19 -0600

Am I the last person in the United States who still believes in the separation of Church and State? This isn't about judging Obama, or Rick Warren judging everyone who doesn't belong to his church, it's about a fundamental aspect of our Constitutional Democracy, and that is the separation of Church and State.

Pastor Rick Warren Again Rears His Ugly Head

Excellent Question

Pam — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:52:58 -0600

So I am left wondering. Who Is Obama? Is he secretly a bible
believing Christian who is attempting to secure a platform by catering
to the left. Or is he more of a leftist liberal who is patronizing
the conservative Right. Who Knows. If nothing else I think Obama is
an expert in making both sides pay attention.

I think this is a really well stated question that sums up my feelings on the matter. Personally, I'm hoping Warren will step down, though I'm not naiive enough to believe that's what will happen - it's just what I hope for.

More critical is that Warren and Obama's less than green pick for the Sec't'y of the Interior remind me that as a progressive leftist, Obama has only begun to disappoint me. Don't get me wrong, I'm MUCH happier with Obama than I could ever have been with McCain, but I'm reminded by these choices that American politics has a long way back to representing my values, too.

Nerd's Eye View
@nerdseyeview

I think we should take a breath and give Obama a chance

JCK — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:40:52 -0600

Wow! What a beautifully written piece. I, too, have been repulsed by Rick Warren's views on gays and lesbians. His views are not mine. Not even close. However, he has done many good works around the world. This is such a topic that flings people to one side or the other. As you pointed out, Rev. Joseph Lowery will also be participating in the inauguration. These choices, in my opinion, clearly continue to illustrate Barack Obama's desire to bring people together. Isn't that why we voted for him? For his gift in bringing people together? I don't see that there is any call for us to give up who we are or to give up our opinions, but to come together and see that we can agree on some issues. Not all. But, some. We have to start somewhere. Let's give Obama a chance.

Once again, great writing! And thanks for all the links.

JCK

Motherscribe

Thank you, all

Maria Niles — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:20:14 -0600

I very much appreciate all these comments. You've added rich perspective and food for further thought. And, I must say that I'm glad that I am not the only one who is seeing a lot of grey here.

Nordette - thank you for your links and adding additional context to the discussion. And thank you as well for applauding my bravery though I don't think it took much courage because I'm not taking a stand. I am genuinely torn but hopeful and really interested in other folks sharing their views. Even if some might be angry with me for not picking the "right" side I would like to hear their arguments which I can solicit by blogging the question.

Again, thank you all for adding your voices to the conversation.

BlogHer Contributing Editor
PopConsumer
Beyond Help

Obama Who?

nettalyce — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:19:49 -0600

Nettalyce

What exactly is it that we are hoping for? I am stunned at the number of people who believe that in order to come together as a people we have to somehow give up who we are as individuals. Rick Warren is a Christian whose beliefs, philosphies, perspectives, opinions, and platforms are fully informed by the Bible. He believes the Word of God is inerrant, immutable, and that it serves as a manual for how Christians schould live their lives. His subsequent views on the submissiveness of women, homosexuality, and abortion flow from the Bible. Now I know stating this is blasphemous to some individuals who either reject the Bible or who opt to use it as an a la carte menu where you can choose what you like and leave the rest. His ideas don't orignially come from the Southern Baptist. They stem from the Wrod of God upon which the Southern Baptist have sought to develop their doctrines. The question is can members and supporters of the LGBT community, abortion rights advocates, and liberal pundits look beyond their issues with the Bible and its advocates and embrace Rick Warren for who he is. Isn't that true tolerance?

I find the whole Rick Warren/Obama controversy interesting b/c I am trying to figure out who exactly Obama is. He purports to be a Christian but many of his statements tend toward the more post modern type of Christianity where interpretation and application of scripture takes a backseat to his social causes (i.e. instead of accepting the actual statements regarding homosexuality you fashion a more palatable faith system that allows you not to offend political correctness). So I was shocked to learn he had asked Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration. Now for the most part I really respect Rick Warren. I think he has a special gift of remaining relevant to today's culture while not compromising his faith. So I am left wondering. Who Is Obama? Is he secretly a bible believing Christian who is attempting to secure a platform by catering to the left. Or is he more of a leftist liberal who is patronizing the conservative Right. Who Knows. If nothing else I think Obama is an expert in making both sides pay attention.

Brave, Maria

Nordette — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:16:43 -0600

I wouldn't have touched this topic in a post b/c the older I grow, the more practical I become and would have surely insulted someone writing what I think. I lose patience with the naive who think Washington DC is a place of no compromise, and wrote at my own blog this summer that Obama is only human. Surely folks should have seen these types of choices coming. But no, they've projected onto him their expectations for what they believe rather than his own philosophy about how to get work done. Women do this with Michelle Obama also.

People who want perfection and absolute agreement should request a transfer to the next life. But anyone who wants to win a war, will watch opponents and supporters more carefully, pick battles wisely.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is WSATA, and she's finally taken the dive into Twitter.

We are more diverse than we know

Addofio — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:22:44 -0600

Sometimes I think that even in this age of electronic communication, we all still manage to live our own lives in more or less comfortable niches in which we don't come in contact with those who are really different from us. At least, not knowingly. Which this controversy brings out, I think--that Warren't participation is being criticized from both sides shows just how long the stretch is from the far left to the far right. One person's "moderate" is another person's flaming radical.

I personally am somewhat comforted at the inclusion of Reverend Lowrey. I'd be even more comforted if the media gave it more play, so that people could see more clearly the possibility, at least, that Obama is trying to live up to his commitment to bring the country together. Unfortunately, controversy is life's blood to the media, so they will always play up what divides us.

Reaching out to heal the divide, to bring us together, is politically risky in many ways. One of the risks is that one side does all the flexing, while the other side stands fast, thereby "winning". I think that's what us lefties are worried about with Obama. I worry about that, too. Liberals are committed to living with diversity in a way that conservatives are not, and we are thus inherently vulnerable to always being the ones who flex. Furthermore, sometimes it is important, even essential, to stand fast and not be moved. But if everyone does that all the time--we won't get out of this unhealthy divisiveness that has dominated the political scene for so long.

Another risk of trying to heal the divide is that you just piss people off on both sides, and end up with everyone mad at you and the divisions worse than ever. I think that's what happened to Clinton, and why he abandoned the attempt. I'm hoping that Obama has the political capital (and the wisdom), and that enough people really are tired of the politics of division, that he/we will be able to bring the body politic back together to a more healthy condiiton. But I also hope he doesn't give away the store in the process.

I'm with you--I'm torn. And I'm sure glad I don't have to figure out how to bring the country together--I haven't a clue. But maybe all these public and semi-public conversations are part of the process, as people work through their initial feelings and thoughts get aired in the process.

To get more specific--I definitely don't think Warren's invitation should be rescinded. That would insult the right even more than the invitation has insulted the left. It would also make Obama look wishy-washy, and he needs to be strong/we need him to be, and appear, strong.

We get there by doing the uncomfortable

BarbD — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:17:51 -0600

I'm tired of outrage. It seems to me that for the last 20 years, Americans have backed into their respective corners and shouted at each other. I'm willing to pay attention to any leader who tries to stop this cycle, which I believe Obama wants to do.

I, too, don't know how we overcome this -- but I do know that what we've been doing isn't working. I remember a time when debate was more of a spirited (but still respectful) discussion -- not a shouting match. It's something I've been trying to bring back in my own conversations with close friends and family members who have deeply conservative views that run counter to mine. I'd like to think that this has at least led to more understanding about why we believe as we do. And it's exposed me to a broader range of conservative thought, some of which I find myself in agreement with.

It's easier for me to understand the objections to Rick Warren than the objections of conservative evangelicals. That's understandable -- I'm a social liberal (and not religious). But I also believe that in order to get to a more respectful place, I must be willing to expose myself to discomfort.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with beliefs counter to my own -- just that I be willing to truly listen and respond respectfully. It's hard to shout at someone who's willing to engage with you in that manner -- and it's always possible that just as I can find some common ground with conservative thinking, maybe those I interact with will find some common ground with mine.

Rick Warren and the Inauguration: Can We Find Common Ground?

Maria Niles — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:29:37 -0600

When President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration team announced the pick of pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation a firestorm of controversy was unleashed.

A wide range of groups on the left and the right immediately denounced Obama's choice. Supporters of gay rights, still reeling from the passage of Proposition 8 in California, joined women, pro-choice supporters and progressives of many stripes in criticizing Obama for the choice and calling for the invitation to be revoked. Some conservatives denounced Warren for accepting Obama's invitation because of Obama's support for abortion rights.

Many Americans know Warren as the genial Hawaiian shirt-wearing author of on of the all time best-selling books, The Purpose Driven Life. Warren is also known for championing issues such as fighting global warming, poverty and HIV/AIDS. In an era where evangelical Christian leaders are better known for their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, why the controversy over the choice of Warren?

Despite Warren's support for issues that cause some in the Christian Right to view him as unacceptably moderate, Warren is a Southern Baptist who, consistent with his denomination's theology, holds a very conservative, fundamental Christian perspective on social issues. [Note: Billy Graham who has counseled every sitting president for decades is also a Southern Baptist who did not garner such protest] Those who are hurt, disappointed, insulted and angry at the choice of Warren point to his comparisons of gay marriage to pedophilia, polygamy and incest, his equating abortion rights supporters to Nazis and Holocaust deniers, his preaching of Southern Baptist theology of wifely submission and a central fundamental Christian view that non-Christians of any sort are condemned to hell. Accordingly, his church's work abroad to combat HIV and AIDS includes a healthy component of conversion work which further taints the image of Warren pushing for some sort of new selfless, liberal evangelical Christianity.

In the ensuing debate cynicism, disappointment and mistrust abound. Some pundits claim that this is merely a political calculation on the part of Obama - throw a bone to the right to create cover so he can move left once in office. Some progressives claim that this is further evidence that Obama merely claimed to be a lefty liberal and is moving to the "center-right." Some women and members of the LGBT community who supported Obama warily feel sucker punched and view this as proof that he does not actually support their causes. Others are having flashbacks to Bill Clinton's promises to the gay community which he immediately caved on instituting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act" and therefore are understandably suspicious of Obama's claims of being a "fierce advocate for equality." One prominent LGBT leader has decided not to attend the inauguration. Others still plan to go but will turn their backs to Warren in silent protest.

Some are asking if there is a way in which we can overcome this divide. Obama campaigned on a belief and promise that he would reach out to even those who disagree with him, that there are ways in which we can find common ground and that there is no red America, no blue America, just the United States of America. Obama has spoken about Warren's willingness to invite him to Saddleback church when many on the right were outraged that Warren would offer him a platform. Some point to the Reverend Joseph Lowrey, civil rights activist and icon and gay marriage supporter who will also share the stage with Obama and bless his inauguration by giving the benediction. Others point out that Warren's prayer will be short and symbolic and that he will not make policy and therefore should not be seen as representative of what Obama's administration will mean for gays, women, non-Christians and liberals.

I am torn. Everytime I read an opinion on this topic I wobble back and forth. I absolutely understand why many are outraged over Obama's invitation to Warren. I too wonder along with others why couldn't Jim Wallis of Sojurners been the evangelical to get the invitation? Others suggest recently ousted leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Richard Cizik. Despite Warren's explanations and claims of support for civil unions, his "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage which certainly sound like he puts gay people in the same class as pedophilia, polygamy and incest is hateful and I agree with Stephen Waldman of Beliefnet and political reporter and author of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right, E.J. Dionne Jr. that Warren should apologize. Making what many view as too little, too late progress and then making videos dismissing such views as "silly" and calling it just the rants of slacker bloggers does not make me feel better about seeking common ground and reconciliation. I totally get why those of us who disagree so thoroughly with Warren wonder why it is we who supported Obama who are asked to compromise and understand while those who vehemently opposed Obama are offered an olive branch.

However, when I read calls to embrace what I have in common with Rick Warren such as Lee Stranahan's I want to get there. I voted for Obama because he is pragmatic and seeks compromise. I don't think that by maintaining divides we can accomplish anything. I think we must find a way to heal partisan divides and find common ground. I have a perhaps crazy, naive belief that if we can just listen to and hear each other we will find that most of us want most of the same things. But I don't know how we get there.

I would love to hear your thoughts. Are you mad, sad or glad about the choice to invite Warren to give the invocation? Should Warren's invitation be rescinded? Should Warren reject the invitation? Is there a way to resolve this issue?

Related Reading

From the BlogHer community:

Gloria Feldt: Say It Isn't So, O!
tgrlily: Really Obama? Rick Warren?
TheDailyHowl: Rick Warren: It's Not About Gays, It's About Racists

Melissa Etheridge meets with Warren:

Tammy Lynn Michaels on her blog hollywood farm girl: the big rick's yamaka
Melissa Etheridge (Michael's wife) at Huffington Post: The Choice Is Ours Now
Emma Ruby-Sachs at Huffington Post: A Response to Melissa Etheridge
Holly at Feministe: Bamboozling the Etheridges
TEJTM at Pam's House Blend: Tammy Lynn Michaels heads for the back of the bus
Michele McGinty, Reformed Chicks Blabbing at Beliefnet: Melissa Etheridge and Rick Warren building bridges

Why we fight:

Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend and the other diarists have several posts explaining the outrage including: Homobigot Rick Warren to deliver invocation at inauguration
digby at Hullabaloo also has ongoing coverage including: Freeper Coalition
BlogHer CE PunditMom Joanne Bamberger at Huffington Post: Rick Warren is NOT Change We Can Believe In

Can't we all get along?:

Karoli at Bang the Drum: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives
Nathaniel Frank at Huffington Post: Should Progressives Engage Agents of Intolerance?
Across The Great Divide: Rick Warren Protesters are Picking the Wrong Battle
Geoffrey Garin at the Washington Post: A Progressive Case for Rick Warren
Ellen Beth Gill at Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog: Rick Warren
Rebecca Walker: Rick Warren v Jerry Brown via Facebook
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight: A Passing Thought On Rick Warren

Maybe we're fighting the wrong fight:

B. Daniel Blatt of GayPatriot at Pajamas Media: Not All Gays Have a Problem With Rick Warren
Bob Ostertag at Huffington Post: Why Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue
Depak Chopra at On Faith: We Don't Need Rick Warren's Blessing, Or Anyone Else's
David Corn at CQ Politics: Why doesn't Warren know his Bible better?

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News

BlogHer CE Maria Niles blogs politics at her personal blog PopConsumer