This was a comment I posted on Icebergslim’s diary but it’s rather long so I thought hey why not make this a diary – haven’t done one of those in a while. Feel free to chastise me for my incoherent ramblings, really I don’t mind, I’m a glutton for punishment…
To be honest, not that I'm not ALWAYS honest, my thoughts on this issue are rather confuzzled and this diary is more of an invitation to debate than a cut and dried argument. I'm not confuzzled about the gay rights thing and Rick Warren being objectionable, just confuzzled about whether this is a BIG DEAL in the vast scheme of things and whether it's productive to treat it as being so.
so below is my original comment, edited for spelling and a little for sense etc but otherwise intact in all it's hideous monstrosity...
The first half is mostly off topic digression about church and state but I've included it because I think the question of why the prayers are had at all is perhaps just as important as the issue of who is saying them..
Be warned - there is mild snark - but I've kept it to a minimum I promise.
“ok, my thoughts on this...I’m afraid they'll be rather disorganised because my brain is a bit of an insomniac jumble at the moment, but bear with me if you'll be so good... thanks.
First of all, on a somewhat trivial note; thank gosh for monarchy. We only have to go through the whole changing the head of state rigmarole once a generation. Honestly, who gives political power to their head of state? That’s just asking for trouble.
Also, what's up with you 'merkans having prayers for the new president anyhow? Don't you have the whole 'separation of church and state' thing? I mean, I know you've got 'in god we trust' on your money and 'under god' in your pledge of allegiance - but that's just for the appeasing of the common folk who hanker for a proper established church surely?
Having prayers in the inauguration ceremony of a new head of state - well, it's rather reminiscent of the old belief in the divine right of kings - the idea that a country's ruler is chosen by God and not the People, and yes, we British do still have the Archbishop do the whole coronation ceremony bit, but we had a little civil war and established quite clearly that we reject the idea of the divine right of kings. We just like the monarchy and the established church cus of all the robes and pageantry and ceremony and being sticklers for tradition and all that we restored it...
BUT we're quite clear that it's all a load of meaningless bumf that we're sentimentally attached to and would get rid of if we were more rational. Hence the archbishop could be a raving lunatic and we wouldn't care a jot so long as he wears the robes with panache and gets the words mostly right.
Americans embraced the whole Republic thing (very chic, very French - hope that works out for you) and it was the rejection of the concept of the divine right of kings which kick started the very brief English republic* and the more enduring French one and I’m assuming that would have been somewhat of a factor in American republicanism - so WHY THE INAUGURAL PRAYERS which seem to have a lot of the 'divine right' symbolism about them?? And why treat Warren’s views as salient to political debate because he happens to be doing his preaching turn at a ceremony?
If Americans embrace the whole notion of the separation of church and state, and reject the notion that the head of state is chosen by God- why have inaugural prayers at all? And, if you must have them, why turn it in to meaningful symbolism - why not just have it be a bit a frothy ceremony that no one really pays attention to?
okay on to my second point which is a bit more serious...
The reason I say 'why not just have it be meaningless froth?' in this instance is because…
a) Rick Warren ain't gonna be making any policy decisions - surely it's better to be concentrating your energies on persuading those who can influence the direction of the country.
b) yes, I get that his role in the ceremony IS OFFENSIVE to many of us because of his position on certain issues such as gay righs and abortion - but he also represents a section of the evangelical community and by having him speak Obama can show that he tolerates the views of people he fundamentally disagrees with. Progressive dialogue doesn't start from animosity - it starts from mutual respect and tolerance - giving this olive branch to evangelicals whilst remaining resolute in the campaign for gay rights and freedom of choice for women will demonstrate that the cause is NOT against religious belief; it is FOR tolerance and equality and commonsense. Sure there's a lot of animosity towards the LGBT community coming from the evangelicals and their ilk - and the natural reaction to that is to reply in kind - but I think in this case the LGBT community has the opportunity to take the moral high ground, to show that they are willing and eager to engage those they disagree with to try and persuade them to change their minds rather than writing them off as hopeless bigots.
c) Is it worth making a Cause célèbre out of Warren which would overshadow the inauguration itself? There have been times - such as the race speech - when Obama did the right thing by inserting an intermission in the flow of events to speak directly to the people on an issue - I'm not sure that the inauguration IS such a time. As others have stated here there's to be other more gay-friendly people partaking in the ceremony - the true homophobes WON'T feel pandered to, instead they'll likely view Warren as having betrayed them.
To conclude my final point - I DO think Obama ought to be more progressive when it comes to gay-rights, I think he needs to address the issue more fully and I would be a lot happier if he expressed support for right to marry - but I'm not too worried if he doesn't do so during the inauguration. I would be a lot happier if he removed warren from the playlist and/or gave a speech between now and the inauguration in which he explained his reasons for having him there and expressed solidarity with the LGBT community and got off the fence on the marriage issue – I would be happier – but I wouldn’t be satisfied. When Obama is president – when and IF he enacts policy that’s conducive to LGBT equality then I’ll be satisfied. That’s how we should judge him, the inauguration will be one day – it may not be perfect but it’s not the be all and end all.
**you know cromwell banned christmas and mince pies and theatre and anything fun - no wonder we restored the monarchy. Being ruled by inbred posh people trumps being ruled by joyless puritans anyday
----------------------------------------------------------------
so there you have it.
did that make any sense at all? I'm not sure about the tags - advice appreciated.