At his press conference on Thursday, Barack Obama for the first time addressed the flurry of protest that has erupted over the choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation.
Stressing his own advocacy of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, the president-elect raised a relevant anecdote from his biography as a defense.
"A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion," he said. "Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/obamas-talking-points-on_n_152056.htmlI have read more than one thread where the argument against outrage at the planned Warren invocation is stated as, “ But it is only a few minutes on the podium, what’s the big deal?”
Someone usually replies, “ But it’s symbolism! It reflects an undeserved honor.”
Invariably, that argument is met with some version of, “ Get over it, it’s just a prayer!”
However, the reasons given by PE Obama himself for the selection and invitation of Warren is loaded with symbolism.
1.) A return favor for inviting then candidate Obama to debate McCain at Saddleback Church. Symbolism? Check!
2.) That “dialogue” at Saddle Back, which was in reality a debate, and PE Obama tells us that dialogue is, “part of what my campaign's been all about...” Symbolism? Check!
3.) PE Obama tells us, that the Warren invitation will set the tone for his administration, creating “an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable.” Symbolism? Check!
4.) Further, PE Obama postulates, that a climate of civil dialogue will then allow his administration to, “focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.” Symbolism? Check!
So,
we see symbolism in the Warren selection.
We are told the exact meaning of the symbolism by the President Elect, himself.
Yet, when we disagree with the
meaning of the symbolism, we are told by some, “Hey, it means nothing. It’s not symbolic of anything. It’s just a prayer.”
Schizophrenogenic! It make one crazy.
Most of us know the arguments about why we disagree with the meaning of that symbolism. No need to revisit that at the moment.
We in the gay community, broadly speaking, know that the invitation is symbolic.
We know that, how we see that symbolism and the official version are at mismatch.
In fact, that difference of opinion is the source of a great deal of our frustration.
Putting that aside, there may be another, larger, question.
Why does the invocation and benediction have to be political and loaded with political symbolism? Because it surely is. Most of us see it.
Warren the pro- Prop8 invocator balanced by the good guy, Reverend Joseph Lowery, with his “progressive record on LGBT issues.”
Why does the Invocation and Benediction, if there must be such things at a civil function, have to be laden with political meaning?
To those who ask us, “Well, who would you want there, some progressive? Some openly gay pastor?”
Not necessarily.
If we must call down a higher power with an invocation and if we must bless the inauguration with a benediction, fine.
However, why couldn’t those functions be performed by some humbler servants of a higher power, without all of the Byzantine political subtext and political symbolism?
Perhaps the pastor of a small church, a local parish priest, a Rabbi from a small congregation, an Imam from a local mosque or perhaps a Pagan priest/ess? One, two or all of them?
If we absolutely feel the need to mix Church and State, then why not keep the political symbolism and political sub-text out of a purely spiritual activity?
Having mixed the spiritual with the civil- secular and by allowing “political symbolism” to creep into it, the politics of the thing has overshadowed the spiritual aspect and we now fight like a pack of dogs over a bone as to what the political message really is.
Because the political aspect is symbolic and being
purely symbolic it is politically non- functional.
It is not to be confused with real dialogue.
It says nothing about the potential for civil discourse at a later time.
What it says is, that this is a symbolic honor to an open enemy of a segment of voters and the invocation is incidental to raising Warren’s public profile. Now that’s politics!
I think that’s why this Warren thing has backfired, to a large extent. A spiritual function became politicized.
Thoughts?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
