Skip to main content

View Diary: Rancid Baloney:  A Rick Warren Diary (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this has nothing to do with the first amendment (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IseFire, DaleA, jhutson, Clarknt67

    Rick Warren has not inherent right to speak at the inaugural and Obama and his team are under no inherent obligation to pick him, or to have anyone do an invocation at all.

    Just because you don't understand why people are upset, doesn't mean that they should not be. but more importantly you might try understanding wassup with people's anger about Warren. Clearly it is a matter of considerable political importance for them.

    •  And You Should Be A Bit Less Quick To Wrath (0+ / 0-)

      About other people's perspectives on this whole imbroglio.  I'm more interested in keeping people working, being able to see doctors, having decent educations offered to their children, and having equality rights under the law, than I am about whether anyone's sensibilities are offended by any incantations offered by some cracker preacher at a civil ceremony.

      And, yes, it has everything to do with the First Amendment, because it means that no shaman has any temporal power whatsoever in the federal government, so this is really nothing more than a symbolic act.  And while symbols may be important for individuals and sects, they are always trumped by action.

      And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

      by terry2wa on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And you should have more respect (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IseFire, Clarknt67

        for those of us who see it differently.

        Honoring Warren with his prominent position at the inaugural goes to the substance of Obama and other Dem's involvemement with the man and with his international empire. Its the prominent tip of an important iceberg. This has been a matter of some considerable political debate over the past few years, and may very well have a lot to do with policy in the near future.

        That said, I think you vastly underestimate the power of symbolism.

        •  You're Itching For A Fight, My Friend. But Others (0+ / 0-)

          Will have to oblige you, not me.  I am not going to apologize for being completely uninterested in this RW issue.  Your side can go all out and force Obama to repudiate his choice and rescind his invitation, and all you will have done is embarrass Obama on his very first day in office and make sure that when there is some really significant issue on the table in the future (such as an amicus brief from the Solicitor General to the California Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Prop 8, or some issue of federal funding to parochial schools which refuse to teach evolution, or any number of really consequential issues) Obama will be less inclined to entertain your petitions.

          Swallow a camel and gag on a gnat.  That's how I see it.  And I don't think this politics of umbrage is anything but a losing proposition.  It didn't work well for the Republicans, who were always insulted and offended by something or somebody; and it's not going to work for us.

          And like the drowning man, who, in despair, Doth clutch the frail and weakly straw --Thomas Horatius Delpho

          by terry2wa on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No need for a fight (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IseFire, Clarknt67

            Rather I simply don't accept any of your premises about the situation and I think you fundamentally misunderstand mine.

            I fully expect that Rick Warren will give the invocation at the inaugural no matter what anyone says. I have said nothing about that in this diary so you are knocking down a strawman.

            I believe that Obama et al are making a serious error in their alliance with Rick Warren. The justifications given do not hold water and this diary is about challenging several aspects of this. You say that you are concerned about such things as the economy and health care. Consider that Obama has for years been cultivating this powerful, Austrian school-informed builder of an international religious empire; who has big sway with governments in Africa and Asia. Some of those same governements are into the brutal represssion and perseuction of gay people. What kind of programs do you suppose Rick Warren, who some people say is "great" on combatting HIV/AIDS, can help develop when he is all about driving gay people underground in Africa? Economics? Health care? Civil Rights?

            Yes. Rick Warren is a powerful man who has the ear of the president elect. This is about much more than the invocation.

          •  Myopia of false choices. (3+ / 0-)

            Terry, the sort of vital actions you're citing, such an the amicus brief, can no more be divorced from action and outcry, that is, from political organization and the visible cut-and-thrust of a people engaged in elector politics, than can the actual signing of the Civil Rights Act be separated from Selma or King's "I Have A Dream" speech. Progressive values do not become operative by magic.

          •  Uninterested? Many were in the past, too. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clarknt67

            Terry, for a minority or any group of people to act on the simple political reality that real political change requires some measure of organization and action, especially in a democracy, is not for that minority or group to be itching for a fight. You seem to fail to understand that for progressivism to work as a political movement, there must be included a critical number of progressives who feel that there is an obligation to not simply sit in the back of the bus and be quiet, who don't--as it were--just leave it all up to the lawyers (God help us!), but who metaphorically march with them arm-in-arm. This willingness of yours to cast public organization and action aside is at best a limit of imagination, at worst acquiescence to those opposing the millions of women, gays, and defenders of science education who worked hard to see Obama elected on a promise of and hope for "change we can believe in."

            Rick Warren represents rank bigotry against gays and women. He's supported video games in which non-Christians are hunted down and killed; he's supported the most extreme of radical homophobic and theocratic Christianist leaders, including in Africa, and he is no moderate. I am grateful that people like Frederick Clarkson are willing to spend time and energy on making that as clear as possible to a President-elect whose progressive record, frankly, is thin (perhaps mostly and simply by virtue of his relative youth). Presidents-elect, lawyers, and politicians do not just magically do the right thing. The actions that you point to are vital components, but they do not spontaneously arise. They often need to draw from and often require as a prerequisite a moral force from outside of the halls of power and offices of bureaucrats.

            Actions you readily dismiss as being a desire for a fight or doomed-to-fail are demonstration by parts of a progressive coalition to keep Obama and others aware of vital needs. It is a self-weakened type of political action that you're calling for by focusing on the likes of an amicus brief yet dismissing outcry and organized opposition.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site