Religion: Heretical Invocation
In an obviously political move meant to appeal to a broader base of voters and symbolize a transcendence from politics, President-Elect Obama has tapped Rick Warren (pastor of the Saddleback Church and host of the “Values Forum” Presidential debate) to give the invocation at his inauguration. In a press release, the People for the American Way stated:
Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church’s engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.
this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.
In a move that surprised me, Joe Solomnese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, wrote in a harsh letter to the president-elect:
“Let me get right to the point, your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans.”
I’m sure there will be even more press releases on the matter, but I will avoid them. Maybe I lack a proper sense of outrage, or maybe I’m too cynical, but I’m not worked up about this. How could I, when it was expected? Last time I checked, providing a stage for religious people to affirm our politics was the status quo. Were we really expecting something different? We get mad and we send our press releases, but rarely do we focus on the real problem that this controversy only obscures: religion.
Why is there an invocation? Why is it that a nation supposedly separated by church and state continues to provide a prominent position to representatives of an institution whose ideas on government are about 2,000 years out of date and antithetical to a free society? Don’t think so? Read the old testament.
If you’ve read your bible, you know that religion has always been about power–obtaining it and maintaining it–and using it to control the public mind. Even if the intentions are noble, we can achieve those ends in other ways. Sure, religion provides a source for social cohesion (as long as followers of other religions are dead) and ethics (as long as you don’t mind scriptural contradictions and constantly reinterpreting a straightforward text in order to side-step the crazy parts in order to save the “good parts”), but at what cost? We can attain social cohesion, develop ethics, and understand/fulfill our emotional needs through science and reason, so why should we humor religion, particularly considering its historical cost in blood and persecution? If Obama wants someone to give an invocation, he should have chosen Al Gore. At least he understands the god we really need to keep happy.
G/L/B/T people deserve better than Rick Warren, but we deserve a hell of a lot better than everything Rick Warren and religion itself represents: systems of belief that at worst inspire violence and xenophobia, and at least deny human rights and the critical thinking necessary for personal transcendence and resolution of global problems.
We’ve suffered too much from our global addiction to this magical wish granting space god who lives above the clouds, who grants us an identity, and has a plan. Let’s write a new press release.
First time here? See what we're all about... Get involved... Send us a tip!...
Unfortunately, this was all very very predictable. Nonetheless, it didn't stop folks from supporting a presidential candidate who clearly harbours a strong homophobic streak.
I know a lot of folks who defend him, saying that he confronts homophobia in the african-american community. That's not bravery… that's echoing Oprah & Essence. It doesn't take much bravery to repeat what's being bantered about in mass media.
The guy is a charlatan, and I look forward to the multiple opportunities over the next four years to say "I told you so."
His agenda according to his transition website is extremely in our favor. If he wanted to take a line against the gays to grab more moderate or republican votes that would have been the time to do it.
This is not an I told you so moment. Does this matter? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. This Warren is not getting a cabinet position, an advisor position, or any position at all. We are generally happy with these appointments. You know, the people who are actually going to do something in the government. The invocation is just show.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Ben.
Brilliant, Ben. I’ll sign on to your press release when you draft it. Or anyone else, for that matter. Anyone here good at writing press releases?
The fact that the griping classes on the right and left are both in full indignation mode about this is probably a sign that Obama calibrated his choice perfectly.
I kind of like the notion of a Christianist idiot like Warren being compelled to bless the presidency of Obama, whose election basically says to Warren and his followers, “Your time is up.”
Hmmm while it would have been nice to have a progressive religious leader leader the invocation, I am not too concerned. Obama did say that he would work to bring people together. Sometimes we are just going to have to allow him to bring in people that we may not like. I believe that at the end of the day Obama will support LGBT rights and that is what matters most.
Rick Warren is a Nazi but, like Ben, I can’t get too worked up. I’m just not that impressed by bigotry anymore. Just get rid of the fat bastard. Enough.
I’m not surprised that Warren is Obama’s choice. The President-Elect knows the only way not to get shot is to play politics: pander to Bigoted America by bringing Repuglicans (like John McCain) into the fold. This is a transparent manipulation of the sympathies of middle America.
Not only is this performance of “unity” politically expedient it is necessary after the partisan destruction by the last administration. It also manages (tempers) the subconscious guilt, fears and hate of most of white America. If Obama can manage the ignorance and exploit the selfishness of dumb Americans he can stay alive, in office and do the most good for all of us (yeah, that includes the bigots).
I’d rather have him alive and somewhat compromised than live in an America that does not have him at all.
But, then again, I really don’t care…
you can count me among those who are pissed about this. like ben, i don’t get why religion has to be part of this. and i think obama’s defense of the decision pretty lame. he said something about how he doesn’t agree with rick warren on gay rights but that, hey, the guy isn’t so bad. he’s against AIDS!
so, all we care about is AIDS, i guess. . .
that said, i don’t think there is any evidence that obama “harbours a strong homophobic streak,” as this cuffshark person alleges. throwing nonsense bombs is not constructive.
obama just responded. does anyone want to die laughing?
“It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHA
HA
oh christ, what a funny dude.
People have short memories. Does no one remember the recent little controversy about Obama having a gay marching band in his inaugural parade? Here’s the Catholic News Service take on it:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14579
And now tell me again about Obama’s “strong homophobic streak.” Absurd.
This is classic Obama. And while I personally don’t like the Rick Warren invocation, we can’t celebrate electing a president who wants to try to unite us and then shit all over him when he is inclusive of multiple points of view. How about we let the guy govern for a few minutes before we jump down his throat?
Great post, Ben.
i dont have a problem with obama inviting warren. but i dont appreciate him pretending to be a progressive and then giving a big platform to a homophobic evangelical. obama thinks that a few shout-outs to gays in his speeches are all that he needs to do. he mentions “gays and straights” under the people he wants to see work together, and we’re expected to melt.
i also don’t mind him manipulating populations to vote for him. this is generally called “politics.” but again, if you’re gonna do it, spare us the holier-than-thou bullshit about being post-partisan, which he is not.
i guess it’s particularly annoying for me as i come from the perspective of having worked for the campaign, and seeing everyone brainwashed with the same nonsense. i wanted to see him elected as the lesser of two evils. not as a god. not even as a progressive. just as the better of two fairly typical politicians. it is naive, in my opinion, to believe he is something greater.
Where are the racists? What racists are speaking at his inauguration? Who among those he honors have said that God views blacks as inferior? Which persons are he including that use the bible to condone slavery? Doesn’t he need to reach out to them as well? Shouldn’t they be up there with him at his inauguration? Can’t we just all agree to disagree, but still honor those individuals?
And how about the Jews? Shouldn’t he include people who view Jews as Christ killers? How about anti-Catholics? What about people who despise immigrants and consider Hispanics to be vermin? Why is it that he keeps reaching out and including people who spew vile lies about gay people, but doesn’t include these others?
You might want to take a philosophy course that attempts to seriously grapple with, say, Aristotle and Aquinas, before your next post ranting and raving about a “magical wish granting space god.”
I’m sorry, am I missing something? Other than say he is opposed to gay “marriage,” what is it that Rick Warren has done? His church is so popular because he isn’t bludgeoning people over the head with brimstone and hellfire.
Plus, haven’t there been discussions about removing same-sex unions out of the secular realm? If that is the horse to which we are hitching our carts, what difference does it make if Obama and Warren do not support gay “marriage”?
anonymous 12:59 pm aren’t you taking things a little far? That post is an example of the irrational rants that make it virtually impossible for people outside the LGBT community to take us seriously.
The Bible does not document that ” … that religion has always been about power–obtaining it and maintaining it–and using it to control the public mind.” Religion, like a myriad other things have been used to manipulate individuals who refuse to educate themselves, and none of the wars in which the US has fought has been over religion.
By attacking religion, we attack people of faith in our own community. We attack our allies. We attack people of good will who may support 99% of our issues, but disagree on gay marriage.
After 8 years of Bush, Cheney and Rove, ask yourself, is Obama going to be good for the LGBT community? The man hasn’t even taken office yet, and people are already turning their backs on him.
Can anyone name a single politician whose views you support 100%? And to paraphrase Ms. Jackson, cause I am nasty, what has People for the American Way and HRC done for us lately? Way to go on the Prop 8 thing HRC …
I guess I just think it’s easy to get all exercised about the symbolic stuff and I hope we keep our focus on what really matters to the lives in our community. I don’t mean to dismiss anyone being pissed about this; I’m pissed, too. But Rick Warren giving an invocation has no effect on my life other than making my blood boil momentarily. If Obama wants him at his inauguration, I can live with it. He’s also got this gay marching band and he’s catching hell about that from the same people who love Rick Warren. I’m OK with calling this one pretty even.
I want us to save our fire for when the next Congress convenes and we actually have a chance to get some good legislation passed. I am hopeful about DADT, and I think we can make some progress on federal civil unions legislation. No, that’s not marriage, and no, that’s not good enough. But Barack Obama is not part of our community and not part of our movement (obviously, or he wouldn’t have been elected), so let’s not expect him to think about how it might hurt our feelings to extend a symbolic gesture of unity to Rick Warren here and there. What we should expect from him, what we must demand of him, is that he not stand in the way of our goals once we have organized, agitated, and lobbied our way to progress on the legislative front. This is still all about us getting our shit together at the grassroots and putting our congressional representation (or not, if you live in DC) on notice that we’re fucking serious this time. Obama is only relevant inasmuch as he can impede us if he wants. I seriously doubt he wants to impede us.
Ed, I agree with you.
And as someone who has taken a philosophy course or two, I really like the “magical wish granting space god” thing.
I guess I just think it’s easy to get all exercised about the symbolic stuff and I hope we keep our focus on what really matters to the lives in our community. I don’t mean to dismiss anyone being pissed about this; I’m pissed, too. But Rick Warren giving an invocation has no effect on my life other than making my blood boil momentarily. If Obama wants him at his inauguration, I can live with it. He’s also got this gay marching band and he’s catching hell about that from the same people who love Rick Warren. I’m OK with calling this one pretty even.
I want us to save our fire for when the next Congress convenes and we actually have a chance to get some good legislation passed. I am hopeful about DADT, and I think we can make some progress on federal civil unions legislation. No, that’s not marriage, and no, that’s not good enough. But Barack Obama is not part of our community and not part of our movement (obviously, or he wouldn’t have been elected), so let’s not expect him to think about how it might hurt our feelings to extend a symbolic gesture of unity to Rick Warren here and there. What we should expect from him, what we must demand of him, is that he not stand in the way of our goals once we have organized, agitated, and lobbied our way to progress on the legislative front. This is still all about us getting our shit together at the grassroots and putting our congressional representation (or not, if you live in DC) on notice that we’re fucking serious this time. Obama is only relevant inasmuch as he can impede us if he wants. I seriously doubt he wants to impede us.
Ed, I agree with you.
And as someone who has taken a philosophy course or two, I really like the “magical wish granting space god” thing.
i’m not going to take to the streets bashing religion as it’s not helpful to progressive causes. on the other hand, why bother defending it? religion has almost always stood in the way of positive change, and has been used as justification for oppression, murder, etc for thousands of years. there are very few christian groups that i think deserve my respect. evangelicals are certainly not one of them. if someone is gay and considers their beliefs so closely aligned with evangelical christianity that they are offended by someone trashing it, i do not respect them and don’t care to pretend that i do.
i’m not going to take to the streets bashing religion as it’s not helpful to progressive causes. on the other hand, why bother defending it? religion has almost always stood in the way of positive change, and has been used as justification for oppression, murder, etc for thousands of years. there are very few christian groups that i think deserve my respect. evangelicals are certainly not one of them. if someone is gay and considers their beliefs so closely aligned with evangelical christianity that they are offended by someone trashing it, i do not respect them and don’t care to pretend that i do.
Corey
Dude, your animosity is misdirected.
religion has almost always stood in the way of positive change, and has been used as justification for oppression, murder, etc for thousands of years.
Religion didn’t do this. Power hungry individuals looking to use any tool at their disposal are responsible for the things you site.
there are very few christian groups that i think deserve my respect. evangelicals are certainly not one of them.
Even here you acknowledge that it is the people. It’s not the Bible that dictates their actions. Modern evangelicals, as well as those responsible for the crusades and the inquisition, among other things, are primarily driven by political objectives The “Moral Majority, the “Christian Coalition,” “Focus on the Family,” and the “American Family Association,” among others, are political–not religious–organizations.
if someone is gay and considers their beliefs so closely aligned with evangelical [C]hristianity that they are offended by someone trashing it, i do not respect them and don’t care to pretend that i do.
This is completely random, are you talking about evangelism as laid out in the Bible, which is 100% different from what so-called modern day “evangelicals” represent, or are you talking about the later?
It genuinely shocks me that someone who purports to be progressive would make such a definitively myopic statement. You can “not respect” LGBT people of faith if you want to, but what makes that sweeping statement any less ignorant than the atrocities you saddle on them?
For those LGBT people who would arbitrarily condemn people of faith, including people in our own community, when was the last time you sat down and spoke to someone whose faith was shaped by an individual search for truth and meaning in their own life as opposed to those who wield their faith as a weapon used to impose bullshit dogma and political ideology?
Considering that the Moral Majority got its claws into the American political landscape in the mid 1970s, most of us do not know a world in which Christianity is not synonymous with politics.
By the way, 98% of the stuff people told us was in the Bible when we were growing up, isn’t actually there. The whole idea that God wants His followers to be mindless zombies who pick-and-choose the passages we want to follow is an egregious misinterpretation of scripture. The Bible is full of examples where God pretty much demands that people think for themselves. So much so, that there are even instances where He encourages people of faith to question pretty much everything. In fact, anyone who claims to be a “Christian” and is engaged in activities that result in others having a negative impression of Christ are not following the rule book of their chosen faith.
I hate that if I out myself as a Christian, especially a gay Christian, I am automatically relegated to the corner with the rest of the “slow” kids. But, if you sat down and spoke to me, you would find out that my faith does not require you to be a Christian or to even believe in God. My faith is about me. I don’t believe in a white haired old dude sitting on a chair magically controlling things.
In 2008, criticizing people of faith without knowing enough to make a distinction between political Christians who kneel at the alter of god money and worship power and capitalism, and people who have deliberately and prudently made an informed decision about their personal faith, is pretty lame.
ed,
as a theology major and someone who went to church 6 days a week as recently as two years ago, i consider myself fairly well-versed in the nuances of the christian religion.
you can say what you will about it being greedy or corrupt people, and not christianity, that have caused trouble. then again, this could be said about any group of people. it’s always easiest to find a scapegoat, or a group of scapegoats, rather than taking responsibility for one’s beliefs and associations.
i don’t disrespect all people of faith. but i don’t have much respect for most of them. most religious people are weak, and use religion as a crutch or a shield. they use it as a way to avoid asking questions, or making themselves vulnerable to difficult realities. they are easily fooled. and they have supported dangerous movements for many, many years.
today in america, evangelical churches produce some of the most backwards people our nation has ever seen. they need to be held politically accountable.
the catholic church is just as bad. in addition to sponsoring centuries of warfare and violence, they continue to discriminate against women and gays, for example. they also have pumped out more child molesters than any other organization. does this make all catholics bad people? no. but again. responsibility needs to be taken.
religion, in general, continues to do more harm than good the world over everyday. without religion most people who do good in its name would still be charitable. a lot of people who hate in the name of religion would not be so backwards if it didn’t exist.
in my opinion, most christian denominations have done nothing to earn the respect of myself or any rational people. members of these churches who do not work with courage and vigor to change their messages of oppression and hate, but rather sit back and say “well, I’M not like that!” or “well, the church is MOSTLY good” do not deserve respect, either. for gays who fit into this category, they deserve exactly what they have – religious oppression in a theocratic society. enjoy.
Corey – why are you a theology major if you don’t think there’s anything meaningful or intelligible to be discovered in the field?
you mistake my being critical of it for being disinterested. i’m very interested. if people only studied things that they personally supported, the world would be a dull place, no?
and actually, i was a lot more religious before i, ya know, studied religion.
you mistake my being critical of it for being disinterested. i’m very interested. if people only studied things that they personally supported, the world would be a dull place, no?
and actually, i was a lot more religious before i, ya know, studied religion.
I’m sorry, am I missing something? Other than say he is opposed to gay “marriage,” what is it that Rick Warren has done?
Uh, yes, you are missing something. Warren says gay relationships are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy.
I’m sorry, am I missing something? Other than say he is opposed to gay “marriage,” what is it that Rick Warren has done?
Uh, yes, you are missing something. Warren says gay relationships are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy.
i, for one, hope that obama’s lil gay marching band tramples right the fuck over rick warren.
either obama made a huge fucking mistake in this pick, or every gay that voted for him over clinton did.
“We can attain social cohesion, develop ethics, and understand/fulfill our emotional needs through science and reason”
do you really think that we can get all this just from science and reason?
reason and science will only go so far, i think
“…reason and science will only go so far, i think”
-Phil
uh…anything reason and science don’t cover i’m not sure i need.
oh, wait a minute.
snake handling. i need snake handling and speaking in tongues. make that snake handling, speaking in tongues and delusional “holy spirit” convulsions on the floor…with crying jags.
that’s all i need that reason and science don’t cover…and kool-aid. need the kool-aid.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/878
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/878
disaffected, thats funny. what a funny response.
however, you incorrectly assume that i was alluding to religion (christianity in particular). there is a lot more out there that DOES NOT necessarily fall under religion, which science and reason just dont address.
while science and reason are great, progressive systems/modes of thought, we shouldn’t idolize them. (especially without addressing what type of reason we should cultivate- kantian reason, american ‘reason’, reason solely derived from logic, etc)
you know what i mean?
re: Phil
I do know what you mean. What is it you think science, reason and logic do not address?
The impulse to “idolize” (i.e. idolatry) is a purely religious one. As a secular humanist agnostic who is, therefore, neither theist nor religious, that impulse does simply does not occur to me. I would never elevate reason and logic to metanarrative or supernatural levels because use of either is not a value judgment nor based on faith but merely the objective engagement of literal common sense.
“while science and reason are great, progressive systems/modes of thought, we shouldn’t idolize them. (especially without addressing what type of reason we should cultivate- kantian reason, american ‘reason’, reason solely derived from logic, etc)”
To overthink logic is to contradict it’s very use.
well, if you are a secular humanist agnostic, then we are really on the same side of the fence (if there even is a fence).
“The impulse to ‘idolize’ is a purely religious one”
what does that even mean? yes, taken in one context, “idolize” does mean to raise to a supernatural or god-like status. but in another (also literal) context, it means “to love to excess”. so maybe you, the secular humanist agnostic that you are, may not raise an ideal to a supernatural status. but is it possible that you or other progressive intellectuals who exclude all things religious can be idolizing (loving to excess, perhaps blindly following) science and reason? to see that as only a “religious impulse” requires an intellectual hubris unheard of, and perhaps a little psychological dualism between “us” and “them”.
“What is it you think science, reason and logic do not address?”
i really didnt bring logic into this conversation. im a firm believer in logic, the underlying structures of cause/effect, how A is A and not B. but it becomes difficult in how we interpret logic to become a system of thought, i.e. reason. philosophers (effected by their own time and place in history) have defined reason in incredibly different ways. dissecting our current notion of reason, and maybe what it should be, isnt overthinking logic (thus contradicting its use) but is rather USING logic.
——–
“I do know what you mean. What is it you think science, reason and logic do not address?”
i dont think this post is a great way of communicating what i mean. but a start would be: science and reason don’t necessarily provide us spirituality (a profound sense of connectedness, as just one of its definitions.) now, dont get me wrong, because religion also DOES NOT necessarily provide this feeling. spirituality can be a profound thing, connecting us to our environment and those around us. have you ever walked through the woods and felt so deeply connected, or even been moved to act in an altruistic way? i would really argue that those experience require some sort of spirituality.
stemming off of that, science and reason dont really address the subjective experience. while it can explain it objectively, it doesnt really delve into the experience itself. now, science and reason certainly dont preclude this shared experience from being discussed. but other avenues are needed in order for people to come together and actually understand each other.
finally, lumping religion together, into one small cardboard box, really belittles the great philosophy behind each religion. (especially buddhism, for example).
Evangelicals read the Bible ad nauseum, and having had to sit through their ceremonies, I’ve had plenty of time to read their book too, and most of what they say is in there, IS in there. They’re not wrong on that point at all. The Old Testament (which I don’t think any Christian worth their name should even pay any mind to except to note that it is THE PRE-CHRIST PAST) speaks glowingly of incest and genocide to name but two despicable things. Yet this is the part that most Evangelicals (as we now know the word in America, though most Christians would consider themselves evangelical, i.e. wanting to spread the faith) refer to time and time again, in every chance they get.
Americans are a religious oddity. Europe packed away its religious fanatics and loons on boats and they ended up here. After hundreds of years of religious warfare, religion was relegated to the corners of life, but still in most peoples’ minds tainted beyond redemption. No one is up for forgiving and forgetting, not when it culminated in the systematic extermination of 6 million people of a religion different than what they were born into, and even millions before that point.
Christians spend a lot of time arguing over who is a real Christian that you will always find plenty of people arguing that “so and so isn’t a REAL Christian”, that it really is very hard to delineate who is and what the creed would be. Thankfully there are good people like the Society of Friends/Quakers to show us that good Christians do exist.
Is it possible to be a Christian and a good person? Yes, but no more so than anyone else has that same chance, with or without religion. Until most Christians are willing and able to accept this, the enmity between Christians and others (especially other religions) will continue.
Stephanie – Let it go! Your pick lost and her husband blessed us with DOMA, DADT and W. by not being able to keep his hands off other women.
True. It is Bill Clinton’s fault Al Gore was not elected, that George W. Bush was appointed President. Ironically it is George W. Bush’s fault Hilary will not be President.
Karma is a bitch. If I were Hilary I’d kick the shit outta Bill.
Leave your response!
Recent Coments
Most Commented
Most Viewed - 30 Days