President-elect Barack Obama (and it's really interesting how that title is so easy to say these days) asked Reverend Rick Warren to say the invocation at his inauguration, and that bothers me immensely.
One reason is the same as pretty much anyone else - Obama ran on a platform of human rights, which include women's rights, reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights. Warren opposes gay and reproductive rights. He has other views - environmental views, views on poverty - that do jibe with liberal values, and he has been known to reach out to members of other faiths (not that he agrees with any of them) including Jews, and not with the immediate objective of converting them.
(He's a good evangelical - making converts is part of his belief system - it would be wrong in his eyes to let anyone burn.)
However, it sends a very definite message to some of Obama's supporters. And that message isn't far different than the message he gave to women and to those who support net neutrality - "You guys are going to support me no matter what I do - you have nowhere else to go." That is, the abusive boyfriend statement.
I'm not terribly surprised - but what's going to happen four years from now, if he continues this way? It doesn't pay to alienate your supporters.
It's not a good idea - there are other people he could have chosen - he's made many African-Americans upset because he didn't choose an AA minister for this historic occasion, and I doubt any of his white followers would have blinked if he had (so long as it wasn't Rev. Wright.)
However, that's not my only objection. My other is bigger - why an invocation at all? Why bring anyone's religion - his, mine, yours - into this? I can understand wanting a blessing before becoming president - he will need all the help he can get - but why shouldn't that be done in private? It's a state occasion. Keep religion out of it.
And if you're going to do it, why only have representatives of one branch (Protestantism) of one religion (Christianity) there? Why only political diversity on that stage? Obama almost never mentions differences of faith in his speeches. I'm not saying there should be a rabbi up there, although it would be nice, and he should also have a Muslim clergyman there as well. But some non-Christian would be a pleasant surprise.
But that's not even an issue. Of course there will be a Christian invocation and a Christian benediction - anything else would be "special".
One reason is the same as pretty much anyone else - Obama ran on a platform of human rights, which include women's rights, reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights. Warren opposes gay and reproductive rights. He has other views - environmental views, views on poverty - that do jibe with liberal values, and he has been known to reach out to members of other faiths (not that he agrees with any of them) including Jews, and not with the immediate objective of converting them.
(He's a good evangelical - making converts is part of his belief system - it would be wrong in his eyes to let anyone burn.)
However, it sends a very definite message to some of Obama's supporters. And that message isn't far different than the message he gave to women and to those who support net neutrality - "You guys are going to support me no matter what I do - you have nowhere else to go." That is, the abusive boyfriend statement.
I'm not terribly surprised - but what's going to happen four years from now, if he continues this way? It doesn't pay to alienate your supporters.
It's not a good idea - there are other people he could have chosen - he's made many African-Americans upset because he didn't choose an AA minister for this historic occasion, and I doubt any of his white followers would have blinked if he had (so long as it wasn't Rev. Wright.)
However, that's not my only objection. My other is bigger - why an invocation at all? Why bring anyone's religion - his, mine, yours - into this? I can understand wanting a blessing before becoming president - he will need all the help he can get - but why shouldn't that be done in private? It's a state occasion. Keep religion out of it.
And if you're going to do it, why only have representatives of one branch (Protestantism) of one religion (Christianity) there? Why only political diversity on that stage? Obama almost never mentions differences of faith in his speeches. I'm not saying there should be a rabbi up there, although it would be nice, and he should also have a Muslim clergyman there as well. But some non-Christian would be a pleasant surprise.
But that's not even an issue. Of course there will be a Christian invocation and a Christian benediction - anything else would be "special".
Posts
5 comments:
That's just the invocation; he chose Joseph Lowery for the benediction. African-American as they come, last I heard.
You're seeing an African American.
I'm seeing another Christian. Not very diverse from my perspective.
i'm with you on that. why do they have to have the prayer, etc? even though prayer at football games, etc, was banned in texas, they still do it. i'm not going to get into how that can make children of other religions feel... this is what bothers me, this insistent behavior, that christianity is both necessary and normal - implying that everything else is not.
let's get a rabbi, a muslim, a monk -- one of everything. represent everyone.
Have him bring a rabbi, a priest, a minister, an imam, and take them to a bar, and leave them there during the inauguration, while he tells jokes about them.
A rabbi, a priest, and an imam walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says "Is this a joke?"
Post a Comment