|
I posted this as a response to one of the other threads on here, but I think it deserves its own thread. And I don't think we should get hung up on Rick Warren here. Personally I think the often cited comments by Warren on his implied comparision of gays and lesbians to pedophiles or incestous relationships, because that's a pretty offensive comparision to make.
What I'm really wondering is to those who are opposed to Warren giving the invocation, but still favor an invocation being given, who would be acceptable? And this isn't a hypothetical question, but I'm really wondering where the line gets drawn between those who are acceptable and those who aren't in the eyes of the liberal community?
Obviously, I don't want anyone in the line of Fred Phelps who is vehemently anti-gay, or someone like Pat Robertson or John Hagee, who are just perversions to the Christian religion if you ever saw them.
But say the clergyman/clergywoman at issue either a) is neutral on the issue of gay marriage or b) may have some slight opposition to gay marriage, but doesn't make it a focal point of his/her preaching, and does not oppose things such as civil unions or the right of gays to adopt? Is that still too objectionable? Are we going to make it a requirement that the clergyman/clergywoman expressly endorse gay marriage?
What if the clergyman/clergywoman opposes abortion rights but isn't in favor of gay marriage? Is that still objectionable?
I am a practicing Catholic. I've been Catholic since birth, done the whole CCD thing, and an as adult, I still go ever Sunday. The priest in my parish in my old hometown is someone who I consider to be very progressive. He's almost single handedly organized a "Safe Nights" program for the entire county where different churches have taken in the homeless overnight on given days. He's a strong advocate for social justice, and has even called for universal healthcare as a matter of basic human rights. He's spoken out against things such as the Iraq War and the death penalty. Before becoming a priest, he worked on the Carter campaign and for the DNC, and in private when he's with just my family (as he's become a family friend of my parents) he's been extremely critical of Bush (although he does not engage in partisan politics from the pulpit).
Yet, he does oppose abortion rights, although not in the hellfire and brimstone "Abortion is Murder" type of thinking that some like to associate with anyone who is against abortion. And he doesn't favor gay marriage, although I do remember at least one sermon where he took people to task and compared modern society's treatment of gays and lesbians to the treatment of lepers in Jesus's day. And I frankly think that was a very brave thing to say to a church in an area that tends to be socially conservative.
So, if someone like that were called to give an invocation, is that still objectionable to people? Does the clergyman/clergywoman have to be on the board of NARAL or marching in gay rights parades in order for that person to be acceptable? What is the line that gets drawn here? Who is okay to some people and who isn't? I'm not defending Warren here because I vehemently disagree with the analogies he drew of gay people to incest or pedophilia, but in terms of the greater question, do we have to have an uber-liberal clergyman/clergywoman for some people to be happy?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
