I, personally, think that Rick Warren is a bigoted troll who doesn't have the slightest understanding of what God is really about, and I hate that he's such a big part of the inauguration.
But I also understand *why* he is.
Oh I understand too, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but that doesn't mean I still don't think it's wrong.
The difference being that Warren is a hate-monger and Robinson is not.
I think it's important to note that the words
Giving someone who preaches hate and bigotry
were taken out of my original post. Some of the sense of Wrong I feel is because Obama's inclusion of everyone involves someone who so clearly doesn't believe in that inclusiveness. As GC points out, the same can't be said of Robinson.
How much do I love my library? It sends me a notice BEFORE a book is overdue! I have four more days to finish the book and get it back in. Love.
Speaking of, it's Wordy Shipmates which has really put into perspective the religion of fear. It's also hella funny.
that doesn't mean I still don't think it's wrong.
I hope my use of the term "bigoted troll" makes it clear that I don't like Warren's inclusion, either.
Seriously? That's what you think I meant?
It was far more irony than serious. Sorry I didn't think to plainly tag it.
I got that feeling, yes.
Cool. I get twitchy when people quote me in order to say "Yo, this bit here? I DON'T believe it!"
It gets harder and harder to have conversations -- NOT here, okay? -- where I can say "Um, it's politics. I don't like it, but I understand why he did it," without people telling me that *I'm* a bigot and other horrifying things.
Cool. I get twitchy when people quote me in order to say "Yo, this bit here? I DON'T believe it!"
Huh. I'm really sorry it came across that way. I included your bigoted troll line on purpose to show a point of agreement, and I was just trying to point out that thinking it was Wrong doesn't mean I don't understand or was surprised.
eta: I was also responding more to the whole conversation than to your one post, and I should have made that clearer by including other comments.
Nah, it's more me than your (eminently wise) choice to quote me.
Like I said, I've gotten twitchy from other situations -- NOT here -- in which failure to be in lockstep agreement MUST therefore mean that I'm The Enemy.
My money says the exact same words are being spoken, by the far right, about the inclusion of Rev. Gene Robinson.
I don't want to make things more fraught, but I'd point out that opening a concert barely anyone saw a couple of days before the official event is qualitatively different than giving the invocation of the official inauguration.
Part of the reason I think this is so difficult for me to accept (and for us/others to talk about) is specific to Rick Warren. He's an activist for some out there and abhorrent views, but he nonetheless has a public reputation as a guy who's sort of a non-political middle-ground, bridging the divide, so to speak.
So on the surface it seems more understandable why Obama would choose him to be symbolic of that, but the result is further mainstreaming of a highly influential person who's really not mainstream at all. He becomes a much stronger player, a more dangerous one, and I don't get why you would do that.
[I'm leaving aside the sucker punch to the gay community, since I think that's obvious and has also been covered.]
Now, to people flipping out about Obama having dinner with George Will and David Brooks and other conservative columnists last week, I say @@. That's engagement, and if it surprises you that Obama would do it, you haven't been paying attention. But this goes way beyond that.
I'm hurt that Obama robocalled me to remind me to vote no on prop 8 and then turned around and shook hands with a guy who contributed a huge amount to getting it passed.
