Liberals who see Warren as a garden-variety conservative evangelical defined primarily by his opposition to gay marriage accuse Obama of selling them out. Gays and lesbians enraged by Warren’s strong opposition to gay marriage in last month’s California referendum charge Obama with pandering to white evangelicals and fear the president-elect has gone out of his way to offend them in order to curry favor with straight conservatives.
But a more benign view on parts of the religious left casts Warren as the evangelical best positioned to lead moderately conservative white Protestants toward a greater engagement with the issues of poverty and social justice, and away from a relentless focus on abortion and gay marriage.
Read it all and also take the time to read an opposing point of view from Richard Cohen.
Their “opposing points of view” could be an example of how “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
I’ll confess, I’ve never viewed Obama as the commie bogeyman he was sometimes made out to be. He is a smart, articulate alpha male who knows very well that if the Left’s dreams of redistributive justice and social engineering were fully realized, there’d be nobody around to pay the taxes or serve in the military.
Obama is a “Third Way” politician along the lines of Tony Blair: public-private partnerships and make-work jobs to spread the money around between the Chamber of Commerce and the urban underclass. The militants in the black and gay communities can howl all they want, but Obama knows they’re not the reason he won the election.
Both articles miss the mark, although I think Dionne’s comes much closer. Cohen’s piece shows nothing other than that he is adept at building strawmen, e.g. opposition to gay marriage = the dehumanization of gay people; [conservatives believe] gay people choose to be gay “on a whim”. It’s the usual liberal blather.
Cohen can’t stand comparions to polyamory or pederasty, but I would submit that using his standard, science shows pederasts don’t choose pedophilia on a whim, so does that mean we must respect their choice or else be accused of “dehumaninzing pederasts?” The mere fact that someone does not easily choose a lifestyle does not in itself act as a validity to pursue that lifestyle. Alcoholics, drug abusers and many others with addiction issues don’t choose that lifestyle “on a whim”, but that doesn’t mean that their lifestyle is a-ok.
As for Dionne’s piece, I think he is mostly right about the strategic ideas behind Obama asking and Warren accepting the invocation at the inauguration. I don’t know Rick Warren, but I can’t help but believe he sees a vacancy for “pastor to the presidents” now that Billy Graham has retired. And I see nothing wrong with Rick Warren giving the invocation. We are supposed to pray for our leaders, not just those we agree with. Since, Pastor Warren will be in a somewhat “hostile” audience, it just might work to bring some of these folks to Christ. This is honorable and falls within the actions of such luminaries as the apostle Paul.
I don’t see Rick Warren speaking out for the recently displaced head of the National Association of Evangelicals because I don’t believe he agrees with him. Also, just like any other lobbying group the NAE is not asking for too much in wanting their leader to reflect their opinion in Washington.
This whole kefuffle shows just how divisive views about homosexuality can be. Warren holds views that could be considered politically liberal on several issues (including global warming), politically conservative on others (including abortion). Yet what is it that has his supporters up in arms? His views on homosexuality. And I think Dionne has it right. Obama knows the liberals aren’t going to desert him, no matter how loud they clammer or how many 96-year olds don’t hold inauguration parties.. But, he might just bring some conservatives over to his side on some other issues.
The whole “kefuffle” is remarkable in what it reveals about many self-described liberals.
Here you have a person who embodies and practices a whole grocery list of liberal ideals/principles. You want someone who does not just talk about AIDS or wear a ribbon or have some “awareness raising” event? but who actually does something and does something quite substantial? (Just to pick on one issue.)
What many liberals talk about… Rick Warren does.
But no matter how “noble and praiseworthy” a person is (using the liberal scorecard no less)… if they don’t toe the line on *sexual ethics* (and who is really obsessed about that Madame Presiding Bishop? hmm?) then that person is anathema, despicable, let’s cancel parties because we have to breathe the same air as the unwashed Neanderthal.
Wow.
We’ll take 8 ounces of nobility (so long as we get the right views on same-sex relations) over two hundred pounds of nobility if it is tainted with the wrong views on (oh that issue again which only “they” care about too much) *sex*.
Un. Be. Lievable. Oh can you feel the love? the inclusiveness? the open mindedness?
Yes, #5, you’re right; conservatives would never vilify someone who exemplified the great majority of all conservative virtues, just because they happened to deviate from the scorecard on one single issue *cough*abortion*cough*.
Nothing wrong with taking risks, as long as you know what’s at risk. The “white evangelical right wing” has managed to project the image of being fixated on homosexuality and abortion to the exclusion of all other sin. But irenic overtures like Warren’s do nothing to soothe the prejudices of someone like Cohen, who I think would just as soon have all evangelical Christians simply go away. And any close ties Warren might have with Obama are unlikely to sway Obama from his advocacy of abortion “rights.”
It doesn’t take much to be branded “anti-gay.” No matter how nuanced and “seamless garment-wise” comprehensive you try to be, as long as you are responsible to the biblical teaching at all you will be quoted as having “condemned gays and lesbians,” and everyone knows we Episcopalians wouldn’t want to condemn anyone. Comparisons with polygamy are appropriate, but people typically misconstrue in what way the comparison applies. We do need to spend more time, humbly, in Leviticus and the New Testament understanding of sexual purity. We need to recover what it means to be sacramentally married.
Pax Christi!
Chuck Bradshaw
Hulls Cove, Maine
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
[i] Off Topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Chuck:
“The “white evangelical right wing†has managed to project the image of being fixated on homosexuality and abortion to the exclusion of all other sin. ”
Are they actively projecting that image, or is that the image portrayed by the media?
#6 – a fair point and one which I acknowledge. “We can be just as much jerks as those guys”.
Although… what makes this a little different from the point you are trying to make is the agents present themselves as on the side of inclusion, love, and openness. Whereas I am not sure conservatives take that angle do they?
There’s being overzealous. And then there’s good old fashioned hypocrisy.
[i] Off topic. [/i]
And from where I sit, the only people in this whole controversy with a relentless focus on a single issue have been the left. I probably won’t have much good to say about the President over the next four years but I have to say this. He is an infinitely better person than his leftist critics, particularly Episcopal ones.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
#11,
[i]Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, which precludes classifying it as a “radical abnormality†in humans.[/i]
I hear this a lot. I’m not sure what empirical observations it is based on. But in any event, the fact that animals can behave pathologically does not normalize it in humans. For that matter, what am I to conclude from dogs mounting each other in dominance displays or humping a chair leg?
A species where homosexual acts were the norm would quickly go extinct, so your appeal to nature is absurd.
#10 Rick: a fair counterpoint. But there is always a paradox inherent in the question of whether tolerance can tolerate intolerance, and I know that you don’t view this question in terms of “intolerance” but I’m speaking from the liberal viewpoint here.
As far as Obama picking Warren to speak at the inauguration, I’m somewhat disappointed but I’m not all up in arms about it. Presidents have to be politicians and that necessarily involves some level of compromise across multiple viewpoints.
[i] Off topic. [/i]
I’m constantly amazed how much faith people can put in a politician. If there was ever a reason for a Savior, it’s because politicians will break your heart every single time. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.
Dionne, Cohen, and Cohen’s gay sister in the long term relationship with the kids and grandkids, and Cohen’s MOM are all guilty of the same offense:
Expecting an “Obama Prize”.
You all let me know when that shows up in your mailbox. Yeah, you all just let me know.
KTF!…mrb
Melissa Etheridge has written [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html]a sweet article[/url] about how Rick Warren won her heart.
This is a tempest in a teapot, and some commenters continue to speak as though it implicated 44 million American liberals.
#16 I read the Etheridge reflections on the Huffington Post, and I am curious about the portion of the piece where Etheridge describes Warren’s “regret” for equating gay and lesbian relationships with behaviors such as incest and pedophilia. Just when were such words of regret spoken? According to Etheridge:
“He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays.”
So, he tells Etheridge he regrets what he said in a video for his congregation on Prop 8. Did the conversation with Etheridge take place before or after the December 12 interview given to Steve Waldeman on Beliefnet http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/Beliefnet-Interviews/Rick-Warren/Rick-Warren-Interview-On-Gay-Marriage-And-Divorce.aspx in which he makes the stereotypic comparisons to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And when Waldeman asks a followup to clarify, did he mean to equate gays people with people who commit incest or pedophiles, Warren said yes.
Then just last Friday, December 19, he repeated the same slurs in almost identical language in an interview with Ann Curry on Dateline. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28240700#28240700.
It would seem to be a disengenuos apology if he repeated his insults after having expressed his regret to Etheridge.
E. J. Dionne piece in the Post referenced here notes the pragmatic political aspects of Obama’s choice of Warren and it might also be a type of wedge within the Evangelical community.
But note in the whole story where Dionne suggests that Warren might do a public apology for his statements. Such a public statement exprerssed in a public intereview or press conference would help pass the sincerity test for me and give his privately expressed words of regret to Etheridge more credibility.
[i] Please do not take this thread off topic or we will have to delete more comments . [/i]
Faithful & Committed [#18]: I haven’t watched your video clip because of a slow Internet connection. But did this involve Warren asserting that many of the arguments currently offered for faithful, committed same-sex unions could also be made on behalf of faithful, committed polyamorous or incestuous (and other) unions? If so, then (in my view) Warren made a legitimate point: one can make those arguments, and more than a few polyamorists are starting to do so. In that context, Warren might say he regretted his choice of examples (or even his decision to make the statement), without believing that the statement or examples were [i]wrong[/i].