The Atlantic - Latest Comments in A hamfisted moderation

Re: A hamfisted moderation

SJB — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0000

I am not in favor of the message Rick Warren sends about exclusivity of the gay community. His 'moderation' is at best a joke. The things he spouts about gay marriage, incest, polygamy, well, all of that is a cop out and an argument full of fallacies. But. . .

I think one of the most dangerous ideas that Warren (and other 'new generation' non-denominational evangelists) is preaching is the inevitability of prosperity for those who pray and believe. His insistence-along with others like Joel Osteen-that all things are possible with TRUE faith, belief and prayer is dangerous. He and others insist that riches are waiting for those who just believe and pray the hardest, for those who 'truly' love and set their faith in God.

This type of preaching is dangerous in numerous ways; it develops a sense of entitlement for those who are truly saved, whether this entitlement takes the form of money or opportunity.

The idea that prosperity is designated for some and not all is problematic and I think one of the more insidious parts of his ministry.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Patrick M — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:50:20 -0000

The Atwater precedent is fantastic - thanks for pointing it out. A perfect example of an effective civil disobedience protest action. The right result and fast too. Will help focus the fury I feel as a longtime Obama supporter at this choice into effective protest.

> In 1989, Howard gained national attention when students rose up in protest against the appointment of then-Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater as a new member of the university's Board of Trustees. Student activists disrupted Howard's 122nd anniversary celebrations, and eventually occupied the university's Administration building.[15] Within days, both Atwater and Howard's President, James E. Cheek, resigned.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

gwangung — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:51:34 -0000

(a) would Clinton also have asked Warren to pray at the inauguration

If not, he would probably been invited to the prayer breakfasts she's involved in.

Please explain to me why Obama "needs" to court the rabid, intellectually-shallow, willfully-ignorant segment of our population that follows a clown like Warren in the first place?

Because they're Americans. And cutting them out of the debate may have been the M.O. of Republicans, that's not MY M.O.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

HumboldtBlue — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:29:25 -0000

Please explain to me why Obama "needs" to court the rabid, intellectually-shallow, willfully-ignorant segment of our population that follows a clown like Warren in the first place?

Do these crackpots feel marginalized because their hate-filled rhetoric pisses others off?

These asshats didn't vote for Obama in Novemeber, they're not going to vote for him in 2012 and they're not going to support a single initiative he puts forth that isn't slaved to their miniscule and tightly focused vision of the world.

Who is he appealing to here? People who think the word compromise means surrender of their deeply-held -- no matter how intellectually daft and empty -- beliefs? People who consider it A-OK to use bastardized scripture references to deny civil rights, to deny simple humanity to another?

Why are these people being courted when their aim is destroy the very fabric that holds this nation together -- Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

So why is this hate-monger going to be giving a prayer at a secular event? I don't care what stripe of theist he claims to be, his God and your God and anyone else's God belongs in your church, not at our nation's secular functions.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Jay — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:23:17 -0000

Embrace the bigoted right-wing evangelicals and lose choicers and gays? Well he'll learn real quick that right-wing evangelicals won't go for him no matter what but that he can lose support that he can't get back.

It's a lose-lose proposition.

And if this is a big tent thing where is Farrahkhan? Where are the leaders of the various racist movements? Seems like reaching out only means to right wing evangelicals and seems like they don't have to reach back.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

bread & roses — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:34:37 -0000

@gaucho, tessa, Dan, oh heck, everybody...

you guys rock. Because TNC rocks, and attracts you. I've totally changed & deepened my thinking about politics with this thread, and felt warmed as well. Gaucho says:

(I think Sully could benefit from having comments.)

But Sully doesn't have TNC's commenters. The commenting community is built by the blogger. The quality of the comments here doesn't mean Sully or whatever other blogger should have comments. It means TNC is a great professor. Thanks, all.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

PeterGuillam — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:21:03 -0000

"Though he did give a magnificent sermon several years ago decrying basically all forms of war, including US-led wars, as against God's word.'

Well, that's a knock againsts him right there.

Obama wouldn't want to risk being associated with reflexive pacifists or surrender-at-all-cost wing of his party. That's a bigger sin in the eyes of serious, pragmatic people.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

stan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:13:12 -0000

Warren is problematic for liberals on a number of issues beyond gay marriage and abortion. For me, he is straying too far from the church into the realm of politics, with all of the interviews and statements on things like assasination and torture.

I understand why BO would want someone like Warren for bridge-building, but why not Bill Hybels from Chicago, who is also well-known and regarded in the Evangelical crowd, and who generally steers clear from politics and policy? Hybels has the "street cred" for religious folks, but is more reasonable and dare I say liberal than many others, without coming off as a liberal. Though he did give a magnificent sermon several years ago decrying basically all forms of war, including US-led wars, as against God's word.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

CitizenE — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:03:07 -0000

Business as usual in the White House--evangelical Christianity, which by definition is the most exclusionary form of Christianity. I've never much cottoned to this part of Obama's politics, and I find the selection of Warren for the inagural invitation a slap in the face of all those who are not Christians, those in the lesbian and gay community, and above all, those who believe that a separation between church and state is an absolute gaurantee of the US Constitution. People's religion ought to be a private deal, not something to impose upon Americans who voted for someone who over and over and over promised a kind of inclusion that such a selection diminishes. Obama needs to hear it over and over and over; pandering to know nothing Christianism is unacceptable in 2008 for a President of the United States.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Charles — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:44:41 -0000

Honestly, I'm not happy about this, but I don't see it as the end of the world. But I think the reason this is being cited as such a big deal is that it conforms to the preconceived notions of a certain set of the LGBT community - that Obama does not really take gay rights seriously, will throw them under the bus if needed, and will not fight as hard for them as Clinton would have. I personally think that is bogus, but there were a lot of gay Clinton supporters who will be convinced to the day they die that Clinton would have done more for them (see, e.g., the comments about Prop 8).

In that light, I think it's interesting to ask the rather academic questions of (a) would Clinton also have asked Warren to pray at the inauguration and (b) would the LGBT community have been as upset by it? My guess is that the answer to (a) is yes and (b) is no. Though I could be wrong.

As an atheist, though, what really grinds my gears about this whole thing is that we are letting these crazy preachers onto the public stage to begin with. I didn't like Wright, I don't like Warren. But I don't think I'll see a day when someone who is willing to call out the religious crazies is seen as a credible candidate for president. *sigh*

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Alexander Rose — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:37:55 -0000

There shouldn't be an invocation or benediction for a federal event in the first place.

That said, I voted for a guy who wouldn't just be the President for a segment of the population, even if I don't agree with that segment or they think I'm the scum of the Earth or whatever.

Coalition building at this stage of the game is important because the Republican party and conservative movement have been in power for nearly 40 years. That's just not going to change with a flip of a switch.

I wrote a long piece about this on my blog and I hate to toot my own horn but it's not shabby and worth a look.

http://hedonistperspective.typepad.com/hedonist_perspective/2008/12/hedonist-perspective-this-rick-warren-thing.html

Re: A hamfisted moderation

PhillyGuy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:12:05 -0000

Tony C, I'm with you man. I'm not exactly religious, so that's a whole separate topic for a whole separate day. My point isn't that Obama should pander to the base, but he shouldn't validate the fringe that hates him either. So while this Warren dude might come off moderate, he's still on the moderate end of the fringe that will never support his policies. Whatever, I can get over it, assuming it helps O accomplish things once he's in office. He's proven us wrong before.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

atlantapril — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:11:33 -0000

It's a shame that Dr. Lowery's choice to give the benediction has been lost in all the hyperbole, hyperventilating, and hysteria surrounding Rick Warren's selection. Dr. Lowery supported Obama's candidacy when his other civil rights peers were lining up behind Hillary Clinton. Let us not forget that it was considered almost foolhardy to support a skinny guy from Chicago over the vaunted Clintons.

On a personal note: Thanksgiving is the one holiday where my Mom can count on me to claim my place at the family table. I share that table with some evangelical family members who proudly voted for McCain. Because family ties run deeper than political affiliations, I choose to focus on those things we have in common rather than those things that make me want to choke them into submission. Perhaps we can do that with Warren. (I'll just add that I'm Black so that will give you deeper insight into the struggle I have in fighting that choke impulse!)

Re: A hamfisted moderation

TW Andrews — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:06:30 -0000

Bush was a horrible, terrible, very bad, disastrous president. What I am not looking for is my shot at our own little Democratic version. Warren being there, symbolically at least, says that while the two men disagree strongly on some issues, and have made their positions clear, they feel that they are capable of putting their differences aside to work together on issues where they do share some common ground

Seriously. As gratifying as it might be in the short term, if the Democrats take the role of adults contra the petulant-teenager of the GOP over the last decade, they're going to be in charge for a long time, and it will be good for the country to boot.

Acting like the natural governing party will sometimes mean being magnanimous.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Sporcupine — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:01:17 -0000

@DoctorJay,

Warren is definitely stretching.

There are Christian conservatives arguing that voting for Obama will send you to hell, and a few arguing that Obama is the antichrist.

Warren is standing up against that whole faction.

He's going to shake up millions of people who like his books and sermons, and some of them are going to deliver wave upon wave of criticism, fussing, boycotts, and other noise.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

PeterGuillam — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:01:17 -0000

"It's not about the lefties getting theirs. However, there should be a recognition of the coalition that propelled Obama to victory."

I would argue that it's not even really about Obama. It's about the Democratic party, and what the party supposedly stands for. Of course Obama is the president of the whole country, even the people who didn't vote for him. And of course a lot of independents and Republicans voted for him too. He wouldn't have won otherwise. I understand all that. But he is also, whether he likes it or not, the standard-bearer of the Democratic party now.

That's why I find the argument that lefties or progressives should have known better than to expect certain things from Obama, or to be disappointed in his actions because he was pretty clear about his intentions during the campaign etc etc to be disingenuous. It's impossible to find a candidate who completely mirror our positions on all issues. People vote for the candidate who is the closest to their position and world view. For a progressive of a leftie, who else would you vote for, except for the candidate of the Democratic party? (I'm discounting irrational voters who still think voting for third party candidates will make a difference). It's not about being disappointed with Obama, or demanding things he never promised anyway. It's about holding him, and the Democratic party, to the things and ideals they stand for.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Tony Comstock — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:56:06 -0000

@PhillyGuy

Look, I know what it's like to live in fear, doubt and hope; and to try and divine from every gust, puff and shift what the weather is going to be like next week. ("He invited Pastor Saddlefuck!!! What does that mean for SSM and DADT?!?")

But hey zoos crisco, if I can swallow watching my president take office in the name of Jesus for 24 fucking years, maybe you all can just chill the fuck out about this Saddlefarce guy, and actually put energy into making sure something happens on SSM, DADT and whatever else are the issues that actually effect you.

And of course, keep your guns oiled and your power dry.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

PhillyGuy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:45:34 -0000

It's not about the lefties getting theirs. However, there should be a recognition of the coalition that propelled Obama to victory. The people who volunteered their time and money. The people that pastor Warren has directly insulted and demagogued are a very large part of that coalition. It doesn't mean we have to insult him back or shut people like him out, but he shouldn't have such an elevated status bestowed upon him either.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Tony Comstock — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:32:42 -0000

Folks ought to read The Atlantic's long article on Rove from a couple of years back. The big take away is that there's a lot of horse-trading in politics, and you can't even hold power, let alone govern effectively without engaging the opposition. Rove's "Republican lock-step" theory of government failed his country and failed his party too.

And as long as I'm commenting, this whole prayer thing bugs me. I didn't like it in the locker room when I played HS football, I didn't like it at commencement, I don't like it at inaugerations. Fucken thumb in the eye and reminder that those of us with minority beliefs have to keep our guns oiled and our powder dry. That goes for Pastor Saddleback or any of these lefty pastor somebodies you all are tossing around.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Green — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:20:50 -0000

Too many people are looking at how liberals, progressives, whatever, were completely shut out over the last 8 years and thinking, our turn!

The days of "no soup for you!" for all who don't fall in line lockstep with every single position may be ending. I for one am glad. It's a good thing when more than 50.000001% of the country can find something to like (and to dislike) about their president.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

PhillyGuy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:00:40 -0000

What I find frustrating, is that for 8 years, anyone who put forward any social views contrary to the administration was labeled outside the mainstream, San Fran liberal, etc.... Americans were getting essentially spit on by their leadership. Now that the same people that were getting the shaft worked their hearts out to elect someone who represents them, we're rewarded by having to pander to the same individuals who did the spitting. I'm not saying that the right needs to be shut out of the white house, but I just don't understand the reason to pander to someone who states that my pro-choice beliefs are equivalent of being a Nazi sympathiser.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

gaucho — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:00:16 -0000

I don't really have much to say besides this: This is one of the best comment threads I've come across in a while. It's obviously a very touchy subject and the commenters have raised the level of discourse.

This is why I keep coming back.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Tony Comstock — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:57:38 -0000

Thought about this in the shower. Two thoughts; one while shampooing, the other while conditioning:

9 out of 20 people voted for McCain/Palin. Obama is their president too.

If McCain had been elected and made an equivalent gesture, they right would be up in arms, and the left would be praising his equanimity (or coming up with all manner of devious motives.)

Re: A hamfisted moderation

TW Andrews — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:35:48 -0000

I think the symbolism is more important than the politics. Obama demonstrates that he can have a positive, high-profile association with someone with whom he has profound disagreements.

A nice step in the direction of restoring civil discourse.

Re: A hamfisted moderation

Dan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:34:33 -0000

I had the same knee-jerk, Tessa. I was glad to be talked down, too. (I think Sully could benefit from having comments. Maybe he wouldn't come off as so strident. Or so obsessed with body hair.)