Even God might be enlightened!

Deepak, you write "I understand Obama's justification for inviting Warren--it's a gesture of non-divisiveness". That comment was a little striking for me to read at the end of your article in which you are criticizing religion (and rightly so) for being divisive. I can't help but feel that Obama's gesture is what it is--it is him doing exactly what I predicted he would do in another thread shortly after his election--and that is, disappointing all those who thought he would deliver miraculous change. But anyway, why did gay people place their hopes in him in the first place? This is what I tried to point out--that people are/were infatuated with Obama without any "reason" to back up their hopefulness.

Obama it seems is following the directive in the Wisdom Based Presidency Papers to Embrace and Transform to not to reject or exclude. He has even surprised me at his adherence to the guidance, then again he is not ordinary being.

I am sure it will be a learning experience for all.

Just one more comment: Isn't there some other religious person Obama could have picked--someone who is truly in touch with God? There must be many people across the land who are truly God-loving people. In fact, I know a few myself. I guess we should be impressed that he picked someone who wrote a very insipid self-help book? Rather than someone who truly lives a meditative life and understands the love of God? Again, it is like my father always said "the world is run by C students".

Just wanted to clarify that statement: I am not saying all self-help books are insipid.

Hi Deepak and Everyone,

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if folks quit parading around "their god," "their moral beliefs," like it was the newest style, the fad, all the rave.. man, god....jesus, bless me father for i do sin, and, you, are the greatest, and, I am so blessed and I watch my neighors to make sure they do no wrong to make me cursed, and, god, jesus, I'll make sure everyone sees this coat I wear for I wear it proudly for I am good, and, right, and, well, I am working on humble but it eludes me, still.....

really, I can't tell you how nice it would be if Pastor Rickied just bowed his big ole head in silence for three very long quite minutes while we all paid our due respect to the wonder of wonders.....all of them.....:))))ahhhhhhhhhh.

correction......that is quiet minutes..

There's something to be learned here.

I think Obama is giving us a very good example of how a wise person exercises tolerance and inclusion of someone(or group) we might not agree with.

We should all take notes.

God Bless America

"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Words and music by Irving Berlin
© Copyright 1938, 1939 by Irving Berlin
© Copyright Renewed 1965, 1966 by Irving Berlin

-You may not need God to Bless America but I do and I'm glad that Pastor Warren is the man to do it.

Correction,"it's Liberty and Justice for all", not tolerance for all, because you don't seem to be tolerant at all of fully 1/3 of practising Christian Americans.

Please just ban me, take me out of my misery IB Admin

Steve

God Bless America

"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Words and music by Irving Berlin
© Copyright 1938, 1939 by Irving Berlin
© Copyright Renewed 1965, 1966 by Irving Berlin

Steve

As someone who was raised Catholic, I do have to add that it saddens me that many will equate Warren's hateful statements with Christianity.
But...anyway.
My feeling, and it may be naive, as I am certainly not as well-versed in politics as many here, is that Obama is just looking 4 years into the future, looking for votes, now that the gay people helped elect him, he is moving on to the ever-growing evangelical base hoping he can win their vote and make it 8 years in office.
Or perhaps he is just trying to wrap his arms around everyone in one loving embrace.
Perhaps now some will honestly examine what his "politics of inclusion" really means.

Below according to Deepak are not considered America's true virtues:

1. Liberty
2. In God We Trust
3. E Pluribus Unum (From Many, One)

What people who elected Obama failed to understand is that change can only occur when someone takes a stand. None of this oh everyone's view must be tolerated. Not so. A person needs to say "this is right. this is wrong."
Change does not come out of being a "people pleaser".
Gays naively put their faith in him.
Anyway, I am not even a gay rights activity, but I still feel bad.

"activity" should say "activist"

I hope I won’t tread on anyone’s toes by jumping in here because I’m not gay and I’m not American. However, I’ve been reading the debates over what will happen to gay rights under Obama - in light of the recent heartache over proposition 8 and the controversy over Rick Warren - and I thought it might be interesting to compare the Labour government’s effect in Britain.

For what it’s worth, I believe you should never give in to bigotry on any level, you should never settle for second best and you should never stop fighting for complete equality. That said, change can come by degrees. Sometimes it’s hard to see the wood for the trees and I think the bigger picture under Obama will far outweigh any individual set backs over the next few years.

You now have a popular leader who is openly supportive of gay people. He talks about them like they are ordinary human beings who deserve equal rights as a matter of course. That shouldn’t be something special, but given the last eight years, it is. He mentions them in his speeches. He will be seen meeting with gay people and treating them as friends or as qualified statesmen and woman. Do not underestimate the cultural shift this will bring. The frustrating thing is it’s a drip drip effect, not a clean sweep, but change will come.

In Britain, there has been a massive shift over the last eleven years. This isn’t all brought about the by the government but I believe its laws and statements, even when relatively lukewarm, have had a huge impact. It’s far from perfect, I have many criticisms of Labour, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, but the accumulative effect of Labour policy has meant that we are living in a different country today for GLBT people than we were ten or eleven years ago.

I thought it might be interesting to track some of the changes in Britain in the last eight years. Not all the issues are the same for you. All these changes came slowly – it’s not anything astounding, but I believe it shows that progress builds on progress when you have a (moderately) porgressive government and, as MLK put it, ‘the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice.’

UK Gay Rights Timeline...

2000
Armed Forces Ban Lifted

The Government lifts the ban on gay personnel in the army, navy and airforce.

2001
Age of Consent Equalised

The age of consent is equalised for gay men from 18 for male-male couples and 16 for heterosexual couples, to 16 for both (oddly, there was never age of consent at all for lesbians, see 2004).

Equal Adoption Legislation Passed

Unmarried and same-sex couples are allowed to adopt children as a couple, across the UK.

2003
Section 28 Removed

A notorious law stating that schools and other local council authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or promote the teaching in school of "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship," whatever that may mean.

This law was often used by school teachers as a defense against supporting children facing homophobic bullying. It was thrown on the scrapheap in 2003. In 2008, the government has been cooperating in efforts to introduce anti-homophobic bullying strategies to all schools. Given the suicide rates of young gay teens, where is the campaign for similar school strategies in the US?

2003
Employment Anti-Discrimination Law Passed

It becomes illegal to discrimnate on grounds of sexual orientation in employment across the UK, with a few exceptions for religious posts.

2004
Sexual Offences Act Passed

This act removed any loophole laws which unfairly discriminated against gay sex. For example, although unlikely to be enforced in modern times, a ‘gross indecency’ clause technically banned group sex between consenting men in private, even though the latter is perfectly legal for heteros. Hey, whatever floats your boat. The law also cleared the names of anyone convicted of these offences in the past and finally acknowledged that gay women have sex, giving them an age of consent - 16, like everyone else.

Civil Partnerships Law Passed

Not marriage, but it gave same-sex couples the same rights as married couples across the whole of the UK. It was supported by all the political parties and the main newspapers and there was an air of celebration and pride across the country on the day it came into effect in 2006.

2005
The Equal Provision of Goods and Services Law Passed

To my mind, one of the biggest steps. This law was passed after a charity worker was refused a double bed in hotel and bombarded with homophobic emails when he tried to rent a room for himself and his male partner. With the exception of a handful of religious ceremonies, it is now illegal to refuse to offer any service to a gay person or couple if you would offer the same service to a heterosexual person or couple. From adoption services to hospital treatment, dating agencies to holidays, it’s all equal now. See Stonewall UK’s cheerful booklet on the subject here: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/the_colour_of_your_money_final.pdf Again, I’m surprised there aren’t visible campaigns for such a law in the US.

2006
Conservative Party Supports Gay Rights

David Cameron, the newly elected leader of the UK Conservative Party (our equivalent of the Republicans), states that the Conservatives will be supportive of gay rights and will actively seek to attract gay candidates and gay voters. He applauds the introduction of civil partnerships. OK, in general I think he’s a cynical, lightweight pillock, but it was still a fairly momentous step for a party that has previously consistently opposed most gay rights legislation and used it as a wedge issue. There are still many bigots in the party but they’re increasingly becoming an embarrassment to the mainstream Conservatives.

2008
IFV Law Changed

Parliament voted to remove a clause in the law which requires infertility treatment providers to consider the "need for a father," a clause often used to deny lesbian couples IVF treatment.

2008
Incitement to Homophobic Hatred Law Passed

A controversial law (which some gay rights advocates opposed on grounds that it curtailed free speech) passed this year, banning the incitement of homophobic hatred. The law is designed to cover serious attempts to insight hatred of gay people, not merely use of language which causes offense, and there are loopholes for religious teachings.

Army Becomes Diversity Champion

In 2008, the army became one of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions, joining the Navy and Airforce in actively encouraging and supporting gay recruits.

"General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said: "I am delighted that the Army has become a member of Stonewall's Workplace Programme. One of the Army's six Core Values is 'Respect for Others' and it is therefore our absolute duty to treat our fellow soldiers as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Discrimination against those in the Army who are lesbian, gay and bisexual does not give them a chance to contribute or to play a full part in the teams that are vital for our success on operations. Respecting others is therefore part of the trust that has to exist between soldiers and the Nation's values of tolerance, decency and quality must be reflected in the Army. We look forward to working with Stonewall"

Government Supports UN Declaration for the Universal Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Worldwide

What it says above. Non-binding but a symbolic step. The first UN statement to recognise gay rights. Your current government is refusing to sign, along with Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and other beacons of human rights.

To Sum Up...

We now live in a Britain where gay relationships are recognised, discrimination is illegal in all areas of employment, goods and services, hate speech is banned and the two dominant political parties broadly support gay rights. The opponants of the repeal of Section 28 and the army ban were hysterical in the ninties but now that the laws have passed they've all but vanished. Most people support anti-homophobic bullying policies in schools. Change brings change. Recent surveys have shown a majority of British people now support gay marriage, not just civil partnerships, because they have seen the joy that civil partnerships brought, so even if civil unions isn’t what you want, it is a genuine step in the right direction.

I'm not trying to paint the UK as a paradise because it's far from that but in those around me, I have seen a massive shift in opinion. Even with those who are in the categories most likely to discriminate, the older, more conservative, religious generation, many now see homophobia as something just plain unpleasant. The more the law changes, the more people feel able to come out. This is the crucial point – it is easy to hate some hypothetical, distant minority, but the more they are talked about and the more you realise that one of ‘those people’ might be your next door neighbour, your doctor, your niece, your old school friend or your son, the harder it is to remain bigoted. I believe Obama's policies and actions will push the US in this direction.

About Warren...

For comment from one of the most prominent gay UK websites, see here: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10011.html

I’m in two minds about this but I will make two points: 1. you cannot change to minds of the bigots if you don’t even speak or listen to them and 2. during his time in office, Tony Blair was worryingly close to the anti-gay conservative evangelical Bishop James Jones, who supported Section 28 and protested against the election of an openly gay bishop. In recent years, Rev Jones has taken a rather different tone... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/05/religion.world

Here's a Right Wing *intellectual" perspective by John Henke of The Next Right:

"Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural ceremony may seem like a nice overture - a reassuring gesture - to the middle and the Right, but it is stirring up a great deal of grief on the Left.

This is EXACTLY what Obama intends."

...

"Clinton faced an opposition Congress, so he had to moderate on policy. Obama faces a friendly Congress, so he has to moderate on rhetoric.

I'm not sure why this rhetorical moderation is still a surprise to anybody. Obama has been doing this for awhile: he praised Reagan, recognized legitimate grievances of opponents of affirmative action, affirmed the excesses of New Deal/Great Society liberalism. But while each of those set aflutter the hearts of independents, moderates and the Right, none of them involved actual policy changes.

Most people have only a very superficial intersection with politics, so trivial gestures - like inviting an evangelical preacher to deliver the invocation for a Democratic President - are powerful. They send the signal to a low-information public that Obama is one of them, sympathetic to them, respectful of them...without actually requiring substantive political concessions of the Obama administration. And if the noisy Left cries foul at Obama's un-progressive rhetoric...well, so much the better for the substantive progressive agenda."

***

This view is also presented by the left wing intellectuals like Chris Bowers at Open Left:

"There is a widespread theory that Obama is using symbolic gestures, such as having Rick Warren as a featured speaker at the inauguration the "symbolism" of keeping Robert Gates as Sectary of Defense, in order to provide himself political cover for passing left-wing legislation. So, conservatives get symbols, such as the person managing the largest federal department of all, but progressives will get policy. According to this theory, progressives who are upset with Obama over one thing or another are childishly upset over symbols, and ignoring the progressive reality of the governing to come."

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=4C15DA7C08E5B809A376F212EA0B6631?diaryId=10501

***

Bowers, unlike Henke, is skeptical(quiet rightly imo) about Obama's policy moves, though.

PS. Excellent post by Assaf(#15)

Rule to live by: If it's about politics, and if it gets Deepaks panties in a wad....it's a good thing for the country...

Bring on little Rickie!

Oh...and to ease your troubled little minds...it can't be a mistake to have Rick Warren at the inauguration...you see...Obama is the Messiah...Messiah's don't make mistakes...so slee-eep in heavenly peace....all is well...

:)

ps...rule #2...if it's politics and gets Ruthies panties in a wad...it must be a good thing also... love ya Ruth!!

#16 Irvine,

I would not underestimate the power of symbols and act as if they only appeal to or effect the low-minded. I think if one reflects back on history we can see that that is not the case.
I am sure Obama is attempting to use slick political maneuvers, but that does not make it OK.
Nor does it make it a benign gesture.
It certainly is ironic though, as I can almost guarantee that McCain would not have chosen Warren for the inauguration.

If only Rev. Wright would be invited to give the invocation, then we wouldn't have this kind of outcry, if only. Well the outcry would come from the right, but who cares about them anyway.

Merry Christmas and Norm are you going to have ham or turkey this year?

Cheers,

Steve

Hi, Everyone,

Prop 8 was not at all about inclusion or equal rights for a group of our fellow Americans, they were, to put it nicely, shut out of a justice that is deserved them simply becuase they have a right to it, and not because it is any other American's to "offer."

Barak Obama doesn't believe in marriage for same sex folks and many share his belief. Pastor Rickie goes a lot farther in his perverted little beliefs about gay and lesbians and their moral health.

So, I do not think a whole lot of folk are in a very good mood to want to be taking a lesson in "inclusion" and tolerance from either Barak Obama or Pastor Rickie, right about now.

I think I'll pass on Barak's first lesson and read my own notes on tolerance and inclusion.

And exercise in wisdom, on this one? Not in my book and many other American's book either.

Yes, Skinny, politics is a good bone to chew when one wants to sharpen their canines.....you seem to enjoy the counter punch as well........such a loyal red state republican, you are.... I'm still chuckling over your, "he didn't deliberatly mislead us" .....priceless.:)))

I think we're having ham...going to my mom and dad's. (1/8 mile down the road!) Big gravy, biscuit and scrambled egg breakfast at my house, then we move down to mom's early afternoon and stay the rest of the day.

I just finished, a few minutes ago, an article in Newsweek, where they interviewed a Somali pirate. I couln't help but smile...if Deepak or Gotham read it, we'll get a post about 'root cause' or some such bull, ....about how evil we (US) are, and about how we've caused all the misery in the world. The predictable response of todays pink panty liberal....

Wonder what it's like to live in a Jeremiah Wright, Deepak Chopra world...where you literally loathe the very country by which you've been blessed?

Ah well...just the rambling musings of pre Christmas relaxations....hey if Ruthie can do it...i can too!

Merry Christmas to all....and Happy Hannukah to you Steve!

I just had another thought....

I think Deepak's problem here, is jealousy...

C'mon...think about it. Deepak was all over CNN and whoever else would have him on...he was on the web and in any newspaper that would carry his articles...he was the number 1 disciple to Barack Obama....he was to Barack what John the Beloved was to Jesus...I mean he hung in there...

But....

Who's on the platform at convention? Rick Warren! don'tcha know our Deepak's blood is boiling....bet that vow thingy would be in trouble if he walked around the corner and ran smack into the good pastor....

just a thought....hey, I learned from Ruth...

:)

just read this...by ambasteve....

You may not need God to Bless America but I do and I'm glad that Pastor Warren is the man to do it.

Correction,"it's Liberty and Justice for all", not tolerance for all, because you don't seem to be tolerant at all of fully 1/3 of practising Christian Americans.

Please just ban me, take me out of my misery IB Admin

whaaaaaa...really, steve, you lectured Rayman about pouting....you seem to do a good job yourself:)))))

ya know steve you are reading Deepak's blogs but they are being interpreted through the filter of you own mind, perception and it seems that you are more or less responding to your own intepretations rather than what Deepak is actually saying.......I do that too, sometime I am just to quick to jump the gun and respond to my own interpretation instead of his actual words and meaning.....

Enjoy Pastor Rickie on the bit "I" day.

and skinny...if you want to call my writings rambling musing....knock yourself out!!!!big guy....

now, I have to get a going....

have a good one...ruth

Ruth...that wasn't meant as an insult...I enjoy your writings...yes they are rambling...but enjoyable...now you did write one a couple days ago that made me think you were on crack..but usually you're really good...so please no offense over that...no offense was intended...

:)

Deepak,
People do things that rock the boat and stir up waves. There are many feelings involved and the alchemical pot is agitated. One simply responds from the ground one stands on. Who is right? What is right? There is trust in the process. There is order in chaos.

Love to all this holy day season.

Snow bound in Seattle,

Trish~~

Think of T-r-a-d-i-t-i-o-n
Vows are more sacred than prayers
You see different

.

Btw,
UT lives on

skinny,.....really, I took no offense to your calling my writings rambling muse....actually, the one you are talking about I had a lot of fun writing.....the one where I was rambling on about the fact that if it were not for the "grace of the one" we would all be mushed potatoes by now because we(mankind) have the emotional maturity of five year olds.....yeah...one of me best!!

have a great evening...ruth

Keith,,,,

how are you feeling.....a bit dopey? maybe.

hope the operation was a success.....here is to a fast recovery.....ruth

Hi Keith,

Great to see you posting here :)

UT lives on lol, i hadn't expected it otherwise :)

Well, hope you will be able to make some walks into nature. Will be thinking of you :)

Best wishes from

Mieke

Deepak believes that deep, deep, super deep down he, himself, his highest Self is G_O_D.

And so I am, and you, too. You are God.

How could you, or I for that Mater, be anything else but The Great Nothing?

You are surely reading your own mind just now. C'mon! You know It!

.

An evangelical-minded pastor would say that That

kind of thinking is what got us here today!

Maybe if we intended...nay! We know He meant well.

We know everything about squat, and diddley's God2.

Dephinitiley dopy, dudettes!

Thanks for the get well-wishes, girls!

The catheter is out and I'm just sorta hangin' loose now.

Hey Keith

Glad you are well and hanging loose.
Enjoy your Holidays.

B

Sometimes you have to make the symbolic moves in order to get the real work done. And if these symbolic moves can make getting the real work done, then perhaps the move isn't so bad. Obama may have majorities in the House and Senate, but he definitely does not want to have only Democrats voting for his policies and we shouldn't want that either.

I think Obama is acknowledging that many of Warren's views are consistent with a large chunk of the American people. He does not want them to feel like their voices are not being heard. Warren is only getting a brief platform here, not a position in the cabinet. It's a way for Obama to send the message to evangelicals that he's listening even if he disagrees on many issues.

As for the gay marriage flap, I agree that it should be legal. Unfortunately much of the population does not. Many still want to impose their religious based views on everyone, which is wrong. However, I think the temporary compromise is to offer civil unions that give gay couples the legal rights that they are sorely lacking right now. The younger generation is much more accepting of homosexuals, so gay marriage becoming legal is probably inevitable, but for now let's get people the legal rights they need by allowing civil unions.

Frankly, I don't really care who Obama selects to give his inaugural invocation. The bigger problem is that there's an invocation to begin with.

Deepak Chopra is right.

I'm a realistic person, though, and I don't expect progress overnight, but it'd be nice if there were some token gesture. Like if Obama were sworn in on a copy of the US Constitution instead of the King James Bible. At least it would indicate that the President is accountable to the American people and not to some figure of Christian mythology.

Yep, Obie is throwing around olive branches. Not everyone is going to be happy to receive one if they feel it's insincere.

He could have avoided the whole controversy by just saying the prayer himself. He could have kept it wide open by saying something like "Lord, bless all Americans regardless of their faith and chosen political beliefs and help us all to work together to strengthen our country as we face the challenges of the next four years."

How easy is that? Give Obie the "duh" award for that one!

There is NO controversy-free choice for him otherwise. No matter what religion he chose a representative from, there would be flack, for precisely the reason Deepak names - that when you specify one faith, you imply by omission that faith is superior to others, and therefore, ANY choice is automatically divisive.

And any representative from any faith is either going to have personal views that conflict with some significant group of Americans, or their religious organization will have published views that offend somebody.

That being said, the largest number of religious people in the USA are Christians of some form, Protestant or Catholic.

The fundamentalists that seem to be very politically active are mostly certain sects of Protestants. Their views cannot therefore said to be majority viewpoint, and even if it is, by law their views are not enforceable on any person who decides not to subscribe to their views or to their religion.

Religion and politics are a toxic mix, as Deepak points out. Historically, whenever political action has been taken under the umbrella of a state-supported religion, the effects have been persecution of innocent people. I need not recite the historical litany here, most of you know plenty of examples already.

Separation of church and state is a doctrine that is meant to protect the integrity of religion as much as to protect the rights of the state.

Advocates of state establishment of religion need to understand that integrity of their religion will be compromised if that happens.

American pilgrims broke away from England and the oppressive policies of the Church of England. Many of them came here to get away from the state's interference with their religious practices.

I find it ironic that its the Protestant branches of the same Church of England that are most vocal in opposing church/state separation in modern times.