So, what is Obama thinking with his selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration?
We all know that Warren is James Dobson in friendlier clothes. He is anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, and anti-stem-cell research. And more. So why has Obama chosen him?
First of all, let me say that the choice doesn’t please me, one bit, but nor does it surprise me. Obama has been clear: marriage is between “one man and one woman.” (If you’re feeling dim today, and can’t guess my opinion of that, read an earlier post on the subject.)
Lots of LGBTQI people are getting righteously angry about this choice. They’re signing petitions and trying to get meetings and stamping their feet. Fine. Whatever helps you feel better. But I think our time would be better spent in thinking. Really. Think about it. Obama is a politician. He manipulates political machines to get what he needs. He has manipulated the quiltbag population brilliantly. He’s very, very good at what he does. We have to ponder what it is that he’s doing now.
He’s doing the Big Tent thing. He’s walking the talk of his acceptance speech, to be President for all those who didn’t vote for him, as well as for those who did. So now we have to ask ourselves: what can we do, as individuals and as groups, to walk alongside him on the path he’s committed to and not get left in a ditch. (Or wired to a fence, or raped in an alley, or set on fire in our homes.)
No, I don’t have a handy-dandy solution. But I do believe that drumming our heels and shrieking until we turn purple won’t cut it. We have to find a way to avoid entrenching ourselves in an adversarial position. This man is in charge of the world for the next four years at least. We have to think of all the good things he might achieve and find ways to work with him and change things for the better for us, too, as we go along.
We need to remind ourselves and those in power that we are all human. That humans work better under the umbrella of love than of hate.
Yesterday I read a study about pain: pain inflicted accidentally hurts less than pain which we think is given intentionally. So let’s start seeing this differently. No one is trying to hurt us with this choice. Oh, yes, it does hurt, no doubt about that, but it’s not aimed at us. Let’s think about it. Let’s come up with a way to walk alongside this man, just for a while, just to see if it works.
Nicola Griffith 
Thanks, N., for your usual grounding. I just hope this isn’t the beginning of a long glide to the fundamental right.
N. I don’t wish to be anonymous, just couldn’t figure a way not to be. Woody S.
I agree with you completely.Cooperation is the grease of civilization. He sure won’t please all the people all the time, but we have a chance to make a difference, and we should embrace it.
Nicola, I often think I could read your written reworked interpretations of nursery rhymes and find them the most amazing literature ever. I love not only what you have to say but how you say it. Thanks for this thought-provoking, inherently realistic but still optimistic post!
I remember Obama’s speech in Grant Park when he was elected. He promised to be the president of everyone, including the people who didn’t vote for him.I think he meant that. I hope he did. And the thing is, if he does mean it, he has to really do it. And that means making a place at the table for everyone, even people whose personal politics I detest. Otherwise “we” are doing to “them” what “they” have done to “us” for the last eight years.I don’t like Warren. I wish he weren’t giving the invocation. But I’m not disappointed in Obama for including him. I don’t think it was weaselly or cynical. I think he’s being the leader he said he would be. And none of us are going to like that all the time. But without it, we have no hope.There’s a huge pro-and-con discussion about this over at < HREF="http://tinyurl.com/4tnbk8" REL="nofollow">Huffington Post<> that people may find interesting.
Ok, you got me. And yes, very well said (as always). Still. The point of Obama’s choice was not, I am sure to inflict pain, but it was still done with the knowledge that it would. A ploitical move which I find offensive. It’s hard to see the love coming from Rick Warren. And besides that, why do we have to have a religious invocation at a state event?!? Whatever.But you are right. Thanks for the reality check. Lets see if we can walk together.
Yes, that HP discussion is good too. I’m not even mad anymore.
I just want to go on record, because it does make me feel better, saying that the President of America is not meant to be the elected monarch of the US or the world, & that the end of the Republic & rise of the Empire is a real concern for me– the charismatic leader, eh? Not for me today, thank you.
I understand political calculus, but really this is more like the old scene from Star Wars where C3PO asks why nobody considers droid feelings… and the obvious answer is, droids do not rip your arms off when they lose. Throwing us under a bus has no political consequence. Obama can have a big tent without pandering to these hysterical neo-fascists. Yes, jumping up and down and screaming will not help. Yes, supporting Obama gets us further than opting out of the process. But accepting this is not the right solution. Sadly, beyond the platitude non-answer of staying engaged, I do not know what we should do. I am open to suggestiongs from the chorus of minds out there far wiser than mine.
I’m not wiser than you, just different in that I disagree that “staying engaged” is a platitude or a non-answer. Sometimes staying engaged is the strongest political statement and the hardest work there is. It’s hard enough sometimes staying engaged with people in our daily work/lives when they piss us off. It’s a lot harder to stay engaged with people “out there” who are so actively different that they offend or frighten us. And it is only by staying engaged that there’s any hope that gap might ever close.I’m not advocating some absolute version of turning the other cheek. I wouldn’t invite Rick Warren to my dinner table. But I’ll stay engaged with the politics of inclusion even when I don’t like every single result, because I’ve had it up to my eyebrows with the politics of division. I know for sure I don’t like that.
Actually, this news didn’t shock me or alienate me. What really did both of those things was the appointment of Larry Summers. I don’t terribly mind people who thing I (and other homos) are immoral, but I’m mortally offended by people who think I (and other women) are intrinsically stupid.
It is really to be a leader for everyone. You have to keep your mind focused on what would be best for the entire system (church, company, etc.)…you won’t please everyone, and many times you lose people.But it’s true…the only way to really bring about change is to include everyone (especially those whiny curmudgeonly people who constantly spread their bigoted ideas and tell rude jokes). I’ve seen the consequences of unpopular decisions that leaders have made that have benefited the entire system. People get pissed off and take them to task. That’s fine…it’s how things should be. But Nicola’s right, y’all. I often wonder if people zoned out every time he promised he’d be a President for *everyone*…or maybe they didn’t think about what that would entail.Think about this: Bill and Hillary hadn’t even unpacked their boxes and the religious Right machine had been running at full steam for weeks. This strategy is not only walking his talk, but it also could buy Obama a few weeks of reprieve.
I don’t think Obama is being cynical, but I do think he’s being worldly and conscious. He knows what he’s doing; he knows it will hurt us. But that’s not why he’s doing it.I am *definitely* not a turn-the-other-cheek person (I will–and have in the past–turned my cheek once; the second time I’ll knock you into next week). Nor am I a ‘Ooh, our leader, let’s follow him!’ person. I’m English. I don’t do obeisance.I don’t think we’re being throw under the bus. I do think we’re part of conscious political calculus. That’s just how it is. I’m offering a way to look at it so that it stings less.
Well done, Nicola. You’ve reached to the deeper, political reality of the scenario.We each have our deal-breakers. In general, I’m happy with a larger success in goals, rather than pining for a candidate or hero who meets my long wish list.(Of course I’m not suggesting that you’re pining, Nicola – simply sharing.)
bgurung, nope, not pining :) Adapting, perhaps.
I agree with pretty much everything you have said Nicola, but I just have to wonder if he couldn’t have had his Big Tent while picking someone a little less offensive. I did sign one of those petitions in the heat of the moment without doing any further research or thinking about it too much (not a bright move), but I don’t regret it; I look at the petition as a way of speaking up. A way of voicing my opinion – not just doing nothing. I think that it’s important to at least have that voice – maybe there is a better way to voice it. I still don’t agree with his choice, but then, as I said, if it were left up to me, I wouldn’t have a prayer at all. I may not agree with his methods, but I do think B Obama is a very smart man. And for now, he gives me way more hope re the whole political thing than any republican ever has. I am interested in seeing what kid of a leader he can be.
I get what he’s doing. It was a coldly political move. But I can’t condone someone who associates with people who view other people as inferior. That’s too big a deficit to overcome with any amount of good qualities. Obama could have broken REAL ground and had several folks from different faiths give speeches–from the religious right to Bishop Robinson to a Muslim to a Buddhist and so on. He could have forgone that tradition in the name of the separation of Church and State. He could have and should have done better. As it is, I think he chose a caricature of the Christian faith rather than really putting himself out there in representing everyone in this nation. Obama will never win the religious right. That’s okay. Let them choke on the dust of equality and love from our heels as we march past them into a better world.
jennifer, I’m not a prayer person but if you believe polls, the majority of voters are.ssas, I don’t think he’s after the religious right, I think he wants the centre, and the centre-right–the kind of the people, millions and millions of them, who buy those awful books.
As usual, talking with you guys is more fun than a barrel of monkies. People who already believe like Warren will keep on believing. Loving people won’t.
I know – you’re right the majority of US citizens are prayer people. An overwhelming majority of them identify as christian. I do not begrudge them their prayer — I’m happy for them to pray all they want, I just want them to keep it out of my government and out of my personal freedoms (those times when the majority has to be stopped) . Certainly when the ‘founding fathers’ wrote the separation of church and state into the constitution, they were not thinking of it the same way that I do. I was just saying what I would like — not what I remotely expect to see happen.
Rick Warren equates me and “my kind” with child rapist, those that would enage in incestuous unions,and polygamous. Rick Warren is a master manipulator who imparts velvet clothed hatred in the name of Christian doctrine.To invite Rick Warren to the inaugural table in my opinion is to ask the one who has made an outcry to sit across that table from their abuser and try to come to a better understanding of the rationale of the act.I stand firm with the HRC position that the choice of Rick Warren is divisive and hurtful to the LGBT community. And to hear the invocation come, “in God’s name”, from a man who would condemn the lives of many of the very people who come to this blog is unacceptable to me no matter how it is cloaked as a “unifying” gesture on part of President elect Obama.
Linda, you may be right. But what about “love your enemy”? What do we do with people like Warren?He’s not going to change and neither is he going to change us. And we’re all still stuck together in the world.
I do admire Obama and I hope he doesn’t continue doing things that make me wonder who will get sacrificed for the bigger picture. I suppose he could have chosen Rev. Wright to speak, but he didn’t. Why not? Because he pissed off enough people just being a member of Wright’s church, so he abandoned that church. And for the record, I didn’t see anything wrong in what Wright said. But it did show that Obama will abandon something/somebody if he gets too much flak from a large majority. He also could have chosen Palin to speak and pray over everyone. But he didn’t. That would have pulled in all of his Republicans and made them slurp at his heels. But he didn’t. Why not? Instead, he chose some guy that I’m not clear about. In the land I dream of, we don’t sacrifice anyone for the sake of making others feel better. If Obama follows this back rub of Christian thuggery with a viable gay rub of gay people (like making gay marriages legal) then his choosing this minister to speak was brilliant. But, if he continues along the line of using us as his sacrificial lamb, then his actions becomes suspect, even dangerous. I think we’ll have to wait and see what follows before we can determine the appropriate action. Knee jerk reactions (which I’m good at) are not always the answer.Thanks Nicola for adding another layer to how we think about ‘someone who is not Bush.’PS I wish gay people had made an equally huge noise during the past eight years. It’s good to see that we have actually started turning back into the political machine that we used to be – when sex, partying, bar sales, and straight political candidates weren’t our main features at Gay Pride. Of that, I’m proud. awww shucks. I’ve just convinced myself. If Obama’s actions are helping move us forward as a political group, I’m 100% behind him and his Jesus speaker. I’m now loving his decision. Go Obama.
When I heard about this, my first reaction was anger… but then I calmed down and I did remind myself that this is Obama’s plan – to try and bring all people together.I may not agree with his choice in Rick Warren, but I see his point.If it works, then I am there all the way. And if it does not… well, at least the attempt was made.I am living proof that this *can* work. The man I consider my brother in every way is very much a Christian man and we discuss all these topics in great detail. We are opposites in so many ways – but he does not want to deny me rights or to deny me joy.It can work. People, from both sides, just have to want it to work. And only time will tell.Wow, I really went on and on.
spheeris, that’s pretty much what comments are for :)
Nicola-I agree completely. Every once in a while we need to set aside the “me, me, me!” focus and look at the bigger picture. And as you said, Obama is trying to be the president of all the people and so adding Warren is a way to do that. Let’s stop being so self-centered and give the guy a chance.
I agree completely, Nicola.I’d like to add that while trolling through other discussions on this topic, one comment I’ve seen several times is that ‘people like Rick Warren will never change because their ideas (as ridiculous as they may be) are based on their faith’. So there’s nothing to be gained by inviting Rick Warren to the inauguration.Obviously, religious beliefs are difficult to change, but look back at the Catholic Church. While at one time people were excommunicated, or even burned at the stake for suggesting that the universe was not earth-centric, the church now accepts this as truth. That’s a pretty fundamental change.More recently, the Mormon church both reversed its position of not allowing blacks into its congregation and officially banned polygamy. Another big change. Churches, and their followers can change, but I think the best way to affect that change is to engage these people in an intelligent dialogue, even though they may not employ intelligence themselves, to show them that they have nothing to fear from the LGBT community and to educate them. While there is a place for vocal protest and demonstrations, merely standing across a divide, shaking our fists and shouting at one another, refusing to listen, doesn’t always contribute to changing long-held and deeply-felt beliefs. Remember, while we may be offended by their behavior, these people, wrong though they are, find LGBT behavior offensive as well. If both sides refuse to speak and listen because they’re offended, we’ll never get anywhere.
Thank you so much for this. I have been trying to find a middle ground and eventhough I have found my own I am so hoping that others can find there way there too.
Well, here’s my season’s wish: that everyone, everywhere can find middle ground and see their opponents as human.
<>If both sides refuse to speak and listen because they’re offended, we’ll never get anywhere.<>Amen.We don’t have to all listen/engage all the time. Any of us is free to be offended by a situation (like this one), walk away and take a time out from educating The Others. As long as we don’t *all* walk away, and as long as we don’t give in to the impulse to condemn people who choose to stay in the conversation.
I’ve been rather tired and grumpy lately. Today I’m feeling differently. Last night I went to the holiday show of the Gay Men’s Chorus LA. I love those guys. And last night I actually rested in bed for 8 hours. Thankfully, Nicola and Kelley don’t let being tired and overworked get to them the way I do sometimes.Today I have no room for anything but love in my heart. And nothing Rick Warren, James Dobson, Pat Boone or Kenneth Starr, or anyone else does is going to change that. Today I don’t give a shit about the economy or my bank account. Today I’m remembering what I felt marching in the protests after the election and the passing of Prop 8. Love. I felt a sense of community and that community was putting out love. My experience was that in the first couple of days after the election, there was some pretty hostile stuff flying around, but as the days and weeks wore on, it was more about love. You can see what I saw at < HREF="http://aquestionoflove.net/" REL="nofollow">aquestionoflove.net<>.I think that is the best we can do to show those that oppose us what we are about and why we deserve equality in every way. Show the love. Seriously. What can they say if we show them nothing but love?So for at least a couple of weeks, it is my hope and wish for everyone to feel that love. Carry it with you into the new year. Because yes, we are all just human and doing the best we can. We all respond to love. It contagious. Spread some around.
“I think that is the best we can do to show those that oppose us what we are about and why we deserve equality in every way. Show the love. Seriously. What can they say if we show them nothing but love?”Jennifer, well said and 100 percent accurate!
Nicola, Noam Chomsky has been saying something like this for some time — that people like Clinton and Bush (and now Obama) don’t really set out deliberately to hurt the people they hurt. It’s just that the people they hurt don’t register on their radar, anymore than I worry about stepping on ants when I walk down the sidewalk.I’m not surprised by Obama’s use of Warren, either. I’m more concerned, really, about the people Obama <>does<> want to hurt: people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Cuba, among others. When he says he wants to extend the US blockade of Cuba, for example, he’s saying that he wants to hurt ordinary Cubans by starving them out until they get rid of Castro. So I have no illusions about him, but I also know that as a gay white American I’m less of a target for Obama than poor brown people around the world. (And I wonder if Obama has room in his big tent for Jeremiah Wright? Or is it only right-wing extremists he thinks it is important to reach out to?)Incidentally, criticizing Obama doesn’t mean that I have forgotten that he is a human being. Nor is does criticism equal “drumming our heels and shrieking until we turn purple.” For that matter, I know full well that antigay bigots are human beings, and I engage them as such. I wish, though, that people would stop the inflated and largely meaningless talk of “love.” After all, Rick Warren loves < HREF="http://www.juancole.com/2008/12/rick-warren-i-love-muslims-i-happen-to.html" REL="nofollow">us<> too — he says so! < HREF="http://www.rickwarren.com/" REL="nofollow">His ministry<> is based on love!Sometimes there <>is<> no middle ground; Martin Luther King Jr. said so. I know full well that Barack Obama has to be president of all Americans, but I don’t see much evidence that he wants to be my president.
promiscuous, no, not all criticism is tantrum. But a lot of it is; a lot of it is a whole bunch of ranting to no purpose.I don’t love Obama. I don’t think I even like him. But I’m not going to let resentment eat me and he is not going to rescind that invitation. Looking at this slant helps me stay sane.
True, ‘sometimes there is no middle ground,’ but sometimes if we ever want to meet on common ground, we have to find one and start there anyway. As a wise woman has said — love is one of those big words. And we don’t all define it the same, and it doesn’t mean the same thing in every context. But I don’t believe it is ever meaningless.If Melissa Etheridge (whose marriage plans were thwarted by prop 8) has met the guy and can get him to see her as human, I think there is hope for him.< HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJCsNrZzC78" REL="nofollow">Ring the Bells<>I was remembering yesterday that old saying that was revived during the Vietnam War in the 60’s, “Little girl…Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.” Carl Sandburg
Ok, I admit it – sometimes I can lay it on a little thick. :) That stuff about there being hope for RW — I certainly don’t expect RW to change his opinion on this issue, but he might at least shut up about it…
Perhaps RW will save us all a lot of trouble and just…die.
Ha! Now you’re feeling the love…
It’s not about Warren showing up. It’s about the vague promises from Obama. He and his team had to know this was going to greatly pain the lgbt community. How could it possibly not?I wasn’t moved by the “fierce advocate” speech. Fine. I’ve voted Democrat, I’ve donated Democrat, I’ve signed every petition Democrat known to man.What I wanted was something more along the lines of, denouncing hatred, saying something specific that he intended to do, and when, that sort of thing. “I feel your pain” went out with Clinton. Enough already.To vaguely quote Yoda: Do not try. Do. Or do not try.We fought and bled to elect Clinton only to have this wonderful DOMA and DADT legacy. On a scale of 1 to 100, I was at 100 on Obama. He’s got me back to 0 until I see proof positive action from him now. No more money until then. I just got a letter from a fundraiser replying to that that says the best way to change the party is to send more money. Bull. We’ve spent enough and we’ve voted enough. I don’t want to hear excuses. I expect results for a change. THEN the money will flow. Not until.
Nicola, basically I agree with you that it is necessary to think about how best to deal with Obama, rather than throwing tantrums, which I don’t like any better than you do. (I’ve had < HREF="http://thisislikesogay.blogspot.com/2008/11/stokin-rage.html" REL="nofollow">some things<> to say < HREF="http://thisislikesogay.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-for-ay-leet.html" REL="nofollow">about that<> at my own blog.) I also agree that it’s not good to be eaten up with resentment. I should have mentioned that I agreed, in fact, with most of your post. It was just that last thing that bothered me enough to comment, and I should have stressed the positive before wading into the negative.
craig, I think both 0% and 100% are problematic. He’s the next president, not an angel or a demon.promiscuous, i like your stokin’ rage post–though I believe the HR buzzword now is ‘inclusive’ rather than ‘diverse’ :)
People are complex, far more than the sound bites they are represented as. I’ve read Obama’s books, and I’ve read Rick Warren’s books.Both of them are human. Both of them have huge amounts of good to who they are and what they are doing in the world. Both of them have learned, from experience and through personal sacrifice, to make movement from where their belief and identity started to where they are now, and I believe both of them are the kind of people that will continue to grow and learn about others.I believe < HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html" REL="nofollow">Melissa Etheridge’s account of her conversation with Rick Warren<>, and I believe he was being sincere in turn.I’ve worked in a job among born-again Christians and those who hold very strong right-wing and religious view points and, over time, we came to respect each other at a profound level.The key here is “over time.” It took several years of getting to know each other to let each of us relax enough to learn about the other. And then there was no “other.”If we’re really about helping this world become a better place, we have to start allowing that there is room for everyone, even those who say things and do things we disagree with. And I would encourage all of us to meet those people with open hearts and ears.I have a deep respect for the good that both Obama and Warren have done in the world, and I look forward to the inclusiveness of Obama’s tone and perspective to continue to help people like Rick Warren, and all those who commented here on this blog (including me!) to grow in our acceptance, love, and understanding of each other.
mark, yes. The world is what it is, and so are the people in it. There are some very wide bridges. But I’ve met many a zealot, many a fundamentalist (Christian, feminist, queer, vegetarian, whatever) and if we both try hard enough there’s usually a point where we can meet about *something*–books, food, flowers, something–and the humanising begins.
Coming in so very late to this discussion that I won’t be surprised if I’m talking to an empty room. But I would like to comment on two points you made, N… first, that this is an example of Obama working with the other side. It’s a subtle distinction, but I think what he’s done is actually to *honor* Rev. Warren, not *work with* him. The inauguration is not an opportunity for debate or discussion. Instead, Warren gets a rapt audience for his prayer. I’d rather Obama put Warren on a committee or hold forums with him than to give him the singular distinction of praying out loud at the inaugural party. I think this is different than the Big Tent thing. The second point I dispute is that protesting the Warren honor a) is mutually exclusive with thinking about the issue (of course it isn’t… I’m doing both right now) and b) won’t cut it. Letting Obama know at the top of our lungs that we *have* thought about the meaning of this choice, even though he apparently didn’t, is exactly what he asked us to do–hold him to his word about being a “fierce advocate” for queer rights. If it doesn’t work this time, it might next time. The fact that Obama won’t revoke the invitation doesn’t mean we have to shut up about it. I am using all available channels to ask him to do it anyway. No drumming of heels or shrieking, I promise (heh). And I say HOORAY to all the protesters letting Obama know this was an ill-considered gift to a man whose place in the Big Tent should be that of intellectual sparring partner, not honored sermon-maker.Thanks for the good discussion, as usual!
<>therese<>, welcome. I think our major point of disagreement–and it could be merely semantic–is the notion of protesting at the “top of our lungs.” I absolutely believe we should let Obama know that he’s fucked up here, but I think we should do it quietly and forcefully, as grownups do, not in tantrum style, like children. We need to be talking quietly and carrying a big stick. (I don’t know what our big stick is, yet.) We need to be talking to him on all levels: editorials, petitions, urbane tv appearances, paid commercials, dinners with lobbyists (and, okay, pumped up yelling in the streets for the young people). And so on. I believe the tide is turning. I believe yelling is old-school. Fierce conversation–but conversation–is how it will change. In my opinion.