.
When should we exercise tolerance? What opinions and behaviors are so bad that we cannot tolerate them? What is so bad that we should pass laws to prevent it?
These three inter-twined questions are facets of the central question of government: Who decides?
In our heart of hearts, we all would like to be the one who decides. In fact, most of what liberals dislike about the religious right is the right’s tendency to express their opinions on these questions so loudly, coupled with their efforts to turn those opinions into law.
My husband likes to say, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.” But if you think that abortion, even the morning-after pill, is killing a human being and that human life is sacred, that attitude is literally obscene. So we’re never going to be able to bring people who believe that into a circle of others trying to find a compromise.
What brought this to mind is the furor over Barack Obama’s invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural. Warren is not only anti-choice, he believes that homosexuality is beyond the pale. He strongly supported Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that rescinded the right of homosexuals to marry, a right that had been recognized by the state Supreme Court only months before.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gendered communities are understandably up in arms at this invitation. To them, Warren’s opinions and actions are so bad that they cannot tolerate them. And they’re asking Obama to prove that he’s on their side by un-inviting Warren. So far, the President Elect has refused.
And I’m not sure he’s wrong.
I suspect he invited Warren in an effort to make it clear to evangelicals that he will listen to them with respect. In return, he will ask them to listen to other opinions with respect. With respect, he hopes, will come tolerance. With tolerance will come an understanding that the problems that cannot be fixed should never be used to prevent resolution of the problems that can be.
This is a core belief that Obama has articulated many times. In that wonderful speech four years ago that introduced us to his soaring belief in the American character, he said that there was more that united us than divided us. That we were not red states or blue states but the United States of America. That we have to find a way to get beyond the toxic politics that are poisoning our society.
That’s the change he promised us.
I hope we have the wisdom – and the courage – to help him bring it about.
.
5 comments:
As is almost always the case, I do agree with you. Unfortunately our brand of tolerance has to do with "live and let live". Our conservative counterparts are more about "live as I live". The divide is wide. As a tolerant person I absolutely understand what they believe and why. I also understand what happens when a society legislates morals based on religion. I cannot live with that. Freedom of religion is good, forcing any religion on all is not.
I'm not gay, but I am a gay rights supporter and I'm unhappy with Obama's decision to to allow Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Let's say he had chosen an avowed racist to give that invocation. How would we respond to that? Yet, we want our gay and lesbian friends to roll over and play dead by accepting that this man will play a prominent role in the first major act of a president who promised change.
Further, as a pro-choice person, I do not accept that Rick Warren will be leading a prayer at this inauguration. He hates everything I stand for. Consequently, he hates me.
Barack Obama seems to think that reaching out to people like Rick Warren will pull them into the liberal fold. It's been my experience that the people who share Warren's ideology don't budge from their beliefs. Uncompromising, they expect the rest of us to come to them.
I saw the movie Milk yesterday and watching that story unfold on the screen only strengthened my quest for equality for gays and lesbians. Being tolerant doesn't mean that I give up my core beliefs about equality. Rick Warren can believe what he wants without my interference. However, this doesn't mean that I will quietly sneak off into some liberal closet while a man who despises what I stand for stands to pray for the man I put my hopes in.
I am gay, and I only have one question. Would Obama have stuck to his guns if the person he selected to present the invocation were an anti-semite?
I feel that by selecting Rick Warren to be the first voice heard in the inauguration, Obama has thrown the gay community under the bus.
I truly believed that change was coming. Now I realize that he is just the same old "tell them anything to get elected" politician.
I'm so mad I'm not sure that I can ever again become in the political process.
People who are not gay do not understand how this action hurts.
Personally I would have liked to seen Obama skip the whole invocation part of the inauguration as an agnostic who leans strongly towards atheism I have a mild dislike of most religious leaders. At the same time generally "tolerant" their views as that is what one should do in civilized society.
As for Rick Warren specially I can see where the LGBT community has a dislike for the man, but as religious figures go he is fairly moderate, the number of prominent religious leaders who both support full equal rights for gays and is also pro choice and no doubt be counted on one hand? do Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton support marriage for gays? and if Obama had chosen either of them their would be outcries over them also.
Dave --
As an agnostic, I thoroughly agree with you. I don't see why we have to have prayers every whip stitch. I could do without a Congressional chaplain. It frosts me that my taxpayer dollars support this office, but I know how important it is to many people, so I keep my mouth shut for the most part.
Post a Comment