Everyone is Invited (Except For Those We Oppose)

Rick Warren is speaking where? Rick Warren was invited to what? What in God's name is going on in this country; how could this happen? How could Obama pick Rick Warren to give the invocation speech as his inauguration? The "AUDACITY of it all"! I guess, outside of Rick's demonstrated history of charitable giving, servitude, and community work in his Church, there must be be a cause for such disruption. Was there a unanswered past, a history of hanging out with terrorists, a communist fringe association, or a hidden agenda (from either side) that could be causing such a raucous? If anything, I was surprised as well; not only for this announcement, but that Rick Warren previously reached out to Obama, as well as John McCain, during the 2008 Presidential Election, to join his forum on faith and public service. If you remember, it was a Nationally televised discussion on each candidates viewpoints on religion, the role of government, and personal responsibility; among other topics. Considering, the extreme-left despises the right-wing evangelical Christian movement, my cynicism was charging on all 4 cylinders (a hybrid of course). But then again, what message would you send to the country by not accepting everyone; when your platform is about "change", "healing", and "unity". So, when I heard the suggestive "deplorable" news, I could not help but think, wow, a great political move by the Obama camp. Throw an evangelical up there: Whew, we did not have one of "those people". Okay, sarcasm aside, there has to be a positive here, right?

While some Americans may say, so what, it is good to see Obama reaching out to everyone; the real voice of unrest belongs to the secular left and gay activist groups, which considered this their version of "Shock And Awe". Let's set aside the secular left, because religion is an abomination, a crutch, and mindless belief in something more powerful than them. And especially evangelicals, which they routinely liken to Nazi war criminals, apparently due to spreading Christianity and not "World-Ism". Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, even the Church of Christan Scientists, do not get the same treatment of hate, as the Evangelicals. But with the case of gay rights groups, their resistance and disgust was obvious. They found it incomprehensible that this man speak at the inauguration, given his viewpoints on gays and support of traditional marriage. Barack offered no apologies for picking Rick Warren to give the invocation speech, but Gay rights advocates suggested otherwise. And Obama has clearly stated they do not agree on everything; and subsequently has selected guest speakers that represent a variety of viewpoints. Now isn't that unity, inclusion, and all that peace, love, and happiness crap? Isn't that the staple of the Democratic party? If Dr. Joseph Lowery will be there to give the benediction speech, who has deeply conflicting viewpoints with Warren, does that not appease the angry masses. Just so you know, Obama was elected, not by the far left alone, but by a majority of Americans who looked past all the "fringe" extremists, and decided we need a leader who can unite. Hhmmm, Maybe not.

The president of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomnese, sent a letter to Obama asking him to reconsider his selection. He called it a sign of disrespect and a strike against the gay community. And Kathryn Kolbet, President of People For The American Way stated that Obama's invitation should have been blocked, due to his support of "Proposition 8". And with understanding; the opposition comes from the religious viewpoint about homosexuality; its degradation to society, and "sinful" nature to God. Now, Evangelicals receive the brunt of this assault, based on their adamant opposition to the lifestyle. Even though over a period of roughly 5,000 years, this viewpoint has been embraced by all religions. What is misconstrued is that a various Christians may share the same viewpoint on the nature of the lifestyle, but do not believe in discriminating against, or sanctioning violence towards them. Of course the media has a field day by continually displaying a bunch of backwoods hillbillies, chasing down gays with a "burning cross": that is what sells. Of course, I am not saying there aren't a lot of intolerant people out there; there are far too many on both sides, I agree. But, if you listen to Warren's speeches on inclusion and learning how we can live together (the basis of Christian love), you may understand more about him. The Christian opposition to gay-marriage is based on the biblical definition of "marriage" that defines the union of a man and a women; which in theological terms, is representative of the relationship of God to his church, which is the people. It is not some "fear-driven" conspiracy against Gays, but a covenant that Christians embody as a sacred part of their religion. So, while they may oppose the traditional union for gays, there is less resistance about supporting a legal bonding union that has the same protected legal rights as marriage, but not in name. Of course, this would appease both sides, but the game is not about appeasement, but winning, isn't? Now, Warren stated he was not personally involved in Proposition 8, but he did release his supportive viewpoints on the issue as a request from his fellow parishioners. He does not regret his beliefs, but given the lengths that Rick has gone, I would have to agree that he is trying to knock down the "stereotypical" walls that have impeded true discussion. No matter how good of man he may be, and no matter how much he tries to extend an open arm, it is irrelevant; the attacks on Rick Warren, Christians and anything not "far-left" will continue. Sure, the democrats won the "White House", but do they want to set the precedent for intolerance, which is what so many of them preach against? And do not get me started on the difference between tolerance and acceptance; if that is the case, then they are only "tolerating" Rick for one night. Gay advocacy groups have the next "4 years" to saddle up next to Obama; is is that difficult to actually listen to what this guy has to say; they may be surprised?

So, as we move past the rhetoric (And I thought 8 years of whining was enough), it was encouraging to see Rick Warren come out and publicly thank Obama for this invitation, as a "sign" of reaching out. He knew Obama would take some heat on this, therefore his acceptance had more significance. To truly move the country forward, wasn't the election all about hope and progress? Well, the only way to "progress" is inclusion: of course that does not mean there will be an overall acceptance of everything, but finding ways to bring all groups closer together. Respect works both ways. Let's face it, America is a melting pot: it is not easy. Now I will admit, my opinion of the Warren selection, was purely political; designed to appease the religious right. And I know it may sound like bias, but based on the actions of all politicians: who doesn't want to come off as a saint. But, I could be wrong, and I am not afraid to admit it, but these guys do not spend hours kissing babies on the campaign trail for nothing. Let's face it, Obama spent so much time trying to convince people he was brought up with Christianity, and was not a radical Muslim. So for him, this was a good way to erase or even subdue any remaining resentment or doubt before taking office. Obama knew he would take some heat on this selection, so I will give him credit for picking Rick Warren in the midst of potential backlash. Whether the intention was meaningful or not, I will leave that up to you. Either way, gay rights groups need to decide if everyone is indeed invited to the table, not just those they do not oppose. Other than force-feeding their agendas down our legislative throats, maybe they should reach across the aisle too. Unfortunately, the gay community believes the invitation has tarnished their belief that they have a place at "Obama's" table, and have taken this as personal attack. I do not know about you, but isn't this "America's" table? So relax, I am sure Rick does not want to burn you at the stake. It could be worse, Obama could have invited Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give the invocation; Oh, Berkeley would be so proud. But just think, can you imagine a controversial poet like Elizabeth Alexander sitting next to a guy like Rick Warren, eating, drinking, and sharing opposing viewpoints; all in song (with Hippie robes and Jesus sandals, of course)? Well it's happening; just make sure to remove the forks and knifes before serving the first course.