And the selection of Rick Warren may turn out to have significance beyond short-term political maneuvering. One can see this from the hysteria on the left and among gay activists. They sense that Obama isn't willing to sign on to their campaign to delegitimize, to cast out beyond the pale of polite society, anyone who opposes same-sex marriage--and in particular, anyone (like Warren) who supported Proposition 8 in California, the initiative that overturned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.On the other hand, Sean Braisted is really struggling to reconcile Obama's choice for Inauguration Invocator in Chief with Obama's "inclusive" campaign for president. Nashville for the 21st Century: To Invocate or Not To Invocate, That Is The Question.
But Sean mistakenly equates Obama's seeming tolerance of Warren's views on homosexual acts with hypothetical tolerance of, say, opposition to religious intermarriage. As commenter Goldnl notes, many Jews disagree with "religious intermarriage," and whereas homosexual acts are named as sin in the Bible, religious intermarriage is merely labeled as unwise.
But Sean also mistakenly asserts that Obama's exclusion of Jeremiah Wright way back when disproves that the Warren Decision is evidence of Obama's inclusiveness when it comes to filling invocation slots. Sean is in the clear minority in believing that conscientious opposition to homosexual "marriage" is the same as Wright's racist theology. As Kristol points out,
The left senses that the invitation to Rick Warren is a blow to their effort to establish a soft tyranny of "correct" opinion, to enforce society-wide political orthodoxy, on social issues. They're right. This isn't the time for conservatives to snipe at Obama's motives. It's time to welcome him into the American mainstream, to salute the president-elect's progress from Reverends Wright to Warren.
6 comments:
I suppose the area of disagreement is with the characterization of Wright's theology as "racist". I think he has used a few poorly chosen words or phrases, but on par, his general sermonizing is no worse than Warren's. Hell, I'm sure Wright has had plenty a dinner with Whites and Jews.
Sean,
How would you define "racist"?
But I also think that Wright's teachings are covetous and bigoted (bigoted inasmuch as they are literally "skin" deep).
Surely you will concede that chosen actions/behavior (from which, incidentally, I would exclude behavior such as "supports race-based policies") are in a different class than color of one's skin?
Surely you will concede that chosen actions/behavior (from which, incidentally, I would exclude behavior such as "supports race-based policies") are in a different class than color of one's skin?
Well, we probably have a different definition of "chosen".
Do I think sexual identity is in a different class than race or sex? Not particularly, no.
Well, we probably have a different definition of "chosen".
I agree, but what "sexual identit[ies]" qualify as a class? And how do we know which classes a person is in?
Do you have any particular parameters on what actions/behaviors would qualify for protections?
Do you have any particular parameters on what actions/behaviors would qualify for protections?
Eh, its generally you know it when you see it.
As of right now, I believe sexual orientation should be protected along with race and religion because there is a group of people out there who seek to discriminate on such a basis. If some other group or people should pop up in the future, we'll take them as they come.
That standard is scary--especially when there is a political group in America rather comfortable with Judicial Oligarchy.
But okay, though I'd characterize it differently--refusing to accept an assertion that a characteristic (in this case, sexual attraction or a certain type of sexual activity) is immutable and protection-worthy is much different than belonging to a "a group seek[ing] to discriminate." But I can better understand the perspective of the Left: it MY problem/fault/weakness that I don't accept this type of behavior as normal or acceptable.
That being said, you didn't answer which "sexual identit[ies]" qualify for protection. Is it any "identity" that starts to consistently be rejected by people with this discrimination problem?
Post a Comment