LGBT Community Needs to Fracking Chill on Obama and Warren
Minor adjustment by GreyHawk: reduced picture slightly and inserted break before the second section. -- GH
Most here have heard the indictment that Barack Obama's inauguration will include a "humiliating" (Maddow) slap at the LGBT community for the incoming administration's political benefit.
Rick Warren, pastor and author (at right), will deliver the invocation at Obama's swearing-in ceremony on the Capitol steps.
Warren possesses a bright mind, and happens to hold benighted and bigoted views on gays perforce making the man an ignoramus popular in rightwing circles.
Warren's delivery of the Obama invocation has brought down a shower of condemnation from the civil rights community summed up by Rachel Maddow and John Aravosis of AmericaBlog [wouldn't bother reading Andrew Sullivan ...—"[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now... ."—Sullivan is of the couldn't-make-of-his-mind-to-support-Bush-or-Kerry fame in 2004; and Sullivan's a disingenuous showboat anyway].
But such idiocies that Warren professes as consigning world Jewry to eternal damnation [or whatever fate in hell awaits our functionally fellow heathens, that's going to be some party] is a good place to begin.
The 2008 race was historic. I felt more personally involved this year than in any race that I have worked in, in any manner. But I knew all through this Fall that some 41 percent (in a best-case scenario) of the vote would still go to the John McCain-Palin ticket and the self-conscious ignorance and bigotry this ugly reality of our political culture represents in the modern Republican Party.
- H.L. Mencken, Damn! A Book of Calumny, (1918)
Comments
carol white
December 22, 2008 - 15:52
Permalink
This is something that needed saying
IMO a great post. Thank you.
I realize that our's is a controversial point and I look forward to the discussion.
carol
Roxy
December 22, 2008 - 16:38
Permalink
I disagree with the diarist
I think Rick Warren was an abysmal choice and that choice sends a signal to the progressive community. IMO there are a lot more appropriate choices for the honor.
carol white
December 22, 2008 - 17:16
Permalink
I Don't Think He Is Saying Warren Was the Best Choice
I think he is addressing the outrage at the choice. At least that's how I interpret it. I certainly was unpleasantly surprised to learn of the choice but I think I understand why Obama did it, and I don't think it represents a repudication of his commitment to uphold the civil liberties of the gay and lesbian community.
carol
standingup
December 23, 2008 - 02:25
Permalink
I doesn't have anything
to do with Obama's commitment to anything. But how would you expect the African American community to respond if Obama had chosen a minister who has a record of making racist statements?
Rick Warren has compared LGBT relaitionships to that of a pedophile who victimizes (an understatement) innocent children. He supports sexual reorientation programs to cure gays. These programs are have been shown to be very damaging to the participants, even leading to documented cases of suicide.
What good reason is there for Obama to elevate such a controversial minister? I honestly can't see one myself and don't accept any of the other ill attempts to explain it either. This is the second very outspoken bigotted minister Obama has chosen to lead an event. Obama can't stop biggotry but he doesn't have to hand it a microphone either.
carol white
December 23, 2008 - 06:36
Permalink
I am not defending the choice but consider this
FDR forged an alliance with Southern Democrats and Democratic City machines in order to win election AND gain control of the House and Senate. And he made many other compromises for what he considered to be necessary political reasons ... not lifting the ban on Jewish immigration, interning the Japanese, and perhaps others that don't come to mind. I am not defending his actions, but consider-- He unequivocally opposed Prop. 8, but it passed, in part because the California black Obama vote favored banning gay marriage.
carol
standingup
December 23, 2008 - 13:26
Permalink
I don't think you
are defending Obama, more like offering up excuses. Obama doesn't need to an alliance with evangelicals to be a good president or accomplish anything. I think his and other Democrats theory that they need to reach out to religious groups like the Republicans have done is wrong. This is just more pandering and divisive politics. He was elected with enough of a majority to avoid problems like this. We would be much better off as a nation if our politicians would set a firm boundary between their elected office and religious groups. If you want to discuss your religion, fine but beyond that there is no need to involve religion in our government. I don't want my minister telling me how or for whom I should vote and I could care less about the religion or lack of with my elected officials. The nation has enough problems at the moment. These ministers that seek power and influence politically are all to often abusing the power they hold over their members too. Enough is enough. We have known politics and religion don't mix for centuries now.