I've paid as little attention as possible to things like the current kerfluffle surrounding the selection of Pastor Rick Warren to perform the Inaugural Invocation. However, I recently had an exchange that sparked a bit of thought.
A volunteer who had come from California to Las Vegas to carry us through the final days of the campaign wrote asking that I forward his note to those in the "Obama in crowd" with whom I was familiar. After reading his thoughts, I was moved to a few of my own. For his own words, read here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=767378991&ref=profile#/note.php?note_id=39119134286&ref=nf
The truth is, I pay very little attention to these types of issues because what has come to pass for dialogue in this country is anything but. Dialogue has come to mean two or more opposing "experts" presenting individual monologues at increasing volume until the commercial break. Or, in this case, a letter writing protest campaign that does nothing but stir continued controversy for the talking heads to bloviate further until we are all stirred into an irrational frenzy. This sickness started long before I ever bothered following politics, and has undoubtedly culminated in the preposterous situation in which we currently find ourselves. The simple fact is that, if anyone in positions of authority bothered to listen to opposing voices with any seriousness, most of the issues we currently face would long ago have found reasonable solutions or been prevented altogether.
I decided that I, for one, would not shrink from engaging in a discussion, nor would I pay party line lipservice to the cause du jour. And so, rather than perform my perfunctory lie of "yes, I'll pass it on," followed by a quick trip to my trash can, I decided to write a real response, which can be found below. And, since I'm currently unemployed (available for hire?), and will soon be trying to find ways to escape from my family over the holidays (enjoy personal time?), I hereby throw my hat into the ring to be trampled and/or carried aloft. Allow me to present my argument for the Obama Doctrine, and the inclusion of Rick Warren in my 30th birthday party (oh yes, Jan. 20 is actually my 30th birthday party, this inauguration business is just a sideshow).
Hi Kevin,
I have been well, although now getting very bored. Hopefully, there will be something productive for me soon.
As to my ties with the Obama "in-crowd", I was never much in with them. However, I will be happy to pass your note to those with whom I am in touch.
For myself, to be honest, I think the selection of Warren is a good one. The reasons are:
1: While his support for prop 8 is something I firmly condemn, he has played an integral role in moving the evangelical discussion into progressive arenas on issues ranging from climate change to poverty.
2: He is respected in large parts of the evangelical community, and the hopes of preventing further laws similar to prop 8 rest, I believe, in engaging people in dialogue, not in protest or boycott.
3: The greatest need we have in this country is dialogue. It has been the most sorely lacking aspect of governance in the last many years, including the Clinton years. The idea that we should refuse to seek diverse points of view or that shutting out voices of opposition is productive has been clearly disproven. I believe that allowing someone such as Warren to take part, despite a clear disagreement on an important issue, will help to open the lines of dialogue for all of us. I further believe it will allow us to change minds on many issues, just as Warren has been able to bring millions of evangelicals to the causes of environmental stewardship, philanthropy, and other social issues that are too often anathema to the religious right.
4: If we want to live in a pluralist society where ALL voices are heard, and where ALL people are truly equal, then we not only cannot shrink from including those with whom we disagree, indeed, we must seek them out and invite them to take part in the process. Only by including ALL voices and opinions can we hope to win support for our own ideas. The bigotry that you suffer is caused by something not dissimilar from the root of your protest - an unwillingness to engage in a calm and rational discussion with those we oppose or simply do not understand. The philosophy which has produced the greatest progressive results of the last century, Gandhi's non-violent resistance, requires that we show we are willing to do what our opponents are not: engage with and undertake to understand an opposing, and in this case oppressive, point of view, despite our strongest reservations.
In the end, I personally support the selection of Rick Warren, but I will be happy to present your case to those few individuals I know. No one was ever hurt by hearing an opposing point of view. The most important lessons of my life were learned by hearing out my opponents. At worst, I came away having confirmed my own predisposition. Often, I came away with a new perspective that strengthened my own ideas. At best, I was able to open my opponent's mind to a new idea. I worked to elect Barack not because I thought he would value the wise council of those with whom I agree, but because I knew he would seek the opinions of those whom I oppose.
End transmission.
And begin the Obama Doctrine. I for one welcome it. I'm tired of finger pointing, I'm tired of name calling, I'm tired of letter writing campaigns, blustering emails, fanciful ads in the NYT, and all manner of protest. I'm not a partisan warrior. I'm not into holding signs, or yelling, or going home if I don't get my way. If you thought we were electing a partisan warrior, you were looking at the wrong guy. If you want the liberal version of GWB, someone who seeks only complementary council and pushes forward only a fractional agenda, then you're no better than everyone you spit on. If everyone doesn't have a seat at the table, everyone loses the game. I personally am ready to play.
* addendum - just to be clear, I'd like to restate my strong opposition to Warren's stance on gay marriage. If the so-called defenders of traditional marriage really want to protect marriage and hew strictly to biblical teachings, their first real battle has to be for the criminalization of divorce. If you're gonna pick a fight based on religion and not bigotry, that's the one. Nowhere does the bible say that two men or two women can't marry one another, just that they're not supposed to engage in physical intimacy. There are some pretty strong words to be said against divorce in there though. Religious argument against gay marriage is, in my opinion, based in bigotry, not gospel, and the focus on gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage is a white elephant, a flimsy smokescreen for hatemongering and a pathetically thin hypocracy. If you want a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, outlaw divorce first. Oh, but wait. Then you'd be limited in your options too.
No comments:
Post a Comment