The bad news is that Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life, will be giving the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. A terrible choice; reaching out to evangelicals is fine, but honoring bigoted homophobes is a bad strategy.
The good news is that pianist Gabriela Montero will be performing at the inauguration! (Along with some other jokers: Aretha Franklin, Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, and Anthony McGill.) Hopefully this prestigious venue will bring an incredibly talented performer to much-deserved wider recognition.
If you tend not to click on YouTube clips of musicians, you might want to make an exception this time. Here is Montero at a concert in Germany. She asks the audience to suggest a German song for her — “Mer losse de Dom in Kölle,” if commenters are to be believed — and gets them to sing it. She catches the tune (which apparently she’s never heard before), and starts improvising based on it. (There’s not nearly enough improvisation in modern classical music, in my jazz-inflected opinion.) It’s a throwaway, but quite joyous and beautiful. And most of all, fun.
Wow. Incredible.
Quote: “If you tend not to click on YouTube clips of musicians”
Why would that be the case?
Umm… are there evangelicals who are not bigoted homophobes?
(I suppose I should rephrase that question to avoid provoking a round of logomachy over the word homophobe. Ok, here: Are there any evangelicals who support gay marriage or support ending the legal institution of marriage?)
The salon.com article goes into a bit more detail about the pick of Rick Warren:
“This time, though, the decision to get involved with Saddleback was actually not Obama’s. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, run by the House and Senate, put together the program for the swearing-in ceremony. Congress, not Obama, invited Warren (as well as scheduling a musical performance by Aretha Franklin; here’s hoping she doesn’t reprise the 2005 inaugural performance of John Ashcroft’s “Let the Eagle Soar”).”
via http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/17/rick_warren/index.html
Still no less of a horrible choice, but I it’s much less surprising for Congress to be pandering shamelessly to evangelicals.
I find it ironic that people that people who expound the gospel of tolerance use terms like “bigoted homophobe” to describe someone who does not embrace homosexuality to the point of celebration. Apparently, ideas – other than the ones harbored by the elite “progressives” of our society – are a dangerous thing.
How sad…
I love watching piano improv. Here’s some Victor Borge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvUbrbFdJ8g
Scott,
Are you arguing that there aren’t such things as dangerous ideas? It seems to me very obvious that some ideas are very dangerous–bigotry being a prime example. Not every idea or every value or moral expressed is a good one, some are harmful and dangerous.
The tolerance that most “elite progressives” expound is a tolerance for those diversities in people that do nothing to harm anyone else. Homosexuality is one of these things, it doesn’t hurt anyone, unless that person goes out of their way to be offended by it. However, a hatred and intolerance for these diversities is harmful, and there is no reason to be supportive or accepting of those views–at least not when they are being spread and being used as a basis to harm other people (example: Proposition 8).
It doesn’t make someone a bigot to not tolerate the KKK or Al-Qaeda, but it does make someone a bigot to preach hatred against homosexuals.
Having (shudders) one time been a part of that fanaticism – I can safely say that there are many evangelicals who are not bigotted or homophobes. That being said, the core of their belief system can’t help but make the distinction to anyone outside of their circle fairly meaningless (i.e. love the sinner hate the sin).
I would instead say that these people have been indoctrinated to accept a false belief – that says people who practice sin unrepentently (by their definition), will not get some afterlife benefit. Unfortunately, sex with a parter of the same gender for them is categorized as sin.
Interestingly, if you ask one of these people if homosexuality is benign, you will get a very vehement NO.
Bigotry is not a “dangerous idea,” it is a moral failing, and I see no reason why it should be tolerated.
If someone says “cutting the capital gains tax will increase Federal revenues,” or “invading Arab countries will help spread democracy through the Middle East,” or “faith in Jesus is the key to entering Heaven,” these are ideas with which I disagree and am willing to debate. If someone says “homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals,” that is bigotry which only deserves condemnation.
Except bigotry _is_ dangerous. By every measure I can conceive, bigotry causes harm to others. Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word ‘dangerous’, but codifying into law the discrimination of homosexual couples certainly qualifies to me.
Please note that both Barack Obama and Rick Warren are opposed to same-gender marriage. On this point, they are both in agreement. Does that make Rick Warren or Barack Obama a bigot, hateful or intolerant? I don’t think so.
Also note that a majority of US citizens oppose same-gender marriage. Every time the government approval of same-gender marriage was on the ballot (about 30 states), it was decisively defeated. To equate opposition to same-gender marriage with hate, bigotry and intolerance is complete nonsense. You would be applying that pejorative to the majority of the people in the US.
If someone thinks that two boys getting married is good for society and should be legalized by the government, then make a reasoned case for it. Simply calling opponents bigoted, hateful and intolerant, as in this blog, accomplishes nothing helpful.
Thank you, Ottis… that is exactly the point I was trying to make with my original post. The fact that I may oppose a practice or belief does not imply that I hate the one that practices or believes it. I just happen to feel differently than they do.
Obama opposes gay marriage for political reasons, not for moral ones. That is certainly a moral failing (“cowardice” or “craven capitulation to political expediency”), and deserves to be condemned on those grounds, but it’s distinct from bigotry.
The many Americans who wish to deny gays and lesbians the rights we give to heterosexuals are bigots, just as the many Americans who long wished to deny other races the rights we gave to Caucasians were bigots. If you wan to deny equal rights to people who aren’t hurting you or anyone else, then that’s what you are.
Some day we’ll get to the point where people who hold such views will be embarrassed to admit them in public, but we’re not nearly there yet.
“The many Americans who wish to deny gays and lesbians the rights we give to heterosexuals are bigots.”
When it comes to marriage, both heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights. Both must marry someone of the opposite gender. In Texas we recently passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. When someone walks into the county office to apply for a marriage license, no one examines them to see if they are a homosexual in order to deny them a “right.” No one knows or cares what their sexual preface is. There are many homosexuals who have been married. The recent governor of New Jersey is an example.
There are restrictions on who may become legally married and those restrictions apply equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In Texas, one must be 16 years of age, cannot marry a close relative, etc.
Is a grandmother being denied the “right” to marry her grandson? Sean’s argument based on “rights” and “bigotry” is just not rational. If he wants two boys to be able to marry, then make a rational case. Appealing to “rights and bigotry” is a non-starter.
By the way, is there a source for the statement that Obama opposes gay marriage for political rather than moral reasons? Or is it just wishful thinking by gay marriage supporting Obama fans?
“Sean’s argument based on “rights” and “bigotry” is just not rational. If he wants two boys to be able to marry, then make a rational case. Appealing to “rights and bigotry” is a non-starter.”
Otis, Sean is a devout Leftist. You cannot expect anyone, including Sean, to be fully rational about the fundamental tenets of his religion. You might want to cut him some slack in this area and focus on his posts about physics.
Having considered the Warren issue for a few days, I must conclude that it’s troubling in the extreme that Obama would even consider giving Warren the opportunity to officiate in a Presidential Inauguration, and lends further credence to a suspicion that the man is far, far more cynical than he lets on. He might have gotten a pass with Wright, but if he fools us twice with this one, the shame is ours. One school of thought was that he had little concern for Wright’s more lunatic sermons one way or another, and continued past his youth to make his home in the TUCC because it gave him the cred with mainstream African Americans, who rightly viewed him as culturally distinct from themselves, necessary to support his presidential ambitions.
Talking and meeting with Warren is one thing. I would endorse that just as I would endorse reversing the Bush administration’s policy of cutting of all useful dialog with leaders in the so-called Axis of Evil. Not communicating with your enemy, ever, is self-defeating. We don’t have to make our enemies honored participants in our most cherished celebrations, however, to show a good-faith desire to achieve greater understanding. Ehid Olmert (or his successor) doesn’t need to invite Ahmedinejad to a Seder to show he wants peace with Iran.
Is Warren the enemy? I’m afraid the only reasonable answer is yes. Obama claims gays and lesbians should be afforded the same human rights as any other minority groups, i.e. they should be no more expected to tolerate a bigot in their midst than blacks or Jews, I would imagine. What is a man who, without hesitation or remorse, declares gays and lesbians the moral equivalent of pedophiles and beastialists? Who throws the full weight of his wealth and stature behind a constitutional amendment, the first of its kind, to strip an entire class of people of a legal right they once enjoyed? I don’t care how many AIDS victims he’s saved, Warren’s misdeeds are only forgivable when he rescinds his position and works to reverse the damage in CA he’s helped cause.
Until that time, he simply has no place in an Inauguration, no more than David Duke would, or, for that matter, Jeremiah Wright. Surely a man of Obama’s intelligence must realize how untenable any argument for Warren’s participation must be in the face of these facts. All except, perhaps, the most calculating and amorally pragmatic sort, the sort that regards Warren as very useful for something.
If you oppose giving rights that you enjoy to members of a sub group, however that sub group is defined, which causes no harm to anyone except in your imagination, then you are a bigot. The fact that millions or even billions agree with your position doesn’t mean that you and they are not bigots. Popularity of an idea imparts nothing to its correctness, e.g. the popularity of the creation science/ID oxymoron. Wasn’t Warren the one who equated homosexuality and same sex marriage with paedophilia and incest? If that isn’t bigotry, I don’t know what is.
Reed,
I was heartedned by your comment – that the choice ro Warren was Congress’. Sadly, the link you gave now has an update – and it is clear that the choice was Obamas.
I guess we just have to chalk this up to “mending fences” and trying to get unity and concensus… even if he uses a divisive figure to do so.
Pingback: Venus Hottentot and the Irony of Science | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Great find, Sean. A truly beautiful moment.