On the Contrary

President-Elect Barack Obama has anointed the Reverend Rick Warren to give his benediction at his inauguration.  This is the same Reverend Warren who has been outspoken on his opposition to abortion and gay marriage and was a leader in the Proposition 8 passage to deny gays equal rights in California.  He was the one who conducted the interview of John McCain and Barack Obama at his Saddleback Church on faith issues.  Barack defended himself and this choice from massive criticism from both the gay rights community and progressives by saying:

“What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign’s been all about; that we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we — where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

So Rick Warren has been invited to speak. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues, is also speaking. During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that’s how it should be, because that’s what America’s about. That’s part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated. And so, you know, that’s the spirit in which, you know, we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration. And that’s, hopefully, going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration.”

Boy when you make a mistake, you make a big one.  Let’s take this one at a time.  First let’s go back to the conference on Faith at the Saddleback Church during the campaign.  Most of us who have supported you have seen the line between church and state badly blurred in the last few years, inserting religious belief for reasoned logic.  We have seen a whole group of evangelicals try to get into office to apply their religious and political litmus test for any holder of a government position.  When you attended that conference and spoke about your faith, it was in fact catering to their religious test for anyone holding office.  They might as well have had a sign outside that said, “Non-Christians Need Not Apply.”  And you legitimized their religious test by taking part in it.

Now we can understand your logic in selecting a man like Rick Warren to speak, but sadly it is flawed logic.  You were thinking that on many of these cultural issues we disagree, but on issues such as poverty or global warming we could work together and therefore I should welcome you into my big tent.  But by giving him a national stage you are validating a man who preaches intolerance.  The other failure of your logic is to assume that religious dogma is open to “dialogue”.  These are not disagreements in the political arena of give and take, they are deeply held religious beliefs of intolerance.  It is evil therefore it will not be tolerated, end of discussion.  Tell me this: Would you have invited someone to speak that doesn’t feel that blacks should be equal?  After all wouldn’t that be a great dialogue?  The answer to that is of course not because those views are morally repugnant and we should not be giving them a national stage.  Prey tell me what is the difference between that and giving Rick Warren the national stage?

This is not just about gays, it is about giving those who are basically undemocratic a national stage and bringing religion and the cultural wars back into our political dialogue.  We had hoped that this very negative force in our political discourse had been marginalized and we were moving back into the realm of reasoned political discourse, and then we find out you are pandering to them in some foolish gesture of big tent politics.

By making him part of the inauguration, Barack has legitimized his kind of intolerance based upon religious dogma as having a rightful place in a democracy based upon reason.   This should have been a day when we are looking forward to the future with hope and anticipation and away from the days when the religious intolerant were trying to use government to force their beliefs on the rest of us.  Now many of us wonder just what we are in for if Barack doesn’t understand how he has sullied this day by what I am sure he thinks is an act of your own tolerance.  Do you understand the message you just sent to all of us?  Religious intolerance is acceptable political dialogue.  I will say it as clear as I can:  Being tolerant of the intolerant only legitimizes their intolerance.  Dialogue all day long, but don’t give the man a national stage.

President-Elect Obama has stumbled badly on this one.  Being tolerant of divergent points of view is a hallmark of our democracy.  But Rick Warren isn’t tolerant of our views and if he had his way he would use government to force his views on the rest of us.  And now you have given this intolerance a prominent place in the start of your new administration.  We thought this election was a step away from all that moral superiority that has no place in a democracy.  Now you have rekindled the cultural wars.   But then what the hell do I know?  I am only an atheist and therefore have no moral standing in Rick Warren’s world where I am unfit to hold any office.   This was an innocent mistake that Democrats make all the time, thinking the other side has good intentions.  How many times do we have to get burned by this before we finally learn?