I'm disappointed in President-Elect Barack Obama. Rick Warren? Really? What, was Fred Phelps not available?
Okay, a bit harsh, but...look, I get the inclusiveness thing. I do. And for the most part, I'm in agreement with Obama's approach, but asking someone who has publicly compared homosexuals to pedophiles to give the invocation at what is possibly the most historic inauguration in history? It smacks to me of the worst sort of pandering to the religious right, and haven't we done enough pandering to them the last 8 years?
You want inclusive? How about Archbishop Desmond Tutu? (I will confess here to having a teeny bit of a crush on Des--he's adorable AND inspiring. It's irresistible. I saw him speak in person once, and let me tell you...goodness just FLOWS out of him. And yet, he's wonderfully self-deprecating and funny.) He knows all about inclusion and history-making.
Or hey, how about a WOMAN? Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, right there at the National Cathedral. She knows from inclusion and history, too.
Okay, clearly I have a preference for Episopalians and mitre hats, but...how about Jim Wallis, author of "God's Politics"? He's got a lot of good stuff to say.
Well, I could go on, but what's the point? I'll just stick my fingers in my ears at that point of the ceremony and do a little "la, la, la." I guess I could throw a shoe towards the screen. Maybe a six-inch red patent leather drag queen pump. Heh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I have no words. I mean, there is no way you'll make everyone happy. It's all Happy Chrismakwanzakah. But to pick someone so blatantly divisive is strange. Why don't we just ordain Blagojevich or Madoff?
People are upset about Pres-Elect Obama's decision to keep company with a divisive pastor? Does no one see the irony here?
Did you guys get hit with this latest storm?
3car, the difference being that he repudiated Wright. And now is embracing divisive from a different direction? Oh, that's ironic, all right.
I certainly don't want to argue with you, but he repudiated Wright after a lot of pressure. The many years he spent in Wright's church didn't bother him but the public pressure did. I doubt he will repudiate Warren, because he's already elected. He doesn't need to pacify anyone.
And yes, "embracing" divisiveness from another direction is ironic...although I wouldn't say he is embracing it.
I think Warren is a good speaker and author with some good ideas, and like all of us, some ideas that aren't so good. My quite liberal Methodist Church has done book studies on Purpose Driven Life, and our church certainly embraces homosexuals. This country has very divided opinions on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. If we divided based solely on those opinions, without regard to one another's other qualities/opinions we would be a very divided nation indeed.
Here's a nice little editiorial on CNN's website about Obama's choice to include Warren at the inauguration. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/19/navarrette.warren/index.html?section=cnn_latest
3car, I read that one, but I preferred Kathryn Kolbert's (from PFAW) piece just next to it. I agree we need to look past our differences, but I'm pretty sure if someone compared your relationship with your loved one to pedophilia, you wouldn't care to embrace him. :)
I suppose not, but people who feel the same way as Pastor Warren in that regard (and I'm not saying it's right or defending that viewpoint), would be equally offended if Obama had chosen someone who felt the opposite. There's no pleasing everyone. Someone will always be offended. Personally, I think too much is being read into this. He was certainly not spoken to speak based on those views.
So...agree to disagree. Can we talk about something else now? :-)
3car, sure. The weather here is not bad. :)
oooohhhh, I want to see those pumps!
Seriously? No snow? Because it finally stopped here, but I could barely open the sliding door at lunch to let the dog out, the snow was so thick in front of the door.
I thought Dems thought Obama was the new messiah? What, you don't like something he decided? Democrats ... never happy.
Knot
PS Divisive? Is that because Warren holds a standard?
Hee, Stinkypaw.
I'm also disappointed. I understand the need for political expedience, but Rick Warren is a horrible choice. Because there's inclusiveness, and then there's, "You Need to Reexamine Your Bigoted World-View." Sometimes the latter is a better approach.
I agree about Desmond Tutu- and also, he was the speaker at my commencement ceremonies in 2000. He's totally adorable!
stinky, you know, the weirdest thing--after I wrote that about the pumps, I went home and watched "Ellen" and one of her guests gave her...a pair of those exact shoes. Freaked me out!
3car, no snow!
knot, I don't agree with ANYONE all the time. Did you agree with all of Bush's decisions? Because, if you did...I have no words. And comparing my good and dear gay friends to child molesters is NOT upholding a standard. It's ignorant bigotry.
flurrious, now see... I DO agree with you all the time. Hee.
npw, Howard Zinn AND Desmond Tutu? You went to cool schools. :)
Not to belabor the point, but Warren's tolerance of anyone who doesn't agree with him, well, it's just not there. His view on atheists, for instance...
The decision to use him is disappointing, but I'm choosing to ignore it, because the idea of mixing any religion with a state ceremony is something I find completely disagreeable.
Noelle, you make good points, my atheist friend. :)
Post a Comment