From the Mind of Meegs

I kind of like Rick Warren.

There. I said it. Many people I know, be their political and religious inclinations to the right or to the left of mine, aren't big fans. So they're probably less than thrilled with my stance. But, to be honest, that's kind of why I like him. I think there's a lot to be said for pissing a lot of people off. Most people only like things that they can easily label, name, put in a box, and own. If you've managed to make two completely different groups of people upset for completely different reasons, I say congratulations. You've become your own person. The right is mad that Warren will be blessing Obama's inauguration, and the left is mad that Warren will be blessing Obama's inauguration. Such unified yet disparate outrage can only mean one thing: this is exactly the right decision.

I may not agree with everything Rick Warren says or does. In fact, his opposition to gay marriage--primary cause of the most recent Warren-related whinging--is a stance I quite strongly disagree with. But isn't it our duty, as Americans and as sensible, thoughtful people, to live in harmony with and find common ground with people who don't agree 100% with our every conviction? That's one thing I do respect Rick Warren for. During the election, he held an open, constructive forum where both candidates had the right be heard on issues, regardless of their disagreements. I think Warren's owed the same courtesy.

Fact is, Obama's right. The only way to govern for lasting change is through consensus building. Throwing Warren out on his ear isn't likely to make him change his mind on gay marriage, nor is it likely to make those who follow him change their tune either. If anything, they'll just chat about how their "values" are "under attack" and feel all the more justified in their stance. But what happens if they're brought into a situation in which they might actually have to interact with people who hold other ideologies? What happens if they (hopefully) discover that these people are sensible, thoughtful people, and not shrieking harpies? This hope, that we can all find a way to interact meaningfully despite differences, is the best hope we got. In fact, given the impossibility of building 100% agreement, it's our only hope.

If you think you can do better, if you think you can come up with a pastor whose selection will not offend any Americans, then please. By all means. Let's hear your suggestions.

I'm also not too moved by the notion that Warren shouldn't use the name of Jesus in his prayer. Part of me wants to say that it's a stupid discussion because surely no one is ignorant enough to believe a prayer offered by Warren, a Christian, on behalf of Obama, also a Christian, isn't being offered to Jesus. But I can't quite go that far. Words have meaning, always. And they have meaning beyond the intent in which they are offered.

My problem with it is this. The whole idea of free exercise of religion doesn't end because you're the president. Obama has as much right as any of us to invoke whatever deity he so chooses. And the rest of us have the right to participate in or to opt out of the invoking of that deity. The inaugeration is not a compulsory event, and the prayer is not a compulsory part of this event. Again, surely we are better served by allowing people to voice differing opinions than by going with the "la, la, la, not listening!!!" approach.

The left finds Warren's opposition to gay marriage heinous and unforgiveable, and thereby decides that he is owed no public voice--though I'm sure the right sees opposition to gay marriage as a perfectly legitimate position. But the right finds support of abortion rights heinous and unforgiveable, and would much prefer that all those who hold that position be denied a public voice--though I'm sure the left sees support of abortion rights as a legitimately position.

Now, I think both sides see their respective views as a perfectly consistent application of solid democratic principles and values. I doubt either side feels like they're cherry-picking. I'm not, at this point, interested in taking away either side's right to examine the issues and come down on the side they see fit. And, surprise surprise, I too believe that there is a right and a wrong answer to both those questions. But it seems truly arrogant and blind to deem completely legitimate your position on Controversial Issue #1, and then decide that your opponent's position on Controversial Issue #2 disqualifies him or her from public discourse.

Somehow or another, we're all just going to have to break out the big boy pants, put them on, and find a way to handle our disagreements.