Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Three Cups of Tea for Rick Warren
Rick Warren is providing the invocation for the presidential inauguration. As a pastor whose books have been read by tens of millions of Americans and whose voice is respected by an equal or larger number, he has tremendous influence and power. And as an open homophobe who aggressively works to wound gay people in this country (as well as pretty much anybody else who doesn’t believe with his own particular and peculiar recently-invented version of Christian theology) he should be the guy with the bull’s-eye on his back for the progressive movement.
But consider that metaphor for a moment. In Pakistan there are entire regions filled with people who not only hate gays but hate Americans as well, regardless of religion. We've tried bombing them (as the Soviets did, and the British before them). Three consecutive Western empires have tried threatening them, starving them, poisoning them, infiltrating them, and overpowering them - all without success.
And then Greg Mortenson came to one of their villages, had three cups of tea with them (a metaphor for hospitality - they nursed him back to health after a mountain climbing injury - and the title of his best-selling book), and now in dozens of these formerly Taliban-controlled villages the people are rejecting the Taliban, embracing modernity, and openly proclaiming themselves as our friends.
His "weapon" for this conversion? He built schools for their children, particularly their previously-banned-from-school girls.
We pushed the Palestinians on the West Bank to have open and democratic elections, assuming that because they were using the tool of our culture (the secret ballot) they’d vote in people reflecting the values of our culture. Instead, they voted in Hamas, a group that is openly hostile to us and our allies. Hamas’ “weapon” for winning the hearts and minds of the Palestinians? They supported schools, hospitals, and fed and clothed people.
You’d think that we’d have learned from these experiences - particularly those of us who call ourselves “progressives” - that you get your desired results faster when you embrace, engage, and nurture your “enemies” than when you physically or rhetorically bomb them.
Barack Obama has learned that lesson, and is applying it in inviting Rick Warren to perform the invocation for his inauguration. In doing so, he is reaching out a hand to those who today are - out of fear and ignorance - pushing away gays the same way their intellectual ancestors pushed away African Americans when anti-miscegenation laws were supported by most of these same “fundamentalist” Christian churches in the 1950s and 1960s.
Joseph Lowry, who is providing the other bookend to the inauguration with the benediction, is the other side of the balance Obama is bringing to this inauguration. Lowry has said, for example, “The same folks who are against progress for black folks are the folks who are against progress for women and gays and farmers and young people and peace activists. We have to understand it’s one struggle. This is ONE AMERICA, and the sooner we learn that the more effective our world will be.”
And the more effective we will be at changing the hearts and minds of people like Rich Warren and his followers. This is a tremendous first step, and I congratulation Barack Obama on his wisdom, walking metaphorically in Greg Mortenson’s shoes to eventually bring the enemies of America’s true values of love and tolerance over to our side.
- Posted in
75 Comments so far
Show AllBigotry begins at home.
Several children have parents who dont understand responsibility.
Beliefs and hatred have been handed down for generations in families to preserve their illusion of superiority and power, in every country.
These people are using their place in the family and culture to breed these hatred.
Obama is condoning this attitude by putting Warren alongside him.
But I guess to appeal to all sides, to be a truly populist president, you have to engage all sides and not sideline them. It is my hope that is what Obama is trying. To make other side feel comfortable that they are not out there in left field with their rabies.
However, Putting Warren alongside himslef on the podium will not dilute the problem Nationwide. It is symbolic and a small token gesture by the president elect. We have to make interaction happen on everyday, everyperson basis. This only helps Obama's own image.
WE have to make it happen. Of course, any real support from uptop is a big boost to the effort.
Love
Zero
"These people are using their place in the family and culture to breed these hatred.
Obama is condoning this attitude by putting Warren alongside him."
Thanks man. This is what the Obama die-hards refuse to take into account. No matter how many and how blatant the betrayals, we're still being told "Oh shut up and give him a chance !" I'm pretty sure these same die-hards will be telling us the same thing in 2012 when he's up for reelection and the progressive/liberal base is deep in the graves !
It's one America as long as everyone agrees with Hartmann and Obama's corporate handlers as they march lock step to our own collective demise. Warren is just a minor symptom of the disrespect Obama has shown to the people who elected him. One does not erase in bred hatreds by giving a homophobe a platform from which to spew his egregious ideology. Moreover, we live in a pluralistic nation of diverse religious beliefs, not a Christian nation to which all should pay homoage to Warren and Obama.
It is clear that Obama and his wing of apologists are riding the airwaves to keep dissent to a minimum or use their ever growing army of 'yes' men to mop up and attack anyone not lining up in a straight line with their ideology. Right now, Obama and Hartmann have a large following. Followers will remain so forever even as they shift like leaves in the wind.
Freud noted power drives most public officials. Obama and Hartamnn are no exception to Freud's insight. It is all about them, at the expense of the rest of us who actually honor diversity. Obama by naming Warren is spiting on diversity!
History tells a very different story. It was only six years ago when the Republicans controlled both Houses and the Presidency, asserting the end of the Democratic Party. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way. Hartmann is the best used car salseman on the planet. The shallowness one finds in his books, and articles are legendary.
What twisted logic in Mr. Hartmanns article!
And what form dues this wishy-washy "embracing and nurturing" of our foes take? Adopting their policies and views of course! Obama's platform is full of such stuff.
And Mr. Hartmann should speak for himself when he says embracing "modernity" (i.e. neoliberal capitalist consumption) and proclaiming themselves as "our friends" is a good thing. Who'se this "our", kimosabe Hartmann? The Afghani and Pakistani villagers were never MY enemy!
When will Obama "embrace and nurture", even briefly, his considerable mumber of foes to his left???
And, while Joseph Lowery is not a bad pick, a true "bookend", just off the top of my head, might be: Rabbi Michael Lerner, Fr. John Dear, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, Sr. Joan Chitteeser, Sr. Helen Prejean, former Fr. Philip Berrigan; Kathy Kelly; any member of the Christian peacemaker teams...
---USAn---
I agree. While Thom Hartmann has written much that I agree with, I believe he and Obama are dead wrong on this issue.
I would point interested readers to the piece by Michelle Goldberg also published today on CommonDreams, entitled "Rick Warren: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing." I find Goldberg's reasoning much more convincing than Hartmann's wishy-washy musings.
Simply as a matter of intellectual honesty and consistency, I find it impossible to take seriously any anti-gay zealot who claims to base his or her bigotry on the Old Testament. In my experience, their argument is always some variation of the following: "I personally don't have anything against gay people, but it's in the Bible, so my hands are tied."
They are of course referring to the Book of Leviticus, which also states that ants have four legs, that witches should be murdered, that the eating of shellfish is an abomination, and that people with physical disabilities shouldn't be allowed inside churches (to name but a few of the more outrageous passages). If they really "believed the Bible," people like Rick Warren would advocate these things as vociferously as they advocate against gay rights. Of course they don't, because their "religion" is simply an excuse for their bigotry, in much the same way as calling Obama a "socialist" is a more acceptable way of calling him a n****r.
By the way, on the subject of abortion, the Bible actually takes a clear pro-choice position. King Solomon (called "the Wise") says that it's better not to be born than to live a life of misery.
Pretty much every major religion in the world has a prohibition against homosexuality, so you guys need to jump on Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, etc... as well.
Please point me toward the Taoist text that condemns homosexuality. I would be very interested in seeing it (though I sincerely doubt that it exists).
Yours is a common "argument" among Christian apologists. The main reason why we are not "jumping on" Hindus, Muslims, etc. is because Obama did not choose a Hindu, Muslim, etc. to give the invocation.
Your argument is basically: "How can you criticize me when others are as bad or worse? If you criticize me, then you must criticize them as well." I invite you to try to live up to this "standard" in your own life. You might find that you need an extra two or three thousand years for every single one of your conversations...
Sioux Rose
PDJ: Better book ends by far! Or how about a Muslim or Jew? Why is it always Christian IF there is a separation between church and state? Religion is a huge factor tearing our world apart... why not have a poet give the invocation and NO religious "authority" at all!
Oops...
correction - I meant the still-alive Daniel Berrigan, not the late Phil Berrigan...
And to another person's question - I did include a Jew - Michael Lerner, and I am acutely aware of my inability to name a good activist US Muslim cleric. The Imam at our local Islamic Center Kadir Gunduz, is a possbility, but he is still facing a trumped up deportation rap as far as I know.
---USAn---
WOW PJD, you couldn't put together a better list. I would add Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr, of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, NM. He could blow the lid off of Washington, DC and Rome as well. I'll be joining Kathy Kelly at Camp hope in Hyde Park this Januarty.
I agree with Thom on most things. I hope he's right on this one. Can Obama convert these fascists?
Obama is one these corporate fascists.
Thom Hartmann shows yet again that he is merely an apologist for the Democratic Party and capitalism, a glib but shallow thinker willing to say anything to curry favor from the elites.
I could not agree more.
I find self-appointed, self-promoting pseudo-religious leaders like Rick Warren some of the most vile forms of life.
They're right up there with war-profiteers, mass-murderers and child molesters.
But then again False Prophets never make False Profits.
That much said, I really don't care who gives Obama's invocation.
I'm more concerned that Obama won't hold the won't the war criminals in the White House accountable.
Heck, I'm more concerned that Obama won't reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Does Rick Warren support Bush and Cheney being dragged to the Hague for their responsibility in killing a million Iraqis?
Is that too much to ask for a supposed "man of god"?
Uh, I read this article but came out confused. Whose side is this author really on and why is Hartmann acting so wierd lately? He was never like this before. Can someone here tell me what the hell is going on with this otherwise great guy?
The simple answer is:
He's twisting himself into a pretzel in order to support Obama.
It's the Obama Kool-Aid...
Same thing happened during Clinton's 2nd term...
---USAn---
How many of you have read the book? BEFORE you criticize and call it a touchy-feely solution, READ IT!
If you have read the book and still have the views you seem to advocate - like Nixon's famous 'we'll bomb them back to the stone age!', you are sick and perverse examples of US arrogance. You are in that case probably suspect shills of the MIC who want to rake in more greedy profits from never-ending war/
The article only will make sense if you at a minimum, read the book!
But I could be wrong ! But I am most definitely not in this case.
It is so refreshing to have somebody read this book and try to bring it to the mainstream. Treating people as equal human beings with needs is the only way to ever treat them. If the Pentagon and State Department had listened to Mortenson, a whole lot of death and destruction would have been avoided and Saudi Wahhabi influence never would have gotten a foothold in Afghanistan or western Pakistan.
That thinking is not namby-pamby! In fact, it takes more courage to make it happen;
unlike the missile strikes remotely piloted from Nevada and killing of innocents who try to defend their homes when US soldiers blow the door down.
Anybody who commits these crimes against humanity are war criminals.
BTW - another book by a US UN aid coordinator that sends the same message is 'Spy of the Heart' by Robert Darr.
It sounds like an interesting book, you may have a point, but I still don't think it's appropriate for Obama to invite Warren. Why would he invite someone who promotes fear, paranoia, and divisiveness to provide the invocation to his inauguration? Oh wait, it's so all his cabinet members will feel right at home.
God I hope NOT ! I love Thomas Hartmann and I can't believe he's writing like this. I don't believe that this is the Thomas Hartmann that I know of.
Why does the author have to 'be' on somebody's 'side' ? Just asking.
So that I can know who to trust on contributing to better progressive days ahead and who to mistrust as nothing more than party hacks only. If Thomas Hartmann wants to claim that he really is a progressive, he should come clean and straight about it. What's wrong with that?
And for Obama to allow Rick Warren and not Wright to provide the invocation for the inauguration sends a message that Obama's message of hope and change is nothing but a BALD FACED LIE ! Do you like getting BETRAYED like that ?
Reposting my comment from the Air America site....
Yin and Yang: Lowery and Warren
"Why can't we all just get along?" Hey, lets extend our hands and unite America. Enough of the battling in America -- and it starts with the inauguration. Barack is doing his part. Someone tell Kuby this. [AAR's Ron Kuby feels otherwise and is being very vocal.] The way to get rid of your enemies is to make friends of them. And it is a multicolored united America: blue, red, purple: ONE!!
When I was president of Ashtabula (OH) NOW my best friend was the president of Ashtabula Right to Life. She came a ways in her viewpoint because of our friendship. Our daughters were best friends. Identical, no -- but the world expanded.
And, oh, yeah, I have a very special gay brother.
And so we'll have Rev. Lowery and Rev. Warren. Yin and Yang. Let's have some reconciliation. Thanks, Thom!
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
Nice post. Keep it up!
And what about Reverend Wright? He's not immoral compared to those two reverends you mentioned. And what about JIM WALLIS ? Even after all the trouble Jim Wallis went through to help Obama reach out to the religious folks these past 4 years, Jim Wallis is being cast aside as IRRELEVANT ! What the hell do you want for us to do, be a bunch of "buddy bears" and play go-along-get-along like battered wives ?!?
Of course, I'm not surprised since I saw this coming all through the campaign. Obama has always been conciliatory and willing to meet with the right. That's ok on its own. When it becomes very scary is when you realize that you never see the same thing with the left.
Did you ever see Obama go meet with say Iraq Vets Against the War? Or Code Pink? Or the people protesting the Wall Street bailout? Sometimes, its what you don't see or hear that you need to notice, and to me that's what strikes me about this. If Obama was meeting with various groups on the left of the political spectrum, if Obama was talking about bringing the left into his cabinet and making their voices heard, then I could accept that he does the same with the right. But its when you realize that Obama only seems to do this with the right, while the left in Denver was met by riot police to keep them far from Obama, that's when one starts to wonder a bit about what's going on.
Maybe Obama is adhering to the Corleone Family philosophy of "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
What a piece of bull-shit and wishful thinking.
Obama is not co-opting Rick Warren but rather he is trying to get his
blessing and ingratiate himself with him and his followers which
means he is codoning their bigotry and intolerence.
Give positive thinking a try. Maybe Obama is trying to build bridges?
"Give positive thinking a try."
Yeah ?!?!? We're already doin' that and what has Obama done in return? Shoot us down and tell you and me FUCK YOU ! And if Obama keeps this up, I may even vote Republican in 2012 even if it's Sarah Palin and it won't be my fault but your god damned party's fault for pissing us off like that. You've been WARNED !!
"Maybe Obama is trying to build bridges?"
By cutting funding for Amtrak while bailing out Wall $treet and Big Auto? By moving the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and not bringing them home? By hiring more rightwing assholes to his cabinet instead of progressives, liberals, or even true moderates? Oh, he's trying to build bridges alright and they're bridges to nowhere as well. I guess you don't mind getting BETRAYED and ABUSED, do you?
Personally I would rather hear Dr. Wendell Anthony give Barack Obama's invocation. If you want to hear a preacher with passion and compassion give this a listen--it is his introduction of Dr. Jeremiah Wright to speak at the annual fund raising dinner for the Detroit chapter of the NAACP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSTFMl2vlow&feature=related
Poet
Very, very poor analogy, Mr Hartmann and a total disservice to the wonderful, story of Greg Mortenson-----Three Cups of Tea is a truly inspiring and uplifting book. It saddens me to see Greg Mortensen and his story associated in any way, shape or form, with Rick Warren.
What is Hartmann talking about?? I could see Obama having a cup of tea with Rick Warren----but inviting him to give the invocation at his inauguration?? Yikes.
This article does not encourage one to engage in critical thinking, nor does it offer any insights----it simply makes NO SENSE----it's too bad it is taking up space on this (usually thought provoking) site. This is nonsense.
Sioux Rose
SAVANNA: I agree, and he's not just anti-Gay, he thinks all non-believers of his creed are destined for quite a cruel "final destiny." This is a believer in End Times and the whole nonsensical Holy War. Some example to bring to the high office, it's another bone thrown to the rabid pack of right wing Christians HOWEVER it's dressed up. He should have invited a Shaman to smudge the White House of Bush and ask that he, Obama, be cleansed of that atmosphere so that he can perform his functions in clarity and with justice. The guy is selling out so fast, he's another metaphor for where American capitalism (and our economy) is headed...
Even being a die hard Obama supporter, I was initially pissed off at the selection of Warren. But after thinking about it, I may understand the reasons behind it. I think Obama is trying to show that we lefties are not as damned and hopeless as the evangelicals think. In fact, many of us are people of faith. And those of us who are not people of faith are still decent, honest, caring human beings. (Of course, there are really bad people among the ranks of any given religious group.)
Keep in mind that Warren is one of the most palatable and respected of evangelists. If instead Obama had invited someone like Pat Robertson, then I would be singing another tune. I was also wondering what the reaction would have been if Obama had invited a Rabbi, a Catholic priest, or a Muslim cleric. I would have been perfectly fine with any of those choices (except for Robertson) even though I am a Christian mainliner.
Let's think about taking the high road here. If Huckabee had been elected, could you see him inviting a Catholic priest or even someone like Jesse Jackson to do the honors? I don't think so.
If Obama had followed tradition, he would have asked a completely uncontroversial and very safe mainline Protestant. But Obama promised change, and change he is delivering. If you are as pissed off as I was, think about it for minute. As the saying goes, "if you keep on doing what you've been doing, you'll keep on getting what you've been getting." Obama is doing something different.
Hats off to Barack for having the stones to be the bigger man/person and reach out. He's the man.
Savvier political advisors might have told Obama not to take his own press releases too seriously. This is a case where he has done so, at the expense of sound judgment.
This is a slap in the face to anyone who believes that separate is not equal and that marriage is primarily a civil ceremon, and that voters lack the right to use state government to enforce a theological doctrine about who may legally enter such a contract, other than two responsible adults.
"I was also wondering what the reaction would have been if Obama had invited a Rabbi, a Catholic priest, or a Muslim cleric."
Why should there be ANY religious "services" at the coronation ... er, I mean inauguration? Is this a theocracy (yet)? Isn't ours a secular government with separation of church and state?
Keep religion in the churches, mosques and synagogues. Keep religion out of government.
-- EKATON --
If Obama is trying to build some kind of touchy-feely bridge to his gut level opponents, why doesn't he ever have anything to offer to the progressives on the left who have always despised his treacherous neoliberal horse shit?
President-elect Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's "disagreement on social issues." He said this in defense of his selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.
Pastor Warren, a strong supporter of Prop 8 and a vehement foe of gay rights, does not deserve to be elevated to this level of prominence by Mr. Obama. Prop 8 was not a "disagreement on social issues." It was a bold attempt to remove the civil rights of the gay community, to enshrine discrimination in the California Constitution. Mr. Obama should be ashamed of his pandering to bigots this way.
This is entirely the wrong analogy. The victims in this scenario would be the anti-gay religionists, rather than gay and lesbian Americans.
Elie Wiesel urged Reagan not to visit the Bitburg cemetery because members of the SS were buried there. Reagan's purported purpose was to honor German soldiers individually, not the Third Reich.
What Obama is doing here is the equivalent of inviting David Irving to Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Thank you for bringing up the much-forgotten Bitburg incident---for which I remember my outrage over it.
Wow, as they say, wisdom is about embracing the opposites and sometimes it is not easy. This was my post under the Michelle Goldberg article:
I am so disappointed, but President elect Obama has bowed to the typical conservative Christian who dwells on personal salvation, personal sin, pro-life and and anti-gay. These sins of the body are like ants when compared to the social issues of war, empire, poverty and the sins of institutional capitalism.
These conservative "Christians" are the people who Christ referred to as religious hypocrites "straining out nats while swallowing camels!"
President elect Obama should have known better being a follower of Black liberation theology. Black liberation theology is not racist, it is prophetic. In fact, this is much of what rising terrorism is about, the spirituality of liberation from economic and military oppression.
I have always respected Thom Hartman, and maybe this is why I say he may have a point. I'll just have to contemplate a little more about this. We all have a tendency to be too judgemental and lacking in compassion. So again, I will contemplate the opposites. This is heavy stuff.
I need Siouxrose on this one!
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN: I support you 100%. You hardly need my assistance, you've made the point solidly and clearly. Asking a divisive person filled with hate to "lead" the spiritual invocation intended to unite us is a recipe for disaster, it undermines its own alleged purpose, like so many Christians who talk a lot about Jesus while advocating for a president whose policies include absolute annihilation of persons much like themselves. Hypocrisy is now moving into high art in the land of the not very free and much less (this forum excepted) enlightened!
DaveBronstein wrote:
"All Dem Party supporters are cowards, hypocrites, & gutless worms, as this thread so marvelously demonstrates. There is no depth they won't sink to, in their desperation to conjure up shameless & embarrassing excuses for Democrats."
Did you even give this thread a cursory glance? It's at least 3 to 1 against Obama's pick of Rick Warren. Sorry, but your post is a whole lot of hot air.
DaveBronstein is actually correct. You should pay attention to the voting records and outrages of both parties. You'll notice the double standard Dave's talking about.
I do indeed pay attention to the voting records and outrages of both parties. I simply feel that his post was so hyperbolic as to constitute nonsense.
His point about double standards is correct, though obvious (at least to readers of this site). But couching it in abusive language directed at everyone who voted Democrat in the last election is simply juvenile.
I stand by my post.
The important difference here is that the book dealt with reaching out to people that had never been seriously exposed to the kinder and more compassionate face of America. These people had only seen the U.S. through our horribly corrupt multi-national corporations and the "collateral damage" of our bombing raids.
These were not fundamentalist preachers who have blithely ignored every opportunity to see the other side as human beings and show genuine compassion.
In the end, I believe that this is the strategy that has the best chance of defeating terrorism: Do not try to make the true believers into our allies. This is simply a waste of resources. It is much more useful to try to appeal to people sitting on the fence and to support those individuals who are already willing to work with us. In the process, the extremists will become isolated and, possibly, eventually surrender.
It's very sad that, as an African-American, Obama doesn't realize that an injury to one is an injury to all. Thom Hartmann too for that matter.
To make an analogy for Obama's action out of Mortensen's efforts as detailed in his book, which I have read, is pretty outrageous.
Do you for a minute think Warren's theology would allow for a real education - one that embraces inclusiveness in human relationships and freedom of scientific and philosophical inquiry?
The choice of Warren is offensive to anyone who has gone past the eighth grade. And this "we can disagree without being disagreeable" is pap better fed to a bunch of third graders.
If Obama behaves as a damn fool, he richly deserves being called one.
Sadly, there is too much hate here. Too many common dreamers have become common haters who spew venom like so many of the right wingnuts. OMG, it is catching!
Seriously, we're talking five minutes, not a cabinet post for Rick Warren. We're talking holding out a hand. I want to hear what Barack Obama says to help bring people together. Maybe some of the Warren followers might actually hear something and LEARN. Let's all do more healing, please. If more people saw our common humanity there would be no Prop 8s. God help us.
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
So let me get this straight. Asking that Jeremiah Wright should do the invocation instead of Warren is called "hate" ? A lot of us predicted what Obama would fall into and day after day he's only proving us correct no matter how much of a chance we give him. If he had been a real liberal, you'd be hearing the Far Right showing their hate and not their love and barely able to hold glee by now. Don't you get it?