On a West Wing and a Prayer
By Tony Perkins
President-elect Obama has asked the Reverend Rick Warren, pastor of California's Saddleback Church and bestselling author of The Purpose-Driven Life, to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration next month. I'm heartened by his choice of one of America's leading evangelical pastors-who is pro-life and pro-marriage-for this honor.
It was magnanimous of Obama, in light of the fact that his debate with John McCain at Warren's church in August was one of the high points of the campaign-for McCain. (This was the event where Warren asked, "When does life begin?" and Obama replied that the question is "above my pay grade.") Warren has distanced himself from the "religious right" by emphasizing issues more popular with liberals, such as AIDS relief and global warming. But he has also been consistent in his support for the unborn and for the natural definition of marriage.
This has led left-wing groups like People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign to complain about Obama's invitation to Warren. In a letter to President-elect Obama, Joe Solmonese challenged the selection of Warren saying, "Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, 'there is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.'
Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it's a lie today." Solmonese's desire to exclude Pastor Warren from the inaugural, based upon his religious convictions, proves the validity of the concerns over the homosexual desire to silence the Church. Let's hope that Rick Warren will use his channel of communication to the new President to press him for more pro-family policies-rather than simply being used by Mr. Obama to make political inroads with evangelicals.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It is the insanity of the day that religious institutions, all of whom are founded on love as its essence, would be the biggest haters of the day. As well, more violence seems to come from religious folks than any other institution.
If you are going to be against legal equality, condemning of others for who they are and against love please do not call yourself religious, pious, moral, etc as you are clearly the opposite of all these things in their true meaning.
The strength of our society is shown by where we stand for the few, even a single individual, who is on the side of love...
Yeah, I just hated seeing those darn Mormons tear the rainbow symbols out of the hands of the marching, shouting, fist-waving gays around the bath-house. Or was it those darn gays tearing religious symbols out of the hands of 50 and 60 year old ladies and knocking them down? And was it those darn gays marching around the Mormon temple waving their fists at all who came through the gate? Because those gays condemn others for who they are (Mormons, Christians, and persons morally opposed to gay-sex and/or gay-marriage, and sometimes just Republicans and Christians), I agree with you that those gays should not call themselves religious, pious or moral, as they are the opposite of those things in their true meaning.
"Strength of our society"? I don't know what that means. That a strong society does not give way to threats, or does not wither in the face of a stronger society, that it refuses to change its mind, laws, and traditions? Moral strength, or religious strength, or social collectivist strength, or political partisan strength, or strength in intimidating others (fascism), or strength in swallowing one's own pride, sacrificing one's own self interests for the sake of those with whom one disagrees? So many possibilities. So few clarifications.
I'm here to represent that part of your question that says "strength in swallowing one's own pride, sacrificing one's own self interests for the sake of those with whom one disagrees?"
I'm placing this statement in context and asking whether "minority rights" exist at all. Should the rights of the minority be placed to vote by the majority? Should we completely disregard West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in which the rights of individuals were found to "depend on the outcome of no election" (U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1)?
A moral society and moral government presupposes moral individuals. In the absence of a sufficiently moral society, minority rights exist only when the people in power allow them. Congress was structured, in fact the entire government, including the establishment of states, the electoral college, and certain freedoms were either recognized (or granted), in such a way that majority oppression would be forestalled by multiple minority oppositions.
Today, the rights of the minority ARE subject to majority whim. That "majority" may either be larger numbers or greater powers.
The remarks on pride and self-interest was part of a question asking for greater clarification of what the Chicago Recovery Alliance meant by, "The strength of our society is shown by where we stand for the few, even a single individual, who is on the side of love..." It is not clear to me what kind of strength that demonstrates, but I do suspect that standing for someone "who is on the side of love", however nice it is, does not really show a society's strength. I think that was just rhetoric.
That's what you're doing. Just because the rights of the minority -are- subject to the majority (and, in being so, are directly in conflict with Constitutional ideals) doesn't mean that they -should- be subject to the majority.
Or, would you turn a blind eye to cases such as Loving v. Virginia, when it was unpopular for the Supreme Court to protect the rights of the minorities when they were subject to the majority?
Admittedly, I've strayed far from your original argument against the Chicago Recovery Alliance (which ... I can't say that I fully understand, but maybe because it's late at night here), but I felt that I needed to address that.
Perkins: "...Warren has distanced himself from the 'religious right' by emphasizing issues more popular with liberals, such as AIDS relief and global warming. But he has also been consistent in his support for the unborn and for the natural definition of marriage. ..."
You have a good point. Obama's selection of Warren may actually widen the Religious Right's focus beyond it's narrow anti-women, anti-gay, and anti-tax focus to broader Christ-like issues such as helping the sick, vulnerable, and environmental stewardship. Shouldn't FRC and Focus On The Family be concerned that the promotion of Warren may ultimately undermine their movement by bringing real Christian values to politics (i.e. universal health care, peace, welfare to the vulnerable, etc.)?
(Off topic: Are not promiscuity, polygamy, and bisexuality part of the "natural" definition of marriage?)
"...Let's hope that Rick Warren will use his channel of communication to the new President to press him for more pro-family policies-rather than simply being used by Mr. Obama to make political inroads with evangelicals...."
So, Warren should undermine the president-elect's campaign promises and beliefs? It would seem disrespectful and disingenuous for Warren to choose to participate in a political ceremony if he didn't support many of Obama's presidential goals. While clearly Warren probably does not support Obama's pro-women and gay equality policies, it's assumed that Warren must endorse some of Obama's other goals (poverty, AIDS, environment, etc.) or else Warren should have declined the invitation.
Should Rick Warren agree to speak at Obama's inauguration. In the mind of American evangelicals such as myself, Obama is the controversial figure. If I were Rick Warren, I would refuse to speak at such a sick and sad event for America's history. "Yes, the first black president! What a wonderful day for America!" Well quite personally I can name 3 black people off the top of my head who would have made better presidents!
Who are the 3 blacks you think would be better than Obama?
Name them.
I could use a good laugh.
Why restrict the question to race. Why not ask with a more egalitarian tone, which person would be better than Obama. Such a list would be long. To restrict it to a single race (mixed though most all of us are anyway), I would favor:
J. C. Watts, first and foremost.
Alan Keyes.
Perhaps even Larry Elder; he's not to shabby, and might be able to fix things up in Washington.
Yes it's a Great day for America!
I was wondering maybe if your other 3 black peoples names were: none, none, and none?
As for Rick Warren....."great"! It's tough to find someone these days who hasn't offended some small fussing group or another. Seems everyone wants to be offended about something these days to gain a stage or platform.
To Me! :- ) ....many evangelicals are questionable! The Christ whom is supposedly represented, for some reason looks kind of different from many of them with quite a different attitude and has "Good News" to offer.
I find it funny that conservatives are rather upset over Obama winning by a landslide, yet when Prop 8 passes --violating the Constitution-- by a narrow margin, we're told to 'get over it'. Cute, you know? Very cute.