I can understand the dismay that many Obama supporters felt when they heard that pastor Rick Warren will be giving the invocation at the inauguration. Warren supported California's Proposition 8, and gay voters are especially likely to that find offensive given that Warren has compared same-sex marriage to incest and polygamy.
They're not the only ones offended by that kind of talk. In a few years, opposition to same-sex marriage will seem like opposition to racial intermarriage. No serious person these days thinks that it's immoral for people of different races to marry. No serious person thinks it's a "threat to the institution of marriage." No serious person thinks that real love is bound by racial barriers. Within a few decades, that will be the story for same-sex marriage. Mr. Warren is, as they say, on the wrong side of history. And he is certainly on the wrong side of the argument.
That said, everyone should take a deep breath. It's not as though asking Warren to give the invocation amounts to an affirmation of every view he holds. And Rick Warren really is a new kind of Evangelical -- new, at least, relative to the way things have been for the last twenty or so years. On some issues that liberals care about deeply, he and Obama are on the same side.
And there's another thing. During the election, Obama reached across major disagreements with some real success. In particular, he courted Catholics, asking them to look to what they agree on and gently reminding everyone that perfect agreement is hard to find. For many Catholics, disagreement over abortion is hardly just incidental. But Obama won the Catholic vote, increasing the margin by four points over the previous presidential election.
Here's the point: if Obama is going to ask for the support of people who have deep disagreements with him, he'd be foolish and thoughtless if he wasn't prepared to pay them some serious attention. That includes being ready to make symbolic gestures of the sort he made when he invited Rick Warren to give the invocation. Yes: voters like me find some of Warren's views offensive. But we need to keep in mind that the feeling is mutual: Evangelicals and Catholics who were willing to support Obama are just as offended by some of the views that Obama himself holds.
Obama claimed to be a different kind of politician. Reaching across divides was supposed to be part of the package. If you voted for him, that's a big part of what was on offer, and for some of us, a big part of his appeal. I couldn't disagree more with Rick Warren about same-sex marriage. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to admire about him. And if it automatically disqualifies him from playing this sort of ceremonial role, then we're simply turning back to the same old path. Part of what Obama's choice signals is something that we do well not to forget: it's possible to talk with, work with and respect people with whom you have profound disagreements. And if it isn't, then God help us all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Allen,
Very well said. One of the things I like most about Obama is his willingness to respectfully listen to, and try to find common ground with, people that don’t agree with him on issues we know he cares about. To my mind, that’s a characteristic of a confident and great leader. I have very high hopes for Obama’s presidency.
A radio commentator on NPR the other day remarked that in choosing Rick Warren, Obama may have been thinking about reelection in 2012. Evangelicals form part of the Republican core. If he can neutralize some of that support, he may advance his political prospects.
Moreover, if Obama is to lead the nation as a whole, then leading Evangelicals also is something he should do. In the case of that group, many of the beliefs they hold isolate them from mainstream social and scientific thought. Asking Warren to speak may also be a way of offering them a path out of isolation.
Post a Comment