Dear John Aravosis (and others),
I have read Americablog for years. I appreciate your enthusiasm and all the work you’ve done to advance the liberal blogosphere and liberal causes in general. From StopDrLaura to the Jeff Gannon controversy, you’ve made a real impact!
But, I totally disagree with the way you are handling the "Rick Warren Controversy."
It’s one thing to disagree with the Warren pick and to be upset about it – so are so many others. I’m not asking you to agree with Obama’s decision or to keep quiet. But, what I am asking you is to choose your words more carefully. Otherwise, you sound just like the Sarah Palins of the world who play the guilt-by-association game and demonize the opposition (something you have consistently railed against when McCain/Palin did it!)
For example:
Rather than simply calling him by name, you insist on calling him "Barack Obama’s good buddy Rich Warren."
Really? I’m waiting for you to say that he is "paling around with bigots." Do we really get anywhere by being dramatic and overstating the facts? I feel like I have to pull out all the Ayers/Wright talking points here as if I am arguing with freepers, but: Obama selected Warren to read a prayer, in hopes of finding common ground on other issues with millions of Americans; Obama has stated numerous times he disagrees with Warren on gays and abortion; and just because you have associated with someone doesn’t make you ‘good buddies’ and doesn’t mean you espouse their beliefs.
You play the guilt-by-association game with Warren, yet you have completely ignored the fact that he also invited a very gay-friendly civil rights leader (Joseph Lowery) to give the benediction.
Why is he guilty of bad things by association, but not "guilty" of good things by association? Why does his selecting Warren (with the goal of finding common ground) SO outweigh his selecting Lowery? Why aren’t you reading so much into the selection of Lowery?
You point out that doesn’t allow gays to be members of his church, but fail to point out that MANY churches have the same exact policy.
Andrew Sullivan points outthat he is not allowed to take communion in the Catholic Church, yet he can be attend services. This is the Catholic Church’s approach and Rick Warren’s too. Obviously we all disagree with that, but you’re making it sound like Rick Warren is some "fringe" evangelical or something. How is he different from the local priest, bishop or even the Pope? Are you demanding that Obama boycott the Pope and not let him speak in America since he believes that being gay is sinful and that abortion is murder? As Sullivan points out, at least Warren is open to dialogue!
Probably most disturbingly, you are now are insinuating over and over that Barack Obama is discriminating in the hiring of his cabinet by shutting out gays and Jews
You have no proof of this and it is a dirty accusation to make. You might not agree with the Warren pick, but he has stated repeatedly that he did it because we have to learn to "disagree without being disagreeable" and "find common ground." Obama has also repeatedly said throughout the entire campaign that he supports full rights/benefits for gays in the form of a federal civil union, repealing DADT, passing hate crimes legislation, etc. What makes you think that just because he believes in reaching out to people like Warren (as does Melissa Etheridge, Andrew Sullivan, etc) that somehow he is now a discriminatory bigot who would actually make hiring/firing decisions based on whether someone is gay or Jewish?
I just think you’ve crossed the line, John. It is one thing to express your hurt, anger, frustration just like many people here have done. But, to totally turn on someone and start calling them a bigot or accusing them of discriminatory hiring practices, etc....??? All you’re doing is discrediting your message and making us (the gay community) look "hateful" and immature.
There are those of us who believe that we need more than anger to move forward. That not every single person who disagrees with gay marriage is a "bigot," but rather that they are stuck in the prison of an archaic set of religious beliefs. Melissa Etheridge herself said this man is no Falwell and no bigot. Many of us have family members just like this: they believe being gay is immoral or unnatural, etc but yet they somehow still love us, embrace our partners, and wish us well. Many gay people themselves feel this same exact way about themselves! Whether we like it or not, most people view the gay issue as a moral issue: they either think it is immoral or they don’t. But, they do think of it within this framework.
Where do we get by calling someone a bigot and cutting them off? How will we advance? It has been the world against us (and us against the world) for far too long, so shouldn’t we try to find some common ground with someone like Rick Warren who obviously has some mixed feelings about gay people? He will probably never agree on gay marriage, but my bet is that we could someday persuade him to support anti-discrimination laws or hate crime laws or better AIDS research funding. And, we can certainly get him to collaborate on issues such as poverty (his big cause), which also affects many queer people!
By all means, I support people turning their backs on Warren during the inauguration, etc.. But, to basically just start calling Obama a bigot because he believes in trying to find unity...well, to me that is hysterical and gets us nowhere!
I guess I write this letter here, in hopes that you’ll read it and think about your words more carefully. I think you could do a LOT more good if you didn’t over-exaggerate and make false assumptions.
In other words, John, I think you could learn a lesson from both Barack Obama and Rick Warren (and so many others) and learn to "disagree without being so disagreeable."