RCohen: Warren On? Party off.

[Captain Hilts]

I hate it when I agree with Cohen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201848.html

...

The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.

This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!

And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.

Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things. Obama says he himself is not anti-gay and, in fact, although he does not support same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions), he has been a stalwart champion of gay causes. Therefore, it seems to follow, he can honor an anti-gay activist.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Sorry, Mook, but this is nothing short of bullshit.

And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.

Nothing? You've got to be kidding. I recorded Obama's speech in response to all the Wright nonsense and I kept it because it was historical. Obama denounced Farrakahn and dumped Wright.

Is this Warren incident a problem? Absolutely. It's unfortunate, and Obama has his fingers wedged in a vise: he enrages some of the core if he keeps Warren on the program but he loses his attempt at unity if he dumps him.

However, any attempt to equate Wright and Warren is a reflection of the workings of a tiny mind.

[Captain Hilts]

2. On Wright he said "everybody has an uncle..."

as if you choose your uncle. You don't.

You DO choose your preacher. He sat in Wright's church for 20 years and dedicated a book to him. He dumped him when it was politically expedient to do so.

Oprah Winfrey sat in Wright's church for 2 years and decided Wright was crazy.

Then there's McClurkin.

Now, there's Warren, who has condemned large swaths of our society - Catholics and Jews - to Hell.

It's weird.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Do we know for sure that he actually attened church on a regular basis?

Or did he just go on holidays and when there was an election coming up?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. You choose your spouse too.

I wouldn't stay married to a man who repeatedly philandered on me and humiliated me in front of the entire world with his affair with a 22 year old intern. I would walk away from that marriage. That's exactly what I thought when the woman who did stay married to that man gave the "you can choose your pastor..." line during the primaries. But you know what? It's none of my business whom someone stays married to or whom they choose as a pastor. They are intensely personal decisions. Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as the old adage goes.

As for Warren, I strongly oppose him doing the invocation. The McClurkin concert was a boneheaded move on the part of Obama's campaign too. But I always felt that it was incredibly unfair to attack Obama for Rev. Wright and to drag the Trinity Church through through the mud the way the MSM and Obama's opponents did. There was a definite racist tinge to the whole thing and it was pretty anomolous, considering that none of the other contenders had their churches and religious associations scrutinized nearly as much.

[Captain Hilts]

18. This guy's bringing up Monica-Gate!!!! An interesting defense, but a diversion. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Bullshit.

And I'm not a guy. Besides, it's not just "Monica-gate" it's over 20 years of marriage to a philanderer. Over 20 years!!1!eleventy! You can't choose your blood relatives but you can CHOOOOOOOOOSE your spouse!! If you can question someone's personal faith, then I can question someone's marriage, right?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. BTW, Oprah attended Trinity Church off and on from '84 to the mid '90s

There is no statement directly from her claiming that Wright was "crazy", so you're full of shit on that. According to Newsweek, a couple of "sources" said that she distanced herself from the church because it would be bad for her business. Other sources claim that she left because she wanted to explore spirituality outside of mainstream organized religion. Completely her prerogative, whatever the reason, and completely Obama's to stay in the church. What part of "it's none of your business" do you not understand? http://www.newsweek.com/id/135392

[Captain Hilts]

32. She stopped attending the church because he was weird. He's a hate monger. nt

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

43. Oh I see. Okay then.

You have an "alternative" view of what constitutes factual honesty. Is that better, dear?

[stillcool]

46. I think Reverend Wright via his press conference...

had consequences. "He sat in that church for 20 years"...what does that mean? Because you heard, or didn't, a few sermons you feel knowledgeable to 'judge' not only Wright..who is but one of the preachers there...but every person who participated in that community Church? Because Oprah did not like the church...for whatever reason..that means no one should?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

5. Sigh. So Richard Cohen has found another opportunity to bash Obama.

Amusingly, it is the first time I see him care about gay issues, and I guess it is not a surprise he found a way to link that to Farrakhan.

While I hate the Warren choice and would have hoped Obama did not make it, let's be clear about something. This is NOT about Warren being anti-gay. This is about Cohen being anti-Obama.

[Buzz Clik]

7. That analysis is not limited to Cohen.

Some of those stirring the pot at DU have a similar problem.

[Mass]

10. It may be true, but at least, most people here who have shown strong feelings have an history

of writing and caring about this issue. I am still looking for Richard Cohen's offended columns concerning Proposition 8 or any other topics concerning gay rights for the matter.

Which is why I find his column for the least interesting, including the connection with Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright.

This said, that does not make the choice of Warren less offensive. Just trying to be lucid on Cohen's reasons for this column.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Excellent point.

[ErinBerin84]

17. that's how I feel too.

[Captain Hilts]

26. And Warren's also anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, etc. He's spread a wide swath of hate.

And Obama's giving him a spot on the biggest television event since JPII's funeral to flog it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Because it's only okay to be against Obama's church, right Mookie?

Sure, the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Mormon religions, etc. have espoused some rather nasty and crazy views and done some terrible things and all but it's really mean and wrong to be against them. But let a black preacher in his 70s say some unflattering things about America and white people*...well that's different. :sarcasm:


* I watched several of Wright's sermons (in their entirety - which I'll bet you haven't) and the only reprehensible thing he said IMHO was about Natalee Holloway (the young woman who disappeared in Aruba). He made the comment that she went down there to "give it away". He was highlighting the difference in media coverage on crimes against white women vs. women of color.

[Mass]

50. Not saying that Obama was right. I was talking about Richard Cohen motives.

Both can be wrong, you know. Obama by choosing Warren and Cohen because his motives are not what he claims them to be. May be it is too hard to understand for some, but it should be a simple concept that the ennemy of your ennemy is not necessarily your friend.

[otohara]

6. Cohen Standing Up For His Gay Sister

and how sad it is, that his sister canceled her inauguration party because of Warren.

If one GLBT person and others who were planning parties and celebrations come January 20th are canceling due to Warren, you can bet others are doing the same.

The Warren news has taken some of the excitement out of the day for many and completely ruined it for many GLBT Obama supporters.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Really? The endless bitching about McClurkin didn't dampen spirits?

The assessing blame on Prop 8 to all African-Americans (that includes Obama, btw) didn't sprinkle a little urine on the cornflakes?

But Warren ruined everything. How sad.

[The Traveler]

11. Blessed are the peacemakers

Fact 1) The prejudices and fears of evangelicals produce political opposition to establishment of gay rights. This political opposition is sometimes quite effective ... witness the Prop 8 debacle.

Fact 2) Prejudice and fear of this sort must be confronted directly, to be sure.

Fact 3) Prejudice and fear of this sort must while being confronted directly by some be soothed by others. Would Martin Luther King had been as politically effective, for example, had there not also been Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and other practitioners of direct confrontation? And do we forget now that before he was assassinated, there was significant debate in the civil rights movement as to the effectiveness of non-violent protest versus direct confrontation or even violence?

It is not a perfect analogy, and loses its usefulness the instant we try to apply it as one. Still, it seems to me that Obama has (like King to a great degree) attempted to place himself in the middle in an effort to engage both sides in discussion. Of course, this is likely to (and has) produce controversy and anger on both sides of the divide.

But it is difficult to see how else to make significant progress on the matter. Obama's strategy is one of engagement and reasoned discourse to reconcile the long irreconcilable. It may or may not work, but I do not see it as a moral failure on his part.

The tactic of beginning this with his inauguration is perhaps excessively audacious and, frankly, at THIS moment I am PISSED OFF that Warren is going to be so prominently involved. This has really rattled my gay and lesbian friends and I completely understand why. There will be other ways and other times to start an engagement of the sort I describe above, and it could have been done in a fashion that was far less repugnant to those who have suffered under the cruelty Warren and others of his ilk have advocated.

Do I want Obama to engage the evangelicals? Of course. But in doing so, he needs to not dump all over his supporters.

Trav

[Buzz Clik]

13. This is a great post.

this is likely to (and has) produce controversy and anger on both sides of the divide.

The anger and division has been there forever. Perhaps uninentionally Obama has ripped away the secrecy of these problems and put them on the table. Hopefully, the current angry dialog will end up being productive.

[ErinBerin84]

14. one could only hope

Tucker Carlson was saying the other day (as much as I hate him) that it was a conversation he had with someone that changed his mind about gay marriage. (I still find the choice of Rick Warren offensive and the dialogue produced does not negate it, but I do think it's a conversation that needs to be had in public. I've been very proud of the activists who have spoken on this issue the last couple of days on tv).

[EFerrari]

29. King did not embrace racists, literally or figuratively. n/t

[The Traveler]

45. He did talk to them

and used scripture skillfully to build his argument. Again, the analogy is imperfect (as all are) and becomes useless when applied blindly. Obama is "in", whereas King was "on the out side", for one thing. There are other differences. For me, the salient point of the comparison is the willingness to mix confrontation with amiable discussion. This can be effective. For example, apparently, King's message and method had a profound effect on (of all people) George Wallace, who came to repudiate his segregationist belief structure in later years.

But another point of my analogy (apparently missed) is that King's effectiveness could be due in large part to the more confrontational elements of the civil rights movement. In my view, both the Ghandi-inspired non-violent protest movement of King AND the confrontation-prone tactics of other groups were essential to eventual success.

In that context, I believe the correct approach is to hold Obama's feet to the fire on matters of human rights (gay rights being a category of that) and turn the heat up on the evangelicals. If Obama wants to seduce them with sweet reason into a just and humane position on these issues, that is fine. But if he thinks he can just slough the matter, he needs to be corrected.

Trav

[EFerrari]

49. Appreciate the clarification, The Traveler. Thank you.

I mostly agree with you with the caveat that putting someone like Warren on our national stage on a day when unity really is the theme is not a negotiation. It is implicitly a promotion of this incredibly objectionable man.

[The Traveler]

51. Warren is repugnant to me

I am working hard to retain a reasonable view of a move I find objectionable and which I cannot but regard as a hard slap in the face of my gay friends and an affront to all who value human freedom and dignity.

This is turning out to be a hard effort. Bigotry is bigotry. Human rights are human rights. I might have more respect for Warren were it not for this consideration. The Bible seldom mentions homosexuality ... a handful of brief references. Both testaments are replete with admonitions to love and care for the poor. When evangelicals expend energy on these matters proportionate to the Biblical references for each, then I might have greater respect for their belief systems.

Keep yer powder dry, bud. We are in a better position for progress after November, but it is still going to be a long, uphill fight.

Trav

[GarbagemanLB]

15. I agree. I wish Bush had 4 more years now. Obama's presidency is a failure.

:rofl:

[Egnever]

16. Yea you hate it.

Riiight.

The media and many on here are doing everything they can to erase the memory of the mandate Obama walked into office with. Its good to know you and cohen are doing your part to help with that.

[Uzybone]

20. Fuck Cohen, he has graduated form doing hit pieces on Gore and Kerry

now Obama is in his sights.

[AtomicKitten]

21. I wouldn't miss this historic inauguration for anything in the world.

[Captain Hilts]

24. I don't think he's going to take his shirt off. nt

[AtomicKitten]

27. hey, a girl can dream ;)

[AntiFascist]

22. I think Obama has to focus less on bringing together America under Christianity...

(which in and of itself should be highly offensive to non-Christians) and focus instead on more practical issues such as the dramatic solutions needed for the economy, which most Americans would feel has a much higher priority. I know that Rick Warren has his own solution to economic problems, but it has more to do with blaming Americans themselves for the situation. Again, this is something most of us (outside of Orange County, California) don't need right now!

[blogslut]

25. Mr. Cohen's outrage appears to be selective

[Captain Hilts]

28. Yes, it is, but Warren's isn't. It includes: women, Jews, Catholics, anti-evolution....nt

[blogslut]

30. Similar views to the two men pictured

I just find it interesting that Mr. Cohen is angered by Warren when I'm pretty sure he was never angered by the way previous presidents have also met with hate mongers disguised as religious leaders.

Why do you think that is?

[Captain Hilts]

31. They didn't speak at the inauguration. We also expect more of PE Obama. nt

[blogslut]

34. Ahh, I see

So, it is the inauguration that makes the difference. Where was Mr. Cohen when Billy Graham (less caustic, still a anti-gay) spoke at both Bill Clinton's inaugurations?

[Captain Hilts]

35. As much as I dislike Graham and never supported his participation, his message wasn't so incendiary.

I never heard him declare specifically that Jews and Catholics were going to hell. I'm not aware of him equating gay behavior with pederasty, etc....

I'll also add that while I didn't want him speaking at inaugurals either, he was an old crank. Rick Warren is a man a couple of generations younger. The US is changing around him and he is among the forces trying to take us back to the '50s when women could not control their bodies and Jews and Catholics were hated for 'talkin' funny' in church.

Graham is a leftover of a past age - Rick Warren's trying to take us back there and Obama's giving him a stage to do so.

[GarbagemanLB]

36. Wow, all that twisting and bending to excuse Bill Clinton. Amazing.

[Captain Hilts]

37. No. I'm not. I wasn't all that excited about Clinton when he was elected...

and he governed in a more conservative era. So, I expected a lot less, to be frank. The Dems hadn't the majority they now have and hadn't pasted the R's in two consecutive national elections.

Obama is supposed to be something new, and he's giving publicity to this creep. Warren's a creep. It's that simple. I have many conservative friends. Very conservative, and they're not creeps.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. Damn! You've just made one of the most twisted justification pretzels I ever seen!

I'm impressed.

[blogslut]

39. You'll get no argument from me

As I have stated, I would prefer there be no religious aspect to our elected official's public events at all. Although I will disagree with you on the comparison of Graham and Warren. I find Warren is very much like Graham - intolerance disguised by a gentle voice and a smile. Mr. Graham is less of an old fossil than he is the beneficiary of the pre-YouTube era.

EDIT: spelling

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. Graham was not the benign avuncular minister he's been made out to be.

Read the book "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet, if you haven't. It's an eye-opening expose' of the most powerful religious leaders of the past century and how they wield their influence in government.

[nichomachus]

47. No one is angered by Obama "meeting with" Warren

That's not the issue here

[gordianot]

41. I find myself agreeing with the old adage about mixing politics with religion.

They do not mix well. Organized religious voting blocks will eventually destroy the Republic.

[polichick]

44. Well, I do think Barack uses religion purely for political purposes.

[alwysdrunk]

48. That's all it's good for

This is America. He's doing what he has to do.

[bluedawg12]

52. At the expense of gays?

But it sure helps raise Ricks profile.
....
The Rev. Rick Warren will be the featured speaker at the Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Service in Atlanta the day before he gives the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration.

The 10 a.m. service at Ebenezer Baptist Church on Jan. 19 is the highlight of nearly more than a week of events to fete Atlanta’s famous son.

Warren, a Southern Baptist, pastors the 20,000-member Saddleback Church in Southern California and wrote the best-selling “The Purpose Driven Life.” During the presidential campaign he hosted a nationally televised talk on values with Obama and his opponent, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain.

Warren opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights, and Obama’s decision to have him give the inaugural invocation has drawn criticism from some liberal groups and gay rights activists.

...

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stori...

[IndianaGreen]

53. Excellent point about Farrakhan!

Remember Hillary grilling Obama on his inability to renounce and denounce Farrakhan? I can't believe I sided with Obama on that debate and roasted Hillary on this board. My apologies to Hillary's supporters, you may have had a point, just as Richard Cohen made in his column.