Yes. But if you're thinking it's one lockstep reaction, you'd be wrong. Let's begin at the beginning.
I've been taking a break from politics for a while, and only recently started reading DKos, 538, etc. again. I've been ducking this issue (and that of Caroline Kennedy, both of which seem to have taken these jubilant boards and turned them into Angst Central). I've thought about both myself, and I'm not going to throw out my own opinion, because it will likely be a blend of the last ten posts you read on the subject. But I have wondered how this is being viewed by McCain supporters. You remember, the ones calling him a Muslim terrorist socialist insert-your-favorite-here. Is there uproar on that side of the fence? How has it manifested? Are people in Conservative-World as angry about Warren, saying that he's lending credence to Obama's views, giving up the culture wars, etc.? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about, and if I feel inspired enough while writing this, I might look into it. This isn't a diary about Obama, his choice, or Warren, but a critique of the reaction to it. Join me, won't you?
Before I start combing the depths of conservative thought on the internet, I want to think about this in a purely hypothetical way. Imagine, and I'm being serious here, that you're a fairly conservative McCain supporter, who maybe wasn't frothing at the mouth in glee over Bush, or in anger over the rumors surrounding Obama (and there are such people, I phonebanked plenty of them). Nevertheless, you've heard some distressing things about this Obama guy, and if there are so many of them out there, then some of them have got to be true, right? Maybe he's not a Muslim, maybe he's not much of a Christian, either. You don't know, you're not Obama. Maybe isn't a socialist or a commie, but maybe he leans that way. And so on, and so on, using your favorite issues. You still vote for McCain, with likely a high degree of enthusiasm, which of course leads to nothing but trouble when he concedes.
Now, you're stuck with the other guy, and somewhere from bummed to devastated about it. What has America done? It's gone and elected a/an _insert-accusation-here___! He'll be ridiculously liberal, ruin everything you stand for, and then some.
Oh? He's going to have an invocation at his Inauguration. Heh, I bet it's Reverend Wright. (How many people would have answered that way if you told them that on November 5th? Millions, I'd wager.)
Wait...it's WHO?
Rick Warren?!?
MY Rick Warren? Not some socialist, liberal, gay-rights-championing, treehugging nut, who also happens to have the same name as Rick Warren? It IS the Saddleback Guy? Has a beard? Sells lots of books? Really?
Why? I mean, Bush had 8 years to do what he liked. Cheney's just been everywhere saying the executive branch has unparalleled power and can nuke whole nations if it feels like it. Obama could have put anyone in that spot, or been all secular and not had any invocation at all. Why, and why Rick?
OK...huh...
I'll end the thought exercise here, for a moment, because this is where I'm not sure what to think, as a filthy liberal hippy. Let's see what's out there.
OK, here's the first problem. I know about Redstate and Freerepublic, but where is the moderate conservative to go on the internet. Is there a moderate conservative on the internet?
Yes. Not everywhere, but yes. Maybe?
This one post from Redstate alone seems to have a fair amount of the spectrum of reactions to Warren doing the Invocation, and will do as a sample to throw under the microscope for now. Even a liberal pops up in the comments to offer his thoughts at one point, and doesn't seem to get flamed into oblivion. I invite you to read all the way to the end. I know I didn't like all of what I read, but I did find it interesting. Really, go ahead. It was more harmless than I expected. The words "Muslim," "socialist," nor "terror" or "terrorists" cannot be found in it, if you're worried.
If you're unwilling to, I will try to haphazardly fail to categorize the comments into several slapdash categories. (Note for statisticians: If a comment hits more than one category, it counts in both)
Obama, or a Liberal Hack who's Calling the Shots for Him, Is Up to Something: 1
Blar! We don't like the media/somebody's sources! They're biased!: 2
Obama's blatantly trying to buy the evangelical vote, and we're not buying it: 3
Wow is it fun to watch the left tear its hair out about this: 6
Obama's trying to appear "post-partisan": 2
Obama's trying to get a "pass" on the next Saddleback Forum: 4
I don't like Rick Warren for whatever reason, but... (Eventually happy): 1
I don't like Rick Warren for whatever reason, and... (Eventually pissed): 4
Blar! We don't like Barney Frank, and other homophobic nonsense: 4
Defending Rick Warren: 1
I don't know what the hell to think: 2
So, here's a few conclusions: The one thing the right can agree on is that they love watching the left tearing its hair out. That's not too surprising. Flip left and right, and most of us (myself included) would say the same thing. But we dish it out, so we should be able to take it, too. Otherwise, some people don't care, some people think Warren's a sell-out, and some people think like politics wonks and some people think like, well, jerks.
It does go beyond that in some cases. Here's a few interesting excerpts that defied classification. This is not to say that I agreed with them, of course:
Why Obama is doing this...
wacon Sunday, December 21st at 2:03PM EST (link)
"If those evangelical numbers turn out to be a one-election thing, "
Many Evangelicals and social conservatives will stay home or vote democratic unless the Republican candidate engages on social isaues. Especially if the democratic party reaches out to them.
After the debacle of the Bush administrations first three years in Iraq the Republicans can’t win a national election on foreign policy.
And there never were enough economic conservatives to win a national election, especially in a time of economic uncertainty.
This story has so many facets that it’s hard to know where to start. I actually wrote about 10 paragraphs on it last night and then gave up because I couldn’t make it coherent. Yours is much better than mine :-).
* I am not a Warren fan. I think his books are vapid and have contributed to the continued erosion of Biblical teaching. That said, I think he is sincere about his faith and has helped evangelize many around the world. He’s not quite as extreme in his social gospel tendencies as some others of the Brian McLaren ilk. And I think his Saddleback Forum was one of the best campaign season events in recent memory - it was one of the only (if not THE only) times I can remember ever seeing someone actually ask a candidate a question that would truly reveal their personal values and morals. He did the country a huge service with that, although unfortunately it was lost on about 53% of Americans (no doubt due in large part to the Obamedia)
* It is a hoot to watch the Left twist in the breeze over this. As you say, it appears to be yet another facet of H’s "betrayal" of his Leftist buds. To me the question is: who is the real Obama? Is he the far-left radical that we saw inklings of during the run-up to the election? Or has he gone Clinton and swung middle? What’s with this apparent move to the center? I don’t think he could be so dense as to not anticipate the frothing at the mouth of the homosexual lobby.
* Regarding the election results: I believe that Obama’s gains with the evangelical crowd is nothing more than an extension of his overall stats across the board. If you look at Pew’s survey (which I assume is where you got your nums), it shows that the "unaffiliated" went even more towards Obama, with an 8-point shift. So Obama actually did worse with evangelicals than with those who don’t claim a religion (I’m assuming a good chunk of those are atheist or agnostic).
* One part you didn’t hit was the uproar against Warren from the Christian conservatives, who believe he shouldn’t be condoning an abortion extremist and homosexual rights advocate by doing the invocation. Personally, I find that particular objection to be unnecessary - if nothing else, we should ALL be praying for this President, that he does NOT use his office to push immoral policies.
This is an interesting observation:
He has been a far more traditional voice on family and cultural issues than John Kerry or Al Gore, and he’s smart enough to recognize that’s one of the reasons he won in November: he was acceptable enough to win a higher percentage of the faithful with inspiring rhetoric, while the social left just assumed he was one of them.
It kind of makes my head spin wildly in confusion, because....you’re right. But I am still hugely skeptical and believe that it is nothing but a rhetorical smokescreen.
Nearing the end, the liberal I mentioned shows up.
Not only am I a liberal but I'm an odd duck.
Moriah Sunday, December 21st at 8:15PM EST (link)
My view on "marriage equality" is unfavorable to both liberals and conservatives, so I am comfortable getting criticized for it — so flame away if you wish, I’m pretty used to it.
I believe that the tendency toward homosexuality is something beyond a person’s control — I think they are born that way. I’ve known too many gays and lesbians and seen the struggle they’ve gone through in their lives to believe it is a choice. Many, many have said that if they’d had a choice, they would have chosen differently. I also grew up with several friends who later came out, and I remember their struggles in adolescence where they tried to date opposite-sex individuals and attempt to overcome a similar revulsion that a straight person would have over the thought of the reverse. I’ve known their parents — they weren’t abused kids, nor were they coddled, or mama’s boys, it’s not upbringing.
Now, that still fits in with the Christian view of sin. All have sinful natures, all have fallen short of the glory of God, All have the desire to sin, even if one man’s sins may be different than his brother’s. If the desire to sin is uncontrollable, the act certainly is under a person’s conscious control.
I don’t hold to the Christian view, but I do understand and respect it. I’ve known several people who have admitted they believe they are homosexual but refuse to date the people they would prefer to date, but none of them have been successful in an attempted marriage with the opposite sex. I respect their choices and the faith that leads them there, but they are very lonely people.
I very strongly believe in government keeping out of religion as required by the Free Exercise clause. Marriage in many ways is a religious institution, being that it is a ceremony performed by almost every religion out there. There are some, however, that will perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple. Some churches do not recognize a marriage unless it was performed by them regardless of if they are a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. If a church wishes to marry a couple, and the government refuses to let them, that is a violation of the Free Exercise clause. If a church refuses to marry a couple and the government tells them they must, or that they must recognize a marriage that they do not believe is valid, that is also a violation of the Free Exercise clause.
If marriage is a religious institution then the government has no business defining what a marriage is, period.
Therefore, my view as the solution to "marriage equality" is to have a separation between governmental recognition of a dependent couple who have agreed to support each other and the religious ceremony entirely. Let churches say who are married in their eyes, but let any adult who wishes to commit to another adult legally and financially — with both legal rights AND responsibilities — have the ability to do so regardless of the gender of the individuals involved. As a legal institution let there be the same legal rights and responsibilities for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, to be in keeping with the Equal Protection clause.
As I said, I’m an odd duck and this view is unpopular among many. But I feel it is the only Constitutional way to deal with the issue.
Blessings,
Moriah
Log in to Reply
I have a similar view.
gallifreya Monday, December 22nd at 12:49AM EST (link)
In my opinion, there should be no secular "marriages"...just "civil unions," with all the same rights and responsibilities, and which both straight and gay couples can obtain. Leave it entirely up to individual religions to decide who they will or will not allow to be married under their auspices.
If they decide to marry gays, so be it. If they decide not to, so be it. If they decide to perform intermarriages, so be it. If they decide not to, so be it. And if anybody complains, they can either go find another religion to join, or take their secular civil union and hush up.
Seems fair to me, no? Being gay may not be a choice, but being Catholic (or whatever other religion) sure is!
Log in to Reply
Wow, someone who doesn't think I'm crazy!
Moriah Monday, December 22nd at 1:33AM EST (link)
It’s kind of scary, my thoughts are usually disliked by both sides.
It just seems like it’s the only fair way to take care of both the dual nature of "marriage" as it stands in this country. It is a religious institution, but it confers legal rights and responsibilities. I personally think that encouragement of monogamy would help reduce several of the problems that are found in larger numbers in the homosexual community — and legal protections would help as well. Domestic violence is a growing problem, and right now domestic violence regulations don’t give a lot of protections to battered people in a same-sex relationship. Right now a person can live with someone for 20 years, put them through school, take care of them for a long time, and then if they split up the person who worked for most of the marriage has no right to alimony.
Or, as a more cynical male friend of mine said, "Of course I believe in gay marriage. Why should only straight people suffer?"
Blessings,
Moriah
Log in to Reply
Nope, not crazy!
gallifreya Monday, December 22nd at 11:46PM EST (link)
I know the feeling, though, because I agree with everything you just wrote. And I have a cynical female friend who said the same thing as your cynical male friend. :-)
Moriah
Log in to Reply
Now, as to Rick Warren...
... he comes closer to supporting my ideal of the way the situation should be resolved than many. He does not believe that the domestic partnership laws in California should be overturned. Considering that most states do not have those laws, he supports recognition of legal rights and responsibilities for couples who agree to support each other financially to a greater extent than more than 75% of the US has currently recognized.
For an Evangelical Baptist pastor, he is quite liberal. Maybe not as liberal as Tony Campolo, but certainly not as conservative as he is being made out to be. He has said quite a few things I disagree with, but I disagree with a lot of people.
Obama hasn’t lied to his constituents in regards to his views, nor has he hoodwinked them. I may not personally like a few of Rick Warren’s statements, but if giving him a place at the inauguration is meant to be a demonstration that he will attempt to work with conservatives — which he must do if he wants to accomplish much of anything as President, and that he will not ignore the Evangelical Christian component of the electorate... he could have picked a worse person to do it.
Oh noes, Rick Warren! Look out for Hell!
Well Warren is going to have to answer to that...
Jaded Sunday, December 21st at 10:51PM EST (link)
which is how you can console yourself for sure! I don’t really have much to say about this choice other than how thrilled I was that it po’s the left but for evangelicals I would offer that in your hearts you know he will be judged for that decision!
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
Still with me? Good. I know that may have been a lot to deal with. Relax. Breathe. Remember, Bush leaves on January 20th. It's less illegal to throw a shoe at a private citizen than at a President. Anyway...
I promised myself there wouldn't be a moral to this diary, and while I have my own opinion, I think I'll keep it to myself. What I find most interesting in this fray is how similar the reaction on either side is. In both cases, a leader of the cause has given a voice to the leader of the other cause, and chaos ensues in both causes. But before I lapse into anthropological study of this whole thing, I shall let you have the final word with this poll: