Rick Warren at the Obamanaugural.
Rick Warren is a preacher. He presides over a megachurch. His status as rock star evangelical certainly propels him to celebrity status. But how grandiose are these bullshit artists to become? I'm not ready to impugn all RIcks yet, although the problem of Santorum belongs in this section of the marketplace of ideas. It's bigotry, claiming authority based on what came out of the Roman Empire and the counter-enlightenment/Protestant Reformation.
This movement Warren's in sells salvation in a jar. It's an industry. He's a lobby. His followers are subscribers, just like cable viewers. They want something for their holes- something to fill the holes in their lives, as provided by the Constitution. They want something more, right? More Preachier? Bigger? Giant? Wal-Mart? Now faith gets a payoff in life, in the guise of a smug smile you share with your neighbor, who you assume thinks right.
I'm not gay, and I only know a few people of that orientation these days. My lifestyle is pretty normal right now: Wife, kid, kid, car, car, no job, pretty good grounding in Western ideals and in the Christian ideals that would counter those Westerns. But I see a clear difference between sexual/romantic relationships with those of my gender and couplings among siblings or offspring. The former produce no genetic progeny, while the latter run the risk of contributing various genetic mishaps for society to absorb. The former have a harder time finding 'mates', and do not in fact mate. But the latter have it too easy, never having to leave the house to find their mate, or victim, as in the Austrian case of the grandfatherly father.
That doesn't mean I have no right to an opinion, and maybe I do have standing to decide whether society should be forced to acknowledge the unions of gay people. However, it is glaringly obvious that marriage between a man and a woman now normally ends at some point and takes up with a different man or woman. Their children become intermingled, and these step-brothers and sisters can mate without risking the genetic, social, moral problems of incest.
Now I'm thinking about the scores of Congress and Senate seat holders, who typically do not include their divorces in their bios. These idiots are being courted by the Rick Warrens of the world to make illegal the gay unions, which may be just as stable as hetero marriages.
But is that gay union marriage? It seems to me to be something else, but I'm not involved. It's not my fight. But it is a legal definition thing, which would properly belong in the legislatures of individual states, since it's not mentioned in the Constitution.
If that were the only problem with this Ricky, it would still be big enough to make me very, very disappointed in Obama's effort to include all opponents. It may have declawed Hillary, but it only donates undeserved notoriety to what should be an dyseducated fringe.
The Constitution is very careful to bestow majority protections on minorities by preventing the organized legislature from acting on the biases of the larger voting bloc. The fact that he promotes doing just that with a warm smile and non-threatening beard don't successfully disguise the fact that he's the enemy of America's future and has no place in this national ritual, where the President of all of us finally dispatches the wastrel-in-chief back to Texass.
Mr. Obama, you're plain wrong here.
Advertisement
The problem is that there's a difference between "what should be a dyseducated fringe" and what actually is a dyseducated fringe. And it's the reality of these particular social conditions (for example, the 61% of Americans [and 51% of Californians] who agree with Warren on gay marriage) that do not make it the least bit self-evident that Obama is "dead wrong" in orchestrating this symbolic gesture of pan-ideological civility.
For example, I believe animal rights is as serious an issue as gay marriage. In fact, I think the reality of factory farming poses a far greater moral atrocity than Warren's belief that certain legal arrangements should be labeled 'civil unions' instead of 'marriages.' Yet, I assume most of those involved in the inauguration would scoff at what I see as the moral imperative of banning the mass torture and genetic mutilation of other mammals. But does that mean that it is obviously wrong that Obama has decided to include all the 'idiots' who willfully embrace a violent bigotry against nonhuman life? No, because when views are held by a real majority, the duties of the leader of a democratic country are altered by those demands.
And this is what annoys me about the arguments over Warren. Where do we limit demands for ideological fealty? Why is the inclusion of gay marriage opponents such a worse offense than the inclusion of meat-eaters or (worse yet) hunters? How should I calibrate my outrage? And if I should only be outraged when it comes to realistic goals, what makes it evident that purging opponents of marriage equality represents a more realistic goal for the near future? The fact of the matter is that the demand for ideological fealty is a question of the exercise of real social power, and as it stands, advocates of gay marriage do not have that power. The question, then, is how they cultivate that power, and I can assure you, bitterly complaining about the opinion of the majority won't get you there. Certainly, gay marriage advocates should not be the educated minority, but they are... and as long as they are, they cannot realistically expect those committed to democracy to adhere to the most stringent manifestations of the minority's ideals.
December 28, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume most of those involved in the inauguration would scoff at what I see as the moral imperative of banning the mass torture and genetic mutilation of other mammals.
How should I calibrate my outrage?
Well since you’ve brought it up Stroszek , how do you?
Now please don’t take this as a sarcastic question, in all seriousness, what about non-mammals? Where do you draw the line on questions of rights? What about plants, insects and bacteria?
December 28, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hooo-boy! That explains a lot.
No wonder you like Warren.
December 29, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's dissembling to say that outrage over one kind of atrocity is misplaced because it's possible in the abstract to conceptualize some other arguably more egregious atrocity, and where are the voices on that issue? Read Frank Rich's op-ed from yesterday's NY Times. He nailed it.
And, yeah, Obama's choice is inappropriate and outrageous and the indignation in response to it is justified and he has damaged support from important constituencies (NOT just gays), and this isn't a trivial issue and it isn't going away.
Michelle Obama sent a mailing soliciting charitable contributions during the holiday season. A friend of mine penned the following in reply:
Dear Mrs. Obama,
It was with sadness that I received your recent email encouraging Americans to participate with and give to charitable organizations during the holidays. Like many who supported your husband's campaign for the Presidency, I recently received the unexpected gift of Rick Warren.
My partner and I were all set to celebrate the Inauguration on January 20. Those plans are now hopelessly compromised. A hate-mongering bigot is going to be giving the invocation- a man who equates gay relationships with bestiality and pedophilia. How would you feel, Mrs. Obama, if the invocation were delivered by a white supremacist?
It is all well and good to engage in open and frank discussion about gay rights. As President-elect Obama was permitted to speak at Rick Warren's church, it is only fit that he reciprocate and offer Rick Warren the same opportunity... to speak at his church. But to elevate so dangerous a man to a place of honor, and legitimize his bigotry at what is undoubtedly one of the most important inaugurations in our nation's history, is to make a mockery all that the Obama campaign supposedly stood for. The invocant is a symbolic figure; and there are many educated and uncontroversial religious leaders who would have masterfully acquitted themselves. What possessed your husband to tap a heterosexist demagogue? Did it occur to no one on the transition team to select an inspirational leader like Reverend Desmond Tutu? If a controversial figure was sought, what about Bishop Gene Robinson who, like your husband, broke down seemingly insurmountable oppressive barriers? And where were you, Vice-President-elect Biden and the other trusted advisors when your husband made this decision? The situation is baffling; and your husband's conduct shatters my belief in his intelligence and integrity.
Sincerely,
(author's name withheld)
December 29, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he is.
December 29, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rick Warren: Week 3.
Take it from the lack of comments that no one gives a crap.
What's done is done. Move on to something important. I'm begging you.
December 29, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Dorn,
Could you please go over and tell this guy to stop talking a bout Obama and Warren? They really are just beating a dead horse. They could use your wisdom. Thanks ever so much.
Loki
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mstavros/2008/12/building-national-unity-one-ri.php
December 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bah, humbug.
I'll admit I have more sympathy for the gay community than your average mink; the former being actual people. It makes more sense to ascribe moral relevance to things people do than anything involving animals.
But that doesn't mean that the whole gay marriage debate isn't essentially a drunken boxing match between equally clueless special interests about vocabulary.
Dan Savage's morality is not "better" than Rick Warren's.
Obama promised to be a President for the whole country, and a few on the left just realized (the Horror!) he may have meant it.
December 29, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the "left." It is a wide range of individuals who are disappointed. This is what confuses so many of you.
December 29, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main point of this post is that Warren is a profit minister. For more and more profit. At a time when we have screwed up the whole world's economy, it would have been a better symbol to have one of those old-fashioned ministers who believe in social justice and stewardship. The gospel of more is what Warren preaches. His church is based on the cruise ship model. It's a Mega church. We need to move away from more and mega. We should move away from big 'n large. We must move, if we are religious, to the little brown church in the vale where we are a congregation of different types, not sorting into like minded groups as in the megachurches.
He's a big fat slick and slimy symbol of what is rotting this nation.
December 29, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And my point was that Obama is the President that this slimy rotting nation elected, so we should not be terribly surprised by his association with such symbols.
I'm sure that the Saddleback Church blogs (there are some, right?) are full of posts about why on earth Obama is letting that OTHER preacher speak.
Democracy is about getting people like you, I, and the folks at Saddleback into the same room, without starting a fight. Obama is a good candidate to do that, and if he does, he's a good President.
Full stop.
Democracy isn't about good policy and it certainly isn't about anybody's particular social issue obsessions (Loki's, Rick Warren's, or Dan Savage's). It's about getting rid of "real craziness", a la Baader-Meinhof, Osama Bin Laden, etc., by getting the vast majority of people to take a stake in the system.
December 29, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slimy rotting nation? Just because a few bad apples put panties on prisoners?
Warren is fat, and that's a serious issue. The fact that he pimps his faith is also important. He's a bad role model. What am I supposed to tell my kids about why the fat whore wants to prevent Brad from visiting Lance in the hospital ?
January 15, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink