Rick Warren and Barack Obama appear to have a strained relationship. Apparently they first met a couple of years ago when Warren invited the then Senator to speak at his church in southern California. I guess it went well enough that Obama was invited back during the presidential campaign–but was then summarily shown the door by questions (from Warren) that he was not prepared to answer. Seems it was the singular moment in an eighteen month run where the masterful politico slipped and fell.
And now, suddenly, the jeans wearing minister is back on the national scene after being invited to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration. The problem is that this man with a modest wardrobe but an enormous influence embraces a number of views that many Obama supporters do not accept. And more than a few of the Warren critics think that choosing him for this role in the day’s ceremony is a slap in the face to thousands of LGBT people and their supporters who worked long and hard to elect this 44th President.
Here, for example, are some of the minister’s comments about same-sex marriage that were pulled from a December 2008 interview with Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet:
Waldman: Do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?
Warren: I don’t know if I’d use the term there. But I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles, or whatever stuff like that. So I fully support equal rights.
Waldman: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?
Warren: Not a problem with me…I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000 year old definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Waldman: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
Warren: Oh, I do. For 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single ulture and every single religion…as a man and a woman.
My somewhat imperious nature emerges when it comes to religious belief systems, and so I feel the urge to say something about the “5,000 years” comment. Here goes.
Most people have a idyllic vision of marriage and families when they look to our past–which they characterize as guided by a noble moral order and cultural practices that were inspired by and acceptable to their creator. But in fact, families, sex, and marriage were rarely characterized by behavior that current moralists would endorse. So, for example, even as recent as the late 19th century, the age of consent (for marriage) for young girls was ten years of age in over half of the U.S. states and territories–and very often ten year olds were married off to men two and three times their age. This is just one small factoid from a past that most Christians would not want to recognize for their “Christian nation”–but it’s enough for me to raise an eyebrow in any moralistic reference to our “glorious past.”
And now to bringing people to the table, the issue at hand…
Given my distaste for anything that even remotely smacks of heterosexism or homophobia, I can understand the annoyance of Warren’s detractors. However, I have to give Obama credit for sticking to his word about bringing everyone to the table. The “table” he is referring to, after all, is (or should be) the one where important decisions are made and “everyone” includes the very people with whom he disagrees most vehemently. Anyone can pretend to involve the other side in their decision-making conversations by pretending to listen to their ideas–much like a savvy parent learns feign interest in the protestations of a teenager. But Obama’s critics are off the mark if they think that a man should be left off the guest list when his views about same-sex marriage are in line with 52 percent of his state’s (California) residents. Warren is the spokesperson for other side and his people, regardless of how distasteful their ideas to some, would take up over half the seats of that table if they all received invitations to come dialogue.
Somewhere in here is a lesson for most of us. How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree–and then attempt to see the world from their eyes? How often do we see ourselves as they do — as crazy and out of touch, or as too intransigent in our strident opinions. More often than not, I would venture to guess, it’s considerably easier for most of us to simply lob derision grenades in the direction of our enemies.
Bush failed at being a uniter. Clinton wasn’t serious when he claimed that he would surely listen to all perspectives. Bush, Sr., Reagan, Carter, et. al. — they all claimed that they would work to build alliances but then fell short of this estimable goal. Obama, by contrast, a man who is turning out to be the consummate politician, might surprise us all; he might actually mean what he says.
What bringing everyone to the table really means?
As children most of us also believe our parents beliefs, even if they are morally wrong or right. If they think that same sex marriage is wrong, you will probably think the same. If they think that being around black people will hinder you, most likely you will not be around them and have the same thoughts. Until we explore everything, try things for ourselves, or until we open our minds to understand we will never know if these are true.
When I was in middle school or high school I rarely sat with white girls at lunch because most of my neighborhood was black, most of my friends were black, and they were the outcasts in our school. It wasn’t that I had a problem with them, I just thought that they would never understand me or so I thought. Now in college I associate myself with everybody, maybe because my childhood friends are not here or my college is not all black. I learned that white, black, Hispanic, Indian, or African, we are just the same; we all go through similar problems and we are more alike than we think and I was very close minded in high school.
Even though I am open to different people now, I still associate myself most of the time to the “black crowd”. The black crowd is so small here and I found a way to find it, instead of merely having fun with everybody. So, how open minded was I, not even close to enough. I think people try to meet people who are different races, sexual orientations, or religions but don’t try and understand them. People want to try and bring everyone to the table but I don’t think it will ever fully happen. We, as people are way to judgmental and listen to much too what people say. We don’t think for ourselves and its kind of sad, how we criticize the next person for being racist but we ourselves are against gay marriages. Or how we for gay marriages but think that the Quran ( Islam bible) is evil. We are all responsible for most of the hate in the world. We caused it and if we didn’t cause it we stood in silence. If we didn’t stand in silence we turned our cheek. If we didn’t turn our cheek, we didn’t speak our mind. We, as a people have let hate, criticism, racism, sexism and everything else go way to far. Then there are the preachers who preach that gay marriage is evil and forget that we should treat everyone equal. Trying to be God, but there is only one God.
[Reply]
It is time for a change and it seems that the majority of Americans agree with that statement. After all, we did just elect the ‘first’ black President (half-white). When reading this blog, I seemed to notice what hasn’t happened for over 200 years and 43 Presidents, there has not been change. As Dr. Richards said they have all promised some sort of change within the confines of uniting. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc. have all promised it yet, none of them have achieved it. Here, with Barack Obama, we now have some semblance of the change that may or may not occur within the next four years and beyond. So far, he has united the parties, Democrat and Republican working side by side on what could possibly be a major turning point in American history. What some of us tend to look past is what he is trying to do, especially when he invited Rob Warren to give the inaugural invocation. Yes, it is true that Warren opposes gay marriage, but this is what Obama is trying to get across. Obama’s ideals differ from Warren’s, yet they still share some commonalities. It is true, Obama supports gay marriage and will most likely attempt to legalize it, but without facing his critics, including Rob Warren, Obama will not get anywhere. He has to show, which he did, to the public that he is willing to work with his critics of his policies to unite America as a whole. When we use the term “bringing everyone to the table,” many times we use it too lightly. “Bringing everyone to the table” includes your critics and those you disagree with, however, without hearing their side and their opinions there is no way that we can coincide happily.
I, for one, was not optimistic at the start of the campaigns of President. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans impressed me. However, as the campaigns went on and elections came about, I noticed a difference in Obama and the rest of the candidates. Not only was it a racial difference, but it was the way he carried himself. The way he meant what he said and it seemed to me that he would stay true to his word. He faced his critics graciously and humbly and continuously listens to what they have to say, no matter how much he disagrees. I think by picking Warren to read the inaugural invocation, it lead many people to believe that Obama would do what he said. Obama would united America not just based on race and ethnicity, but on culture and personality as well. There is a time for change, and after 43 Presidents and over 200 years of the same, that time is upon us.
[Reply]
Do I think that Obama’s campaign has been widely successful in bringing “everyone to the table”? Yes, I would say so. This does not mean, however, that Obama will be successful at keeping the peace or appeasing everyone, or even following through on everything that he has promised throughout his campaign. Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction. Already, he has proven that he is willing to at least try to follow through on his promises. That, I believe is something that this country is in desperate need of and something that will definitely change how America is perceived (both by her own citizens and by others throughout the world).
That being said, and in light of the differing of opinion on marriage, I pose a different view, when it comes to the questioning of its past morality of the previous 5000 years. Of course many of us today would agree with the fact that we think it immoral that an older man should marry a young child, yet “back in the day,” young girls were often married off by the age of ten. And, to be honest, that was culturally acceptable at the time and is only a minor detail to the overall aura of marriage. That did not threaten, nonetheless, the very essence of marriage (and thus, families): they consist of a covenant between a man and woman and their offspring.
This nuclear societal construct, then builds upon itself to create our societies, our nations, our culture, etc. The homosexual movement to consecrate same-sex marriages changes this, does it not? A family, then, would no longer be constituted as a man and a woman who come together to raise children. It stands to reason that changing this simple view of marriage would thus change society in drastic ways. Our entire understanding would have to be molded again into something new.
Unfortunately, the homosexual debate generates much controversy and has witnessed a mishandling of the subject from both the purporting and opposing sides of the argument. Just because someone does not agree with the sanctioning of homosexuality, does not make him or her a homophobe. I do think that the church has widely mishandled the issue though. It is much simpler to just fear something and condemn things than to show someone, that although you may not agree with what they are doing (or how they are living), you still care for them and are willing to witness God’s love to them. There are misconceptions on both sides of the fence and there are many people who have misrepresented both Christians and homosexuals. Regardless, someone must seriously contemplate and question the societal implications of such a radical change on the construct of marriage and not just simply on the war between the opposing sides.
[Reply]
Personally, I am not formally religious and was not raised with a designated religion to call my own. My mother was raised Catholic and my dad’s family was Jewish but did not practice. I was brought up to be a good person, respect all walks of life, and be grateful for my health and opportunities (along with celebrating a very commercialized—aka non-religious—Christmas and Easter…). I do however believe in some kind of mixture of religions and God I’ve created in my own mind from my own life experiences. That being said, I really don’t like when other’s religions are pushed upon me. I find it highly obnoxious when religion is mixed with government, but I DO understand that it’s almost unavoidable. Whatever religion is practiced by the President will be represented and displayed during his term in office. It will influence the current laws, mandates, and regulations on Gay marriage, abortion, and other controversial topics. “Church and state” should be separate, but really, they never have been. I don’t think it should reflect badly on Obama because of this interview from Warren, but I think that if I was LGBT I would certainly question Obama’s beliefs on the issue at hand. The critics will associate Obama with Warren just to have some kind of negative press. If religion is a part of Obama’s life, then I guess it will show through in his politics, but personally I wish it would just be avoided all together. To me, religion and politics (laws, rules, etc) are opposite. Religion is an intangible, arguable, subjective belief system while government and laws are (usually) logical, defined, and objective. They should not influence each other but in our society, its bound to happen. HOWEVER, I am aware that it could be WAY WORSE and way more involved than it is. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, the government and religion is one in the same. “Religious Police” are on patrol at all hours of the day, at every corner waiting to enforce the laws of their religion. Women are harshly ruled and there is no line between “church and state”. I understand that this is THEIR culture, and this is how it “works” for them. I am simply thankful that we have somewhat of an open forum for discussion in this country when it comes to religion. As for the Gay marriage debate, I see many sides. For one, there is a financial benefit that many anti Gay marriage people are fighting against, while others simply believe its untraditional and goes against the “tradition” of marriage. I really have a hard time forming an opinion on the issue. I support Gay Americans and I support religious people who have their sacred beliefs. I honestly couldn’t pick a side.
[Reply]
I come from a very traditional, though broad-minded family where talking about gay & lesbians is like taboo. And when it comes to marriage, especially, it’s assumed to be an arranged marriage. Yes, they literally try to hook you up with someone and you have the choice to say YES or NO. That is besides the point, and the fact that this isn’t very known to a lot of people, it would be really amazing to know how Rick Warren would have to say about arrange marriages versus homosexual marriages. Living in such a diverse, multi-cultural and supposedly “equal” society compared to “5000” years ago, I believe every culture; society and religion have their views on whatever their principles or ideals are. If things like arrange marriages or child marriages are permitted where the man and the woman are not even in love, at first, why should we restrict two people to get married if they love each other. I believe we all have the right to marry the person we love. Every human being should be allowed to live their life as they wish as long as they do not break the law. And on the other hand, if the law is unjust they should not be afraid to fight against it.
In addition to all this, I totally agree with the statement provided in the blog – “… (for marriage) for young girls was ten years of age in over half of the U.S. states and territories–and very often ten year olds were married off to men two and three times their age. This is just one small factoid from a past that most Christians would not want to recognize for their "Christian nation"…” This is not the only example which does not want to be recognized in the United States but also over 3000 years ago transgender and bisexuality was proven in one of the Asian religion to be normal. If issues like these are categorized as a major law, why don’t countries outside of the United States consider them? If you look into Thailand, transgender is actually one of the largest industries and one of the most populated areas of them. LGBT for me is less of an issue to consider than issues like abortion and euthanasia, where the United States do not have a restrictive approach to “murdering the unborn or the vegetable-state like people”. Politically, Obama will have to go through this hurdle and if he is a man of his word, which I presume he is, he will make the right change. He is no God, but his principles are in etiquette to provide hope for the LGBT society. And I hope the future has a better way of seeing things which would be peaceful or at least “free”.
[Reply]
I admire President Obama for having Rick Warren deliver the opening prayer at the Inauguration. So many political figures fear those that do not agree with them, and I think it shows a lot of courage that he not only doesn’t have an issue with Warren anymore, but that he invited him to one of the most important days of his life. I think this is the perfect example of “Bringing Everyone to the Table”. It is so easy to avoid those that we do not see eye-to-eye with, and the fact that President Obama can respect people who do not agree with him and who probably voted against him really says a lot about his character.
I am a child of divorce and my parents both pushed for me to vote in different ways. It’s not right to pressure someone to vote for one candidate or another, however it’s bound to happen in a lot of households. In the end, I voted for Obama for many reasons, the main one being that I believe Obama will do things no other president has done and will take a different approach than his predecessors. His invitation to Rick Warren shows that Obama realizes how important it is to listen to EVERYONE. You can’t go through life turning a blind eye on those that you disagree with and even those who hold close-minded views on issues. As difficult as it is to see things from another’s prospective, it is often the only way to determine the best course of action. This is the principle on which our system of government is based. As a democracy, the citizens of the United States believe that every person has the right to have their voice heard regarding national issues. As President Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” and I believe that this statement exemplifies what makes our country so great and what President Obama is striving for. The ability to work with others, even those who are very different from us in background, race, opinion, religion, etc., is a capacity that keeps our great nation from closer resembling a dictatorship. If President Obama believed that his way was the only way and refused to compromise with others, I truly believe that he would not have been successful in his campaign for the presidency and he would not be demonstrating the values that the United States prides itself on.
It takes more than just listening to others to come to the right conclusions, reach goals that are set, and establish good relationships with those who are different from us. When President Obama extended this invitation to Rick Warren, he was showing all those whom he intends to preside over that he can rise above trivial disparities and is amenable to cooperation, especially when it is for the better good of our country.
[Reply]
While it is impressive that Obama is bringing everybody to the table, some of Warren’s views are stunning. He claims to, “fully support equal rights” yet also admits that, “For 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single ulture and every single religion…as a man and a woman.” In reality, Warren almost appears to be a politician, changing the questions and answering them as if to not upset anybody.
I am hopeful that Obama is bringing Warren to the dinner table to really explore his views, and not just as a personal favor to the minister. I know that I am being pessimistic, but I do not trust politicians.
I have a feeling that the credibility of Christianity is going to come under serious scrutiny this administration. The facts just do not seem to line up with religion, and as science and technology continue to improve, people will eventually have no choice but to accept religion for what it is: a convenient truth for the people in charge.
The broad point of “bringing everybody to the table” is something that we as a country need to begin embracing. While there will always be disagreements between people, these problems need to be figured out by the people with the different views. Nothing can be done until people try to see things from another perspective. The opposite perspective is a great way to start.
Once again, Obama is off to a tremendous start if this is a sincere effort to bring people together. We as a country need somebody to emulate, and what better person to do this than the president. Time and time again it has been proven that athletes are not role models, and our recent presidents have certainly been nothing to emulate. Obama, however, is a figure that resonates with young, hopeful people. I am excited about the changes that he will make, and I firmly believe that we will seen things never seen before during this administration.
One of my worries about this administration is that we will have too much conflict within our own country to properly function. The Christian religion and the Catholic church have so much clout in our country that I wonder how people will handle having somebody in charge, who is Christian, but certainly doesn’t have the religious background that many of his predecessors had. We as a country have come too far to let our differences tear us apart. We have elected a black president. Let’s continue our forward progress with love and peace, instead of hate and war.
[Reply]
The phrase ‘bringing everyone to the table’ is a very powerful in what it aims to achieve but in reality, it is an action that is very difficult to pull off. This is because of the very many different ideologies that are out there and once they converge at one point then it merely becomes a stalemate since no one wants to compromise there values for the sake of progress and understanding. Therefore I am watching how President Obama is going to manage and coerce different and conflicting viewpoints be they Democrats and Republicans, Israelis and Palestinians and others to put their differences aside and work towards a progressive goal. So far I am impressed with how he has sought Republican support for the stimulus package.
Considering the Rick Warren debacle, I was pleased that Obama chose him to lead the prayer invocation during the inaugural because first, it showed Obama was not at the throes of liberals, many of whom were disappointed by this decision. However another reason is that it showed that Obama was willing to repair relations with a man who himself represents a vast constituency of supporters, evangelicals that in many respects voted for John McCain in the election. Therefore Obama’s invitation of Rick Warren was in my view extending an olive branch to the other side. Given the divisive nature of the Bush administration, this act is indeed a breath of fresh air and I hope that this spirit of unity that has been fostered will last for the next four years and hopefully another four years after.
Regarding same-sex marriage I think is going to be political battlefront in the coming years. I have never seen such passion and heated discussions emanating from this issue before but in the aftermath of Proposition 8 vote in California and the riots and protests that occurred, this is going to be a major hot button issue. Why? Well America is a very conservative country especially in relation to other Western nations. The last eight years of the Bush administration confirmed that. There is a lot of religious rhetoric when it comes to American politics and I have always been perplexed why the faith of the presidential candidate becomes an issue in most elections. For instance during the Saddleback convention back in August 2008, Rick Warren asked both candidates, then Senator Obama and Senator McCain to illustrate how important a role faith plays in their lives and what it would play in their presidencies if they got elected.
This is a deep contrast with Europe where religion has been divorced from public life for centuries and where attitudes regarding same sex relations are more relaxed than tolerated. Given that the momentum for same-sex marriage here in the US is growing, there is certain to be a clash of values between the hardcore, conservative, evangelical base and a younger, but growing group of tolerant, more liberal population. Whether this is equivalent of a civil rights era for the LGBT community is one thing, but I am interested to see whether there will be enough impetus to overturn laws that ban same sex marriage as well as civil unions in some 40 or so states.
Anyway, all in all, I am looking forward to Bush’s era of division and acrimony being cleansed by Obama’s era of unity and reconciliation.
[Reply]
The issue on gay rights and benefits is something I definitely feel for. I would not call myself a die-hard gay rights activist or anything, but my personal views are that any two people, no matter what sex, race or religion, if they want to be together and see themselves with no one else, how can anyone tell them to live differently. I have friends who are homosexual, and one just recently told us that she is transgender and is making that transition in the future. These things sure are different, and I don’t exactly live in an area where things like this are frowned upon, but its just another aspect of life that humans are going to have to get used to.
Some people I “share the table” with think differently about homosexuality, mostly from a religious standpoint, and when I think about it, instead of trying harder to see where they are coming from, and look at why I feel the way I do about things, I tend to voice what I believe and why, and then go on about my life. I cannot tell anyone to believe or think the way that I do, and I’m not asking those to be any differently. I do believe that if our new president in fact does mean what he says and acts on his words, the United States will surely change for the better. If Obama takes time to “share the table” with those who in the past were neglected a seat, then a more understanding on topics and issues, such as homosexuality, can be made.
In a time where new ideas and ways of life seem to be springing up everyday, we need someone like who Obama has portrayed himself to be. One who is open to these changes and holds no shame on differences. If our leader expresses his open-mindedness with his country and friends, then maybe more of his people will start to be the same way. It is time for the people of this country to get in touch with the changing times. Not everything is going to be like it was decades before, and if they are too stubborn to stop and take a look at what’s changing around them, then they are going to miss out on so much that life has to offer.
In closing, I myself hope that one day I find the man I can spend the rest of my life with. And if the next person feels that way about a person of the same sex, then let them live that way without fear, and let them live out their lives the way that its supposed to; Happy and in love. I am all about Obama and his famous change he intends to bring to the American table. It sure is about time.
[Reply]
“Obama, by contrast, a man who is turning out to be the consummate politician, might surprise us all; he might actually mean what he says.” So why then must people criticize him for actually sticking to his “bringing everyone to the table” idea? Isn’t it what American wants? What America has been waiting for? An honest politician. Honestly, he would probably be criticized if he distanced himself from the people who don’t share his same views. Either way, I feel he is never going to be able to catch a break.
I also wanted to throw in my thoughts on the gay marriage issue. It blows my mind that a man and a woman who absolutely hate each other have more of a right to be married than two men who are head over heels in love do. It just doesn’t seem fair to me. I feel like some people treat homosexuals like they are some unknown species from another planet. When did heterosexuals suddenly become so perfect? We are all human. Every U.S. citizen should have the same rights. For example, one of my closest friends is gay. He is a great guy, and my father thought so too…until he found out he was gay. He doesn’t admit to it, but my dad always seems very uncomfortable whenever my friend comes over or tries to have a conversation with him. I just want to ask my dad, “What changed? Why is he different to you all of a sudden?”
“How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree–and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” I feel it is healthy and important to be connected to others that do not share our same values and opinions. If this were not the case, people would become extremely close-minded. It’s great to have debates and share views; it opens up a world of new possibilities. It helps people take a step back and think, maybe even re-evaluate situations in a positive way.
[Reply]
I have to say that I was very anxious to see if President Obama would actually come through on his campaign promises. His first week in office led to an excellent showing for him. If the rest of his term plays out like his first week, this country will make its greatest stride ever toward equality. For the last year and a half President Obama has stressed that he would bring everyone to the table. President Obama showed us he meant what he said by inviting Warren to deliver the prayer at the Inauguration. Also, in his first week he has made a great effort to listen to the Republicans in the House to understand what the conservative side wants. He is a true example of what bringing everyone to the table really means. When I consider the statement, it brings many different images to my mind. When thinking about it politically, I envision one person from every race, religion, sexual orientation, and political group sitting at a table discussing and voting on every issue before Congress. When thinking about it personally, I envision myself at a table with a friend, family member, and enemy discussing my future. While I would have no problem taking advice from my friend and family member, I would find it very hard to invite my enemy to take part in the planning of my future. This is basically what President Obama is showing us he is willing to do. Another saying that comes to mind when you think about what it means to bring everyone to the table is keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Until we are willing to do this, we cannot fully understand life. I have always tried to live my life to the fullest, but now I feel that I cannot successfully do this until I allow my mind to look at all sides of every decision. Bringing everyone to the table means to me that we all have to inwardly or outwardly analyze each of our decisions to make sure we are doing the right thing to make the most of our lives. Upon reading this blog, I have realized that I have not done everything I can do to make the most of my life. I have always listened to myself and my friends, and for the most part, my family as well. However, I have not listened to those whose opinions differ from my own. My goal now is to open my mind and listen to their opinions as well. After doing this, I will be better able to decide for myself what is right and not allow my opinions to fully mirror those of my family and peers. This is what bringing everyone to the table really means to me.
[Reply]
I did not know about the controversy between Rick Warren and Barack Obama until reading this blog. I personally understand both sides. I feel Rick Warren is entitled to his own opinion, as everyone is. But as far as Barack Obama being a leader of our country where freedom is a basis of our lives I feel he should be open to anything and everything. People, especially the “Obamakids”, are going to look up to him probably more than any other president ever because of the mania going on with the media. If he is open and understanding of touchy topics then it will enable people to believe or feel how ever they so chose. I do believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. I feel homosexuals should be allowed to be legally united but it should not be called a marriage. Whatever they want it to be called where the majority of people are able to at least accept the idea, whether or not they agree with it. I do feel all people should have the same rights since we all live free in the United States. A gay couple should not have to suffer when it comes to medical benefits or other things of that sort where if they could be legally married it would not matter. The companies people work for should start to realize this and offer benefits, rather than waiting for the government who has the most power to force it. The government seems to take forever for anything to happen at the national level. My uncle is gay but is not currently in a relationship so the gay marriage issue hits close to home for me. Some of my family members are not very supportive of him and I feel bad for him. People who are gay should not be shunned by society. It is not fair to them. Everyone leads a different life, none of us are the same.
I completely disagree with Rick Warren when he compares a grown man marrying a young girl with two people of the same sex getting married. Those are two completely separate issues. Child predators and gays should not be linked in any way. Two people who are in love is not wrong. No one should classify them against molesters and people who are sick in their minds. Rick Warren needs to rethink his opinion on that if he considers himself a righteous man.
One thing I like about Obama is that I never hear him talking about race. Another thing I wonder about, but this class has kind of changed that because of the way Sam talks, is that he, along with anyone else with a mixed background, is always referred to as “half black”. Why not say they are half white, because they are.
[Reply]
“How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree–and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” this question is actually something that I have been struggling with lately. I declare myself an open-minded person, but I do not do this nearly enough to truly consider myself that. It’s so hard, as a human, to reach out and make a conscious effort to try and understand why people who think differently than ourselves. I know I personally want to make more of an effort to understand why conservatives, homophobes, and racists think the way they do, but I’ve never gone out of my way to try and do so. But thankfully the man we voted for is, thus far, sticking to his word.
His word I am obviously referring to is bringing in the opposition to hear their side of things, that way he’s not surrounding himself with people just telling him what he wants to hear. And as great as that would be, it would not challenge him and help this country grow into what it needs to be. This country needs unity, as originally stated, many have said they would bring the two parties together, but it ends up with them never even making an effort to do so. Our country is in a tough time, and the only thing that I really feel could bring us out of it, other than luck, it everyone pulling together and realizing it’s bigger than you or I, and that we each need to work together to get on our feet.
During the previous administration of Bush, I as a more liberal American was very upset in feeling that my views were never heard by anyone in touch with the president. Bush was very clearly on a very Conservative course with no possibilities for a turn or even a waver. By bringing in Warren it shows that Obama is more than willing to give the other side a voice. Warren and he clearly have not seen eye to eye, yet he is going to be working with him more than likely for the rest of his term(s). Warren speaks for the more conservative America, so they will not hav the feeling of not having their voices heard. They are being delivered directly to Obama.
Barack Obama’s entire campaign ran on “change”. On how he was going to change the run of the mill politics into the way it should be, he was going to make the people’s voices heard. Thus far it’s standing true, I hope he continues on what he’s said he’s going to do, he (we) have a big road ahead of us.
[Reply]
In a country where to this day race continues to divide its citizens, to make a promise of “bringing everyone to the table” is a bold and risky move. However, when I look back at our history and the presidents who have previously served, I cannot think of anyone more capable of carrying out this promise. Obviously, Obama is the most diverse president that this country has seen since the founding of our country. So, for this reason he is sure to bring other minorities to the table. However, I believe that his ideals and character have just as much to do with his predicted success in uniting our country.
Unfortunately, there are some critics that feel threatened by his relationship with Warren, a less liberal and more conservative pastor who advocates the preservation of a lifestyle as dictated by a sacred text the has been followed for 5,000 years, the bible. Of course people are going to judge you on who you associate with, but there are many people who Obama associates with who clearly stand for and share his ideals of equality. Just because of his association with a man who is less than liberal, does not mean that the president of the United States will be swayed by one man.
It is inevitable that this association with a man who is against things that are more liberal and may benefit those of different sexual orientation, will upset those followers of Obama who are gay or transgender. I can understand their outrage and fear, because ultimately that’s what this concern is about, but I think that it is safe to put trust in Barack Obama. Their concern for their future rights is completely valid; however, like Sam says, Obama is an outstanding politician who is on the verge of accomplishing great things.
Ultimately, Obama got voted into office because he is a leader. His leadership qualities show in every speech he makes and every issue he advocates. He speaks with conviction and passion, which shows his dedication to our country. When I listen to Obama speak, I feel hope and inspiration. Clearly this is a man who is extremely intelligent, patriotic, compassionate, and driven to unite our country and bring everyone to the table. He is someone of different background and he does represent minorities. He is not, however, someone who seems like they will be persuaded by others to change his values and ideals.
[Reply]
Personally the statement “Bringing everyone to the table” is a metaphor that means to gather people of all different races, background, and ideals together for a universal purpose. It means to share a common goal with someone or several people that you would not normal deal with. One of the greatest examples of this is the feelings shared by many in support of a sport team. When that team is in the playoffs or championship everyone within that city guidelines or school becomes friend. Everyone is open to conversation and togetherness. However, as good as this sound that has not always been the case in American. Of course this is due to extreme reasons such as lies, hatred and murder, many beyond my conception. Just think back father than the civil rights movement and past slavery days, pioneers from the East Indians were not even willing to compromise with the Native Americans over land. They could not bring their contrasting issues to the table and deal with them like equals. Sadly things like this are happening in around the world today. For example the war in Israel has continued to go on for decades because the two parties involve refuse to come to a middle ground. Even as Americans we couldn’t see eye to eye because of our political system that taught us to classify each other in categories based on race and class.
Fortunately I had the pleasure to grown up in household that looked past infirmities. My parents taught me we, as people, can’t exist without variety and diversity. My mom especially explained to me as a young child variation in humans creation makes for a more interesting world. For if we were all the same life would be boring. This idea of acceptance also helped me accept other people’s opinions while growing up. I learned in middle school you cannot always change people’s minds instead you must agree to disagree. Of course like any other thing this was challenged when I came to meet big headed people who thought they knew everything. And I won’t front like I was perfect in every situation I encountered. Sometimes people would get on my nerves I would dismiss everything they were saying. For the most part I was the bigger man and let things go. I found a lot of times minorities are the bigger person and more understanding one in situations. Partly I believe it is our family up brings and the fact that we understand what it feels like to be a society cast-out. Don’t get me wrong there are a lot of White Americans that are reasonable to work with but not many. I often wonder if that is because they still carry a mode of superiority and don’t care for what others have to say.
Interestingly Obama’s campaign was one of the most recent events that “brought everyone to the table” since 9/11. He has and still is trying to achieve equality across the board which is actually what we need. And for that I wish him good luck.
[Reply]
Barack Obama: man of the future. It has a nice flow to it, right? Even the doubters can agree that dining with one’s enemy is a noble act. In fact, people in general should pay attention to what Obama did. I agree with the prompt to say, myself, that most people stick to their own narrow views and rarely think of the other side of the coin. For those of you who read my response, how many of you have been knee deep in some conflict that you simply could not understand why the other person thought what they thought? How frustrating was it when they refused to concede to what you thought was right? How can a person act this way when they are part of the same situation you were? The funny thing, or maybe the ironic thing, is that that person you were calling into question in your own mind is asking the very same questions of you. The same situation occurs when you got entirely fed up with your freshman roommate because every little thing they did got under your skin. Well, if you thought they did not think the exact same thing, then I would call you disillusioned. I suppose the point I’m trying to make is no matter what you think, someone else will disagree or have some other thought, belief, or view that challenges yours, and that is okay.
Given the balance Barack used of having the preacher who was against gay and lesbian marriage speak during the inauguration, I will discuss my own thoughts on the subject. My thoughts will come from a story from my adolescence. One day I was talking to my father, whom is a prison guard. One of the most dominate opinions of the American prison system is that homosexuality exists on a grand scale. Being a young lad of fifteen, I believed this idea I learned from popular culture and television. In response to what I was being broadcasted, I asked my father, “What do you think about the gayness in the prisons, dad?” He said back to me, “Well, Kyle. Different strokes for different folks.” I walked off and pondered the statement. He told me, in so many words, people have been different, are different, and will be different. That just seems to be the way it is in our world. We need to embrace the differences and except them for what they are: differences.
As I mentioned, we need to pay attention to this move that Barack did for his inauguration. He embraced and promoted the differences that exist in our country. The fact that a black man is in office is part of the difference as well. The tactical actions of Barack Obama are teaching Americans not only to recognize the different sides of the coin, but to also embrace them. Perhaps forcing our differences together and mixing them in the opposite realms or some neutral ground will lead to change needed to benefit all and shed our walls for the things that scare us or conflict us. Perhaps we should all attempt to dine with our enemies. Maybe we can find out that we have more in common with our enemies than we thought.
[Reply]
“How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree–and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” I would argue that we “share the table” with these people almost every day. No matter what country we are in, what topic we are discussing, or who we are discussing this topic with, there will always be someone with an opinion different than our own. However, it is much more difficult to then sit down with these individuals and share in a congenial meal, free of food fights and mockery. Seeing the world from someone else’s eyes is the most difficult yet most important task in any situation in which that beliefs of two individuals do not align. I would also agree with Sam when he claims that in many situations, it is also easier to immediately discredit the different opinions of others. Unfortunately, this kind of an approach will do nothing to promote positive change in society.
In regard to Barack Obama’s potential to unite both America and the rest of the world, I have great faith that this man may be able to prevail where others before him have failed and continued to disappoint the citizens of America. Sure, Obama took a risk inviting Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration and even associating with this outspoken individual; however, I believe that taking risks is the only way inspire individuals to re-evaluate their morals, beliefs, and opinions. It is my opinion that if you are not constantly questioning and re-evaluating your beliefs, then you are not taking into account the dynamic nature of the world.
At the same time, Rick Warren’s statement, “For 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion…as a man and a woman,” contradicts this idea of constant re-evaluation. It is true that marriage has predominantly been defined by the union of a man and a woman; however, when one in every ten people is LGBT in today’s society, maybe it is time to consider redefining our thoughts about marriage.
In addition to constantly re-evaluating our beliefs to help foster unity, I also believe that individuals must consider all of the sides of an issue before forming their own opinions. By bringing people like Rick Warren to the foreground, we as citizens are able to acquire perspective about other people’s beliefs. Perhaps an idea that Warren introduces may be a completely new idea that another person may not have even considered. As long as Barack Obama is careful to bring people in from a wide spectrum of beliefs, America will by nature become more well rounded in their beliefs. I do believe, however, that Obama must make sure he clarifies to America which beliefs and ideas he supports and which ones he does not support.
[Reply]
From a very early age I was taught to think for myself. This didn’t mean tune everyone else around you, but rather take in other peoples opinions observe the facts that are presented and using all the information I gathered formulate my own beliefs and opinions. There is no denying the fact that President Obama has change on the front of his mind. He wants to bring the people of the United States together regardless of race or religion and restore and rejuvenate our broken down economy. He has promised change and I think his actions of allowing Warren to lead the prayer at his inauguration shows that he is a man of his word. Warren made very distinct and clear comments going against what the President and the majority of his followers believe in. But does this make Warren a bad person? What I don’t understand is why we make a big deal about one person’s views on a particular issue. Sure the issue is significant and is keeping a lot of couples from being able to get married, but really…who cares? What would life be like if every where we went and every person we ever interacted with shared the same views on life that we did? From favorite ice cream to favorite tv show, all the way to preference on whether or not there should be same sex marriages allowed in the United States? I think it would suck. We are not going to be able to change everyone’s mind when it comes to certain issues. When will we face this? It won’t be long until all of the old conservative Christians in power who are against same sex marriages are dead anyways. Once this happens we will get new free thinking open minded people in power and we won’t have to worry about this anymore. It’s like Doc said on the very first day of class, “same sex marriages are gonna happen, don’t let yourself be the old bitter grandma or grandpa who’s grandkids are telling you to get with the times.” I have full confidence that this issue will be resolved. But what I can’t stand is people who make a big deal out of those who share opposing views. It’s obvious that President Obama didn’t give two shits about Warren’s comments because he still let him lead the inauguration. Everyone has heard this at least one hundred times in their lives, “opinions are like assholes everybody’s got one.” And its dumb, but its so true. If I live my life worrying about the 50 some million people who disagree with me about what flavor toothpaste is the best them I’m missing out on a lot of other things that I could be doing, like hanging out with my girlfriend, or watching basketball, or studying, you know? I think that President Obama could not be more perfect to lead this country. To me him choosing to disregard Warren’s comments shows that he knows he has more important issues to tackle as President and didn’t feel the need to get wrapped up in one man’s comments.
[Reply]
I believe that inviting Rick Warren to his inauguration was a good move on Obama’s part. As many of my peers have said, this required Obama to open his arms to one of his opponents on the most important and monumental day of his life. While this fact is certainly true, this is not to say that this was his only motive to invite Rick Warren. While Obama wants to stay true to his campaign promises and invite all viewpoints for consideration, it’s unfair to exclude Obama from the stereotypical politician archetype. What I’m referring to is the behind-the-scenes planning that all politicians use to hone their public image. Perhaps one of Obama’s main motives for inviting Warren was to make the public believe that he listens to all viewpoints and is sensitive to both sides of the argument. Maybe he doesn’t actually care much about “bringing everyone to the table” and it was actually all his public relations representative’s idea to invite Rick. Maybe he even wanted college students across the nation to see this action and discuss its significance in 450 word responses… I hope this isn’t true, and I hope that Obama really is the larger than life honest politician that he could quite possibly be. During his election period many Democrats attempted to label Obama as an elitist, a label that he was lucky to avoid. As an Obama supporter, it’s difficult for me to bring this up for the mere fact that I’m spreading the label, but in this situation I think it’s important to call this accusation to the table. If Obama really does, deep down, have an elitist attitude and actually has his moral and political values deeply set, it’s unlikely that “bringing everyone to the table” will change his actions as President. Since he has been elected as a man of the people, he may feel entitled to make decisions based on his own beliefs. With this possibility I can’t judge him yet on how well he will stick to his promise to hear all viewpoints. Whether he does or does not, personally, does not matter much to me. I trust Obama and share many of his views on the issues, so I believe he will make the right decisions, although hearing all the sides would certainly be the most fair approach and greatly improve his public image as a mediator.
Since most of this article discussed marriage, particularly of the same-sex variety, I thought I’d offer my opinion on this issue, as well. I support equal rights for all citizens. While I can’t see the current situation in America from the viewpoint of a homosexual, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be granted the same legal rights of a married couple. As an atheist, I don’t have any problem with the use of the word ‘marriage’ to describe this union, as to me, it’s just a word describing the legal union. Despite this, I can see where Rick Warren is coming from. I can respect the sanctity of a religious term that has been used for thousands of years. If it truly offends the religious, the LGBT community should refrain from using their term.
[Reply]
I think it’s ridiculous for people to consider Warren’s delivery of the opening prayer at the inauguration a “slap in the face”. We need to remember the time where people of different color used separate water fountains. In our current day and age we have our most diverse president running the country. This is a huge step for our country, and Obama’s presidency brings hope of change and hope for a more diverse group of people running the nation. Even though America has a generally liberal outlook, there still are die hard conservatives living in our country.
Growing up in America at this time, I feel that it is imposturous that gay marriage is still not legal. However, people are generally influenced by the views of their parents and elders. The reason I believe gay marriage should be legal is because of my parents influence that it should be legal. My parents have always had a liberal outlook, and it’s influenced me greatly. However, there are still people who have had people drill in their minds since youth that anything is different is bad. Prejudice is something that’s very hard to eliminate in someone’s mind. Changing ones belief is a difficult task, especially if it’s a belief he or she has had their entire life. However the opinion of the entire nation towards people of different beliefs is becoming more and more open. I believe eventually gay marriage will be legal; we’ll have more diverse politicians, and hopefully a woman president. However, time and patience are what it takes to get anything accomplished.
Just as everyone was taught in kindergarten, not everyone possesses the same beliefes You don’t have to agree with everyone, but you have to respect everyone’s beliefs. Obama might not believe in the same things Warren believes in; however he has a mutual respect for him. This is something Politian’s have to do as a part of their job. So for LGBT to be offended by Warren’s prayer at the inauguration is asking a little too much out of the new president. It’s also part of his job to associate with people who have different beliefs, religions, and ideas. How else would he be able to associate with foreign diplomats? It’s part of what Obama signed up for when he decided to run for presidency.
For now I think we should just be happy at the direction our country is going in, and appreciate the small steps. Just as Sam said in the blog, in the beginning of the nineteenth century it was legal for a ten year old to be married. We’ve come a long way in a hundred years. Hopefully in the next hundred years we’ll come even farther.
[Reply]
This decision by Obama to have Rick Warren participate in the inauguration ceremonies is a very interesting one, and it shows how he is a man who might actually stick to what he says and truly strive to achieve his goals for this presidency. Barak says he wants to bring everyone to the table, and what better way is there to do that than by bringing a man with him on his inauguration day that is hated by so many Obama supporters. Gay and lesbian rights are some of the hottest issues in the news today, and it was a gutsy move by Obama to let that be part of his inauguration.
I grew up in a Catholic home my whole life. Both my parents are fairly conservative, and when at home I still go with my whole family to church every Sunday. From the time I was young my parents never told me what to think, but I definitely know how they feel about certain subjects such as gay marriage. By Obama having Warren deliver an opening prayer, he makes more people feel like they are represented in the white house. This probably makes some people, like my parents, feel more comfortable with Obama in the white house. With this move Obama really showed that he means it when he says he wants to hear all American perspectives on issues. It also shows that Obama can see past someone’s reputation and find out who they really are. Warren has the reputation for “gay-bashing” when in actuality he is for civil unions or domestic partnerships. I agree that gays and lesbians should have all the same legal rights as heterosexuals, but I’m not sure about using the term marriage. Many people have strong beliefs about the institution of marriage. It is one of the sacraments in the Catholic Church, which makes it a big deal to those people. Seeing a president who is a democrat may have worried these people, but now they can breathe a little easier knowing Obama is open to all view points.
I definitely don’t agree with everything Obama stands for, but I respect the way he seems to be taking on his new role as president of the United States. He is a breath of fresh air, and his ideas seem to be moving toward a much needed change in Washington. At times his ideas may seem a little idealistic and possibly unreachable, but the important thing is he is trying to succeed in his goals. Will he really bring everyone to the table? No, but he will shake things up a bit and try to hear ideas from different perspectives. In a dark time economically and in a global relations perspective for the United States, the darkest man to ever sit in the oval office might just be the light at the end of the tunnel for our nation.
[Reply]
This pass election probably will be the most memorable election of my lifetime. I was able to see a man of color become president. The concept of “Bringing everyone to the Table” is definitely a concept of equality. “Bringing everyone to the table” means seeing all Americans as equals. We need to let everyone voice their ideas because some of these ideas could be the solutions to some of our problems. Letting them voice their opinions regardless of gender, age, race, or sexual preference. We need to look pass these opinions and let people voice their thoughts. We need to try to and develop solutions to some of the more serious problems we face today.
People needs to stop being so judgmental and continue to live and promote God’s word. How can someone be a man of God and be so judgmental towards other people. In God’s word, we are taught to love and respect all people. Mr. Warren’s 5,000 years definition of marriage is brutal and unkind. How do we know if homosexuality didn’t exist five thousand years ago? I don’t understand how we can be so prejudice against homosexuals. Why shouldn’t Homosexuals have the rights as other Americans?
We need to look pass this concept of a marriage as a union between a man and a woman and realize that other people have different views on what marriage is. I am so sick and tired of people talking about how homosexuality is wrong and they don’t have rights to view their opinions or live the lifestyle they choose to live, when we have to focus on the other issues such as this recession we are in.
We need to let homosexuals live how they want to live and be viewed as equals in our society. As far as bringing everyone to the table I do believe that Obama will bring everybody to the table. President Obama is very different from pass presidents such as Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan. I know he believe in change and equality for all people. His mother was White, his father was African and his sister is half Indonesian.
As a president you can see that he is going to make an effort to change America. I know Obama will listen to all people. I know he will listen to their problems, their solutions, their hopes and dreams. As president he will make decisions that will benefit all people and not just certain groups. During his campaign he went to all places and reached out to all people. Obama will bring everybody to the table and when he does he will focus on all of their problems and help find better solutions.
[Reply]
I found this article to be very interesting and it was an article that I actually enjoyed reading the article. I believe that it does an amazing job at showing everyone how much different Obama is compared to our past presidents. Not just because Obama is African-American, but also because he brings something new and promising to the table. Past Presidents have failed to unite the country and its people, however unlike pat presidents, Obama is just starting off and is already showing signs of being a great uniter and leader of our country. Although some of his supporters might or might not agree with Obama having Rick Warren he still had Warren give an opening prayer at the presidential inauguration. This shows us just how true to himself and to the people of the U.S. Obama really is. I feel that this is not a “slap in the face” in any way to anyone.
Warren is backed up on his views by 52 percent of the residents in California, so I don’t think people should be criticizing Obama for having him when at least half of the people in his state feel the same way he does about same sex marriage. Although I am not a religious person I was brought up to believe that marriage is only between a male and a female partner. I do not oppose people of the same sex being able to live together and call it a union between them, but I do not feel it is okay for them to call it a marriage. As for these people having the same benefits and insurance as a normal marriage would, it really does not bother me at all, so if insurance companies allow it then its fine with me.
I feel like Obama will get a lot more criticism throughout his time as president but regardless of what is said about our new president I believe he has the potential to be one of the best leaders of this country of all times. Obama is a man who is true to his word and will hopefully achieve all the things that he has promised to all of the people. He even has his own website on which people can almost track down everything he does and accomplishes, something that no other president had ever done. Once again, or at least it’s my opinion, that this is another sign of a president who is honest and means what he says.
[Reply]
While I understand why Obama supporters would not have agreed with the choice of speaker I think it really shows a lot of character on Obama’s part. It is very clear that all across America there are a million different opinions on every single topic. Having someone with an opposing view speak at the inauguration shows that Obama while he may not agree is open to others opinions. With any topic, big or small, many people are not at all willing to listen to anything that is different from their own idea. With a serious topic like gay marriage, which I personally think should be allowed, people need to understand that people are going to be close minded and there is no way to get everyone to agree. What Obama did was acknowledge all different groups of people because while some may not agree with their ideas all people to have the right to be heard. Through all of this drama Obama really made himself look like the bigger man. With all the controversy going on he was not afraid to do something that many people would disagree with. It shows that he has a lot of strength and wont just back down when things get hard instead he will face them head on.
But on the topic of gay marriage, I understand that there are many reasons against it some a bit more valid than others but I was disgusted when I read the part of the interview with Rick Warren and Steve Waldman. I am shocked that someone would compare homosexuality to incest, polygamy, or adultery and I love the fact that Sam used about ten year olds being able to marry in the nineteen hundreds. I don’t think it is realistic to talk about things that have been happening for five thousand years because the world is constantly changing. With technology and civilization advancing at the rate it does, 5000 year old ideas can be proven wrong in a matter of seconds with a single new discovery. It doesn’t matter how long or how many people agree on something that doesn’t make it right. I’m not quite sure how long it was and I’m not planning on looking it up but there was once a large group of people positive that everything revolved around the earth. People that had ways to prove that everything orbited the sun were put in jail. If we just followed what the vast majority of people said I’m sure civilization would be wrong about quite a few topics. Sam also mentioned idyllic vision of marriage many people have, and that can be applied to anything. People always have an idea of how things are or will happen in our head and I know, at least for me, things haven’t happened quite how I have planned in the past so if someone else’s marriage doesn’t work out how you would’ve planned ……get over it
[Reply]
I feel this article was actually very interesting. It truly made me think a lot, because when the initial reports about the Rick Warren issue came out, I brushed it off thinking Obama was foolish for associating himself with him. However, after reading this I began to think about our country, and realized that this country was based on people with conflicting interests. Even as far back as the Pilgrims, and even our founding fathers, they had ideals that weren’t on par with those of the majority of the time. I feel that to truly have a “fair and balanced” decision about things, you need a genuine viewpoint from all possible parties. For example, with Rick Warren, he may have different ideals than Obama, but because of that he is able to consider the opposition and may be able to reassess his choices and make the best choice.
However, some peoples decisions and choices I think are completely irrelevant, but only those that are not fueled by intuition and intentions for the greater good, but instead those of hatred. Growing up, I personally listened to everything I heard from others, and growing up in a working class, predominately white area, there were definitely sentiments of racism and disdain for homosexuals. However, now, after becoming more educated and seeing more than one viewpoint on things, I am personally able to make not only more educated, but as I believe, better decisions. Not only about homosexual tolerance, or racial tolerance, but with issues that concern my life.
This is a reason I enjoy the recitation classes is I get to listen to other opinions of other people, who may not necessarily think the same as me. Before coming to college, I may have been not as open minded, but I can count numerous times that even just by listening to people in classes, I have changed my opinions on things because they make more sense, or challenge me to think about things.
Thinking back, things like the Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Rights, and other huge social movements were caused by people who dared to think differently. With that being said, I’m glad to see that Obama is surrounding himself with people with conflicting ideologies who will per say pursue the role of “devils advocate” and therefore stimulate him to perhaps change his thoughts. I am very excited to see the endless possibilities in which Obama can give our country, and allow us to endeavor, to once again reach the status of not only the best country in the world, but the most diverse. The next four years will definitely teach us a lot of things, and hopefully for the better. No one knows where the future will bring us, but one thing is sure, we are headed for different things, amongst all: Change.
[Reply]
In America, especially in the 21st century we put a display on. This happens all throughout the topic of ethnics and in this case, in the racial and gender categories. My answer to the response is that all the time, “we share a table with the very people with whom we stridently disagree” and in response try to relate to them by trying to use their views as a rearview.
Honestly it seems both hypocritical and unaware; in my eyes it puts you and the person that you are working with at a disadvantage. First off whatever profession you choose to pursue, you should realize that there are going to be people of all dimensions associated with that career. Everyone cannot be the same if so that ruins the idea of diversity. Furthermore it is important to realize the unique qualities of each individual.
“Sharing a table with the people whom we stridently disagree”, I really do not see how that is possible. I CANNOT for any reason imagine myself working with people that I do not have similar beliefs in—that is working as a profession that actually judges what beliefs or policies should be followed. If granted a position in this manner I feel as though there should be some kind of course or supplement that could be offered that would focus on this aspect. For example, we attend school in a predominately white environment and classes such as this and Soc 5 and other classes are taught to further my views.
I believe that you should first try to relate to all groups, even if they are not familiar to you, and the best way to do so is to respond to those people by trying to learn about them. You may find out that the qualities that they invest may very well be worth your time and worth the hearing of other people’s time. Gay/Homosexual should not be discriminated in any way. And this is the same way I feel about African Americans, Latinos and other ethnic groups. We, our country is too desegregated as it is and for us to have to put up with this in this time and age, in this time is completely ridiculous. There are many ways available to learn about all different cultures and beliefs if only we take the time.
Your job is very important, as well as other people’s job regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender or any of the above. These are the people you have to work with everyday and serve. Most importantly in the case presented above, these are the people that will serve your country. Make sure everything is for the best. Please.
[Reply]
“How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree—and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” I would say that we encounter people with very different opinions from our own probably just as often, if not more often than we encounter people with whom we have very similar opinions. Throughout one day, I come across, in class alone, at least three hundred different people. On average I probably know the names of about fifteen of them, and opinions of about six. As for the other two hundred ninety-four people, I have no idea how they feel about the menu in Simmons dining hall that day, let alone where they stand on the issues of gay marriage or abortion. On the other hand, I would say that not many of us can say we really take a moment in these situations to sit back and look at an issue through someone else’s eyes. Those same two hundred ninety-four people, whom I know nothing about, have a vast range of opinions, some of which I agree with, some of which I strongly disagree with, some that I am indifferent about, and some that I do not even understand. However, I probably think about what these other people are thinking, and feeling for five minutes a week, perhaps a little more often now that Dr. Richards gets us all thinking twice a week, but still. I do not sit around contemplating how the girl who sits across the room from me in Chem 112 feels about gay marriage. The short time that I do spend thinking about how other people view certain issues, is quite valuable because it is time when I am able reaffirm my beliefs. Although I think it is very important to be able to understand all sides of an argument, I do not think that is imminent to waste my time wondering what other people are thinking about common issues every time I am around differing opinions. As l have said before, it takes a lot of persuasion to change a person’s beliefs, so letting my mind wonder every time I am around people who may have different ideas that I do, is not going to do much as far as reevaluating my opinions goes. That being said, I do think that it is important for Obama to bring people with these differing opinions together and talk about issues because Barack Obama is making decisions on behalf of the entire country. I know I feel better knowing our president is consulting with others, even if I do not agree with what these other people have to say all the time because as history shows, we have not made much progress by making decisions based on one perspective.
[Reply]
This blog post reminded me of my least favorite part of the inauguration ceremony that I’ve been meaning to talk about and totally forgot up until now. I’m pretty sure that this is my first time watching an inauguration, which is really sad, and I was really surprised when Rick Warren began to pray. I almost found it offensive. This has nothing to do with who it was saying the prayer, although now that I know his background I’m even more surprised, but more about the principle of pushing religion on others. I thought his prayers were too religious and much too Christian focused. The way that they were presented made me feel very uncomfortable as a Jewish person. It almost seemed as though they were assuming that everyone in the US is Christian. One reason why I love this country is because of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. I did not feel like the inauguration reflected this separation.
Ok, now that I have that off of my chest, I’ll comment on Sam’s actual comments. I agree that it is completely necessary for Obama to recognize different viewpoints. It’s important for people to associate and get to know people with different viewpoints. This is the only way to understand where the other side is coming from, whether you support them or not. I don’t agree with Warren’s comments at all, but I do learn from hearing them. The more I hear opposing viewpoints the easier it is to think of ways to negate them. Or if I can’t find an argument off the top of my head, I can do research and see if they have a valid point or not. In this case, Warren definitely does not have a valid point. Knowing that so many people oppose gay marriage and support the feelings of Warren makes me extremely sad. I don’t really care what the tradition of marriage is; traditions are always constantly changing and evolving. Some of my best friends are gay and they honestly have the exact same type of relationship as my straight friends have. Their relationships are just as functional or dysfunctional as those of straight people’s. And there love is just as real as anyone else’s. It’s incredibly degrading to tell these people that they can’t marry because of tradition. If you go off of that, then people of different ethnicities shouldn’t marry, people with different religions etc. We have come pretty far, but have so much farther to go. Especially in terms of equality for all!
I really do believe that Obama is going to work to listen to differing viewpoints and consider them all. This is definitely what we need after so many years of one-sided politics. Hopefully Obama will be able to make positive change while still repecting others, and hopefully we will be able to encourage him to acknowledge opposing viewpoints instead of continually criticizing him. I’m afraid that we have set the bar way too high and no matter how great of a president Obama turns out to be, he will never be able to meet our expectations.
[Reply]
I understand why President Barak Obama had someone like Rick Warren deliver such an important moment in his inauguration. Obama is trying to bridge gaps, bring people of opposite views and lifestyles together. Obama is trying to unite the people of the United States of America, his people. Why, because he is what he said he was. Obama is a man of his word. He is a stand up guy and seems to not be willing to detour from what is right. That’s what I love about Obama. He has a political innocence about him. He does not see a problem with doing what is right or what he perceives to be right.
It seems Obama also likes to “keep his enemies closer.” It seems that Obama wants to truly understand the views of his opposition and those that think differently from him. I do not often adhere to this. I do not often sit with those that are my intellectual opposites, if you will. I tend to gravitate more towards those that are likeminded. I do not feel that I do this on purpose; I feel that it just seems to happen. But I would like to sit with opposites of me. I love a good debate and love when people challenge me. For me, I always seem to be the one who would say things others will not. I am the one that will call out a person. I am the funny guy that says what people are thinking because they themselves are too timid to say it. People think then if I am challenged I get offended, but I have said openly to my friends and others, that when I crack a joke, throw one right back at me. Sadly few tend to challenge me. I do not feel that Obama likes to be challenged all that often, but he likes to hear every side of the story before he acts. Obama seems like the type of guy that tries to make the most informed and intelligent decision as possible.
Seeing the view from another’s point of view is something I do very often. I was a resident assistant last year and tend to be the mediator amongst my friends. I am the type of person that is very quick witted when needed, but I also sit on things. I will sit there and contemplate a situation, the different routes it can go, the things that can happen, the pro’s and the con’s, weigh all my options and then speak. I think Obama is the same way. When I see him talk, he is a quick witted guy, pretty funny at times, where is it appropriate, but he also sits and contemplates. You can see in his eyes that the wheels are turning and he is in deep thought, but still very much aware of everything.
I think we have a lot to learn about what is takes to bring everyone to the table really means.
[Reply]
Even before Barack Obama was holding the office of the President of the United States, he had spoke of his admiration for Abraham Lincoln and his inclusion of political rivals in the cabinet and presidential administration. Obama studied Lincoln’s strategies that led to success and change, and decided to start by looking at the people he debated most vehemently the most. In fact, Obama said he wanted to take after Lincoln in the way of surrounding himself with people of different perspectives, so he can increase his options and empathize with people on both side of an issue.
Similarly, I think he is starting off on the right foot by having someone like Warren speak at his inauguration. Obama was smart to choose someone based on their passion to help Americans. Warren is also well known for extending his hand to help people rise from poverty, and give relief to those who suffer from AIDS. Mostly, Obama chose someone despite, or independent, of other major dividing social issues and chose someone who, above all, shared his love to help people.
I think by Obama encouraging and inviting Warren and other people with contrasting views to the table, by being so tolerant of others viewpoints and allowing them to think and speak freely, he is also proving an ironic point.
See, Warren should now understand that while the President of the United States does not agree with a major political issue of his, and a personal issue to many others, he still was treated with dignity and respect by the Obama administration, and had just as much right as any other individual to speak at his inauguration. Even more, Obama did not discriminate against him because of his viewpoint.
Sound familiar?
The bottom line here, is that we are all supposed to have equal rights, and not be discriminated against because we hold a certain viewpoint. Warren and others who share his view on the issue are undoubtedly entitled to their strong feelings against gay marriage. But at what point do humans become more justified in one’s viewpoint than others, enough so to override another’s, to outlaw it? What about those people who feel 180 degrees opposite on the issue?
A parallel example would be Obama deciding to discriminate against someone applying to work in his administration and denying them a position, due solely to the fact that they may protest abortion, or perhaps disagree with spending X amount of taxes on social services every year.
While I personally think everyone should have equal rights, no matter their, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc., Obama’s selection of Warren proved a compelling point. Who are we to discriminate against one another, when we know tolerance is the only true way we’ll reach harmony?
[Reply]
On Tuesday we were talking about evolution versus creation. Well, versus isn’t exactly the best way to put it… rather, we more just discussed them both. We talked about how Christianity is essentially faith in a book. Personally, I am a Christian and I do have faith in the Bible. I was raised in a religious household, so I have a decently strong foundation of faith.
That being said, I am not a supporter or fan of gay marriage. In the Bible, it says marriage should be between man and woman, and that is what I have been going taught my entire life: from parents, teachers, etc. Despite that fact that I do not support gay marriage, I do have a few gay friends and I love them to death. Just because I have different views as someone doesn’t mean we can’t walk through life and be companions. That’s what this blog entry is all about. How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree–and then attempt to see the world from their eyes? Every single day is the answer. In this life, there are so many different possible beliefs, views and opinions one can have, that if we all chose to stick with people that share our own, we would be shit out of luck if we had any expectation of enjoying ourselves. Just because I am Presbyterian does not mean I’m going to shun Catholics and Jews from my life. Often I do step back and try to visualize life from others’ perspective. Even though I might not see eye to eye with them on every issue, even attempting to see things from their eyes is
Despite my being opposed to gay marriage, I am nevertheless very happy with the approach that President Obama is taking on the subject. Granted, I would love for things to stay the same as they are now and not change any federal laws in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but Obama’s plan to include everyone; not just people on his side of the picket line; on the discussion, makes not only the most political sense in that he’s involving his political opponents and actually listening to what they say, in contrast to what past presidents have done, but also simply seems to be the fairest way to solve the situation. No matter what political affiliation you have, no matter how liberal or conservative you might be, you really can not tell me that there is a better or most unbiased way to make a decision, especially something as important and controversial as this topic, than involving everyone that has something to say about it.
[Reply]
Let’s face it; the concept of a “marriage” has changed a lot since the days of early America. Marriage can be as simple as a five minute stop in Vegas or as complicated as a million dollar ceremony. Warren’s belief is that everyone should have the “equal” right to have a heterosexual marriage. It’s quite obvious that homosexual intercourse fails in the field of reproduction. But what is marriage really? It isn’t necessarily an agreement to have children. People have had children without the sacred bond of marriage. Marriage is a lifelong partnership. If two people feel so strongly about each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, they should be able to make it official. We’ve all heard the saying that God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden not Adam and Steve. The biggest arguments against same-sex marriage come from people of religion. This brings on another question: Can homosexual Christian couple get married in a church? It’s probably the churches decision. But if the church says no, does that bring on a lawsuit? Obviously there’s some controversy coming in the future. I believe Obama is a man of his word when it comes to civil union, and I hope he’s ready for the heat.
One thing that gets me about Warren is his “5,000” years argument. Sam makes a great point that ten year old girls were getting married in early America. Today marriages tend to start around the mid twenties. Of course there are many exceptions, with teens having children and getting married before leaving high school. The marriage system, or socially accepted ideal, is ever changing. As far back as Shakespeare’s time, children were married by the choice of their parents. Some cultures today are the same way. In the early stages of the United States, marriages were the choice of the husband and the acceptance of the wife’s parent’s. Today marriage is an equal agreement on both sides, and no one else ultimately has a say. That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way it is in America, if you’re straight. LGBT rights are a big deal now a days and Obama is really taking them seriously. If this is really a free country people should be able to marry whoever they want. I’m sure our forefathers never saw an argument like this coming, but the constitution is amendable. Just as African Americans and Women and to fight for their rights so do LGBT’s. It’s a long way to achieve personal freedom for some social groups, but I’m sure it will be just as rewarding as it was hard to reach. Obama will always be in the hearts of every black person, with the changes he promises he could be in everyone’s, no matter their sexual orientation.
[Reply]
This entry reminds of me of the level of polarity present in today’s political scene. Party lines often times designate how we feel about issues before we take the time to figure them out for ourselves. Two hundred and fifty years ago our nations greatest leader George Washington warned of the dangers that political parties held for the country’s future. Given the absence of any real third party (sorry Libertarians) the Republican and Democractic parties wield incredible power. For the uninformed voter (and there are many of us out there, myself included) we end up like sheep. Rather than taking the time to figure things out we bury our heads in the sand and when called upon fall back on the solutions provided by parties which seemed to be at complete odds.
I can remember taking a survey in the 8th grade based on the roles I felt the government should serve. I was surprised to find that on many issues I favored a more liberal approach. When it came to hot button issues (Abortion, Gun Control, Defense) I was conservative. The purpose of the survey was to show the impact that media and the political machine has on voters. The media in an attempt to increase ratings bombards us with issues that stir up emotion. Political parties do the same by painting the other side as lacking logic or reason. In the end less informed Americans begin to think that because they agree with a party on a particular issue that this carries through to other issues. This is obviously an oversimplification and gets to the importance of Sam’s entry on the inclusiveness of the “Table”.
The LGBT community’s complaint against Rick Warren doesn’t help their cause. Were they to have succeeded in gaining his removal by applying pressure to President Obama what kind of message would that have sent? “If your opinion is unpopular it can be squelched.” This is exactly the kind of thinking which has slowed progress for the Gay community(Only it has been used against them). Personally I feel that Obama made a bold statement by having a gay Bishop present. I don’t agree with it as in my opinion religion and homosexuality doesn’t jive but that is the point of the argument. My views on the issue don’t permit his removal. Instead the “table” should be open to all. After being given their right to spread their views it is then passed on to society to make judgment as far as policies are concerned. That is the beauty of the Democratic society.
Bringing everyone to the table will be difficult. Sam listed past presidents, some of whom were regarded to have had successful terms yet they failed in this regard. There is work to be done.
[Reply]
I feel that a large percentage of people fall prey to this kind of thinking; they find it much easier to seek out people whose views match and line up with their own rather than be faced with an untraditional perspective. People, for the most part, don’t want to be challenged. They don’t want to have to think on both sides of the issue. They like to pick one side of the fence and remain there peacefully. Pro-life people easily dismiss scenarios like rape or when a woman’s life is in danger, and pro-choice people quite easily sweep the issue under the rug by claiming a fetus is not technically a child. If you try to talk to them about it or bring it up, they get mad or defensive and dismiss you out of hand.
Take John F. Kennedy for example. The entire Bay of Pigs fiasco may have been avoided if he had not fallen victim to groupthink and surrounded himself with advisers thinking exactly the same way as him. Until Obama’s current presidency, it can be said that things have more or less stayed the same. People tend to want to work with people who think as they do and act as they do.
I think this is a very smart, very mature, very intelligent move on Obama’s part to have someone with viewpoints so radically different than his own deliver the prayer at the inauguration speech. This shows that Obama is willing to listen to people different than himself, work with people different than himself, as well as respect people different than himself. I think that this will make him even stronger as a president. A president, at least a good one, needs to be able and willing to listen to and respect the needs of all Americans, not just the ones with views and beliefs matching his/her own. “A government by the people, for the people” does not delineate which people it is talking about, does not suggest people like you, or even people that you like; it means all people. Even if you consider someone to be closed-minded or bigoted, that person is still entitled to their own viewpoint (even if it’s totally wrong). When you can work with people like these, respect people like these, it shows a very mature character.
Obama has certainly showed himself of this particular high class of character. By having Warren deliver the prayer at the inauguration, he showed that he’s willing to work with, respect, and listen to people of all kinds. And that, to me, shows that President Obama really means what he says and says what he means. I respect him greatly for exactly that.
[Reply]
The times are a changin. The world that we live in has become more accepting of those who are different. Not too long ago those who were of a different color could not attend school with “white” children. Segregation was embedded in American culture and there where many die hard segregationists such as the infamous Governor Barnett, who wished to deny blacks a college education. His reasoning was that changing hundreds of years of southern lifestyle was completely deplorable. America has become increasingly more acceptable and liberal, there is no reason to think that this trend will not continue until we come as close to equality as possible, not just for those of color, but for those of different sexual orientation. Those of the LGBT community should not be offended to hear that Rick Warren delivered the opening prayer for the presidential inauguration. Obama has promised to bring all to the table and I would that includes those with different opinions and thoughts.
I in fact think it is a great idea because the blog mentioned that 52 percent of Californians agree with Rick Warren. Certainly bringing attention to the struggles of the LGBT community will most certainly help their cause. When Governor Barnett defied President Kennedy and the Supreme Court by not allowing blacks to attend the University of Mississippi he demonstrated to all of America the magnitude of his irrational racist thinking. He helped show Americans how ridiculous it is for someone to be denied an education because of their color. Having Rick Warren, who has the same thoughts on gay marriage as 52 percent of California will allow people to see the discrimination homosexuals face and how they are denied certain basic rights.
Take for example the fact that Rick Warren says he supports equal rights for everyone, he claims that certain rights should not be denied because of certain lifestyles. He however does not support gay marriage. His argument is that for 5,000 years it’s been defined as a union between a man and a woman. This is completely ridiculous the concept of marriage is very fluid and many different cultures throughout history have had many different thoughts on what is acceptable. Arranged marriages, child marriages, and polygamy have at times been seen as acceptable. To think that polygamy and child marriages were considered normal simply because it was between a man and a woman is loathsome. They occurred because those engaged in those practices had it engrained in their culture. The only way to make people realize gay marriage is ok is to talk to everyone at the table and address their concerns, and move closer to equality for all.
[Reply]
There’s something more important than just bringing everyone to the table so that everyone is represented. What is really important is trying to bring everyone to more of a mutual understanding of the situation, and of all the potential problems of the different options you have.
Too often people continue to argue for their side in an argument as they get lost in the argument. People easily forget how it fits into the big picture; how it may fit in their whole life and how the whole thing fits into the world.
If you talk and argue with the people with different views, and really try to see things from their view point it can really help you. It’s not always so easy; lots of the time it takes a long time to really understand what other people are saying. Sometimes it just takes more time to think about it all to see other view points. Other times you need experiences to help you to understand other viewpoints.
If you really listen to people to with other viewpoints they can help you out a lot. You’ll learn that they almost always have good points to their argument, and that even if you’re in an argument and are really in the right, talking to people with opposite viewpoints can help a lot to strengthen your argument. Often times it will help you to solve problems with the solution that you think would work best, and/or to help you to be able to explain it to people with opposing views.
I’m really hopeful that Obama will incorporate ideas from people with different viewpoints to help find great solutions to the problems of our country. If he does that well, it will be a huge step forward for our country and will definitely help to solve a lot of our problems.
As for gay marriage etcetera I don’t really have that strong of opinions on it. To me a lot of the time I think we’re wasting too much time and money fighting over whether it’s called “marriage” or “civil unions” or whatever. To me it’s just a word, and it has no real impact on me, and would rather spend my time worry about other things and let other people figure that out because it doesn’t really matter to me.
I probably don’t think that a gay couple should deserve all the same financial benefits and discounts that a straight family that’s raising kids should get. That being the case I wouldn’t really put up a fight against it if that wasn’t the case as it’s not that important to me and don’t think it’s really a big deal. As for hospital visitation rights I definitely think they should have the same rights as anyone else.
[Reply]
Homosexuals in the United States evoke differnet emotions from all sorts of people and I agree with what Mr. Richards said in an earlier lecture. He said that fifty years from now during our kids and kid’s kid’s generation, homosexuals will undoubtedly share equal rights without a question. They are the blacks or women of today. However I think that the process of evolving to that place is slow and different for everyone. I also believe in the democratic principles that state that our country will change when, colectively, we are ready. Also, no matter your opinion, you have the right to spread that opinion to as wide of a scope as your are capable. Until we can agree as a country on how to treat gay couples, we cannot let our disagreement lead to separatism. A cool thing that Sam also mentioned in an earlier lecture was when he talked about how cool of an experiment the United States is. No matter the heritage, race, religion, sexual preference, sex and so on, we tend to get along relatively peacefully. While there have been missteps like slavery and our treatment of Native Americans, we tend to correct our mistakes over time. We also get along in the mean time in comparison to the rest of the world. We aren’t having civil wars to settle our differences, we are counting on the politically system that we have in place and that we trust to deal with the issue. I, for one, believe in equal rights for gay people and I think they should be able to be married. While it seems unnatural to me, I know deep down that they are born that way. I know this because of how straight I know I am. For people to even think about being attracted to the same sex is foreign to me, but at the same time, that legitimizes it for me. Because I cannot wrap my brain around, I know that something must be mentally different between myself and gay men. They must be wired different. Because of this belief, I do not think they should be punished and forced to live against their will just because the majority of people are wired differently than them. I am a little homophobic as much as I do not strive to be. It is just weird to me but I try to get comfortable with gay people because I know it is the right thing to do. For now, I stick to the out of sight, out of mind, mentality. I think it is disrespectful for gay people to be making out in public, just as it is inappropriate for straight people. Gay people should help people become comfortable by easing them into things, rather than weirding people out. As far as marraige, the sanctity of marraige has been devalued over the years. If Britney Spears can get marraid to some random dude in Vegas and break it off the next day, I think that two loyal homo men should be able to share that same bond.
[Reply]
I guess Obama deserves some points for Rick Warren speaking at the inauguration, because it is not that easy to invite someone who has different beliefs “to the table.” I try to be as accepting as I can, but when it comes to issues of basic human rights and equality, my acceptance has faults. Rick Warren’s statements on not changing the definition of marriage just sound ridiculous. Professor Richards pointed out a few things related to what he called the “glorious past.” And we have all heard the stories; I am not for certain they are true, but the tales of husbands beating wives, the wives that couldn’t leave because the community would disown them, woman accepting their place. Also, unrelated to marriage, things of the past like the video we watched in class about the year Obama was born. I don’t find any valuable argument in not wanting to change something of the past, when that something created inequality.
My problem, when I join conversations with these people, (these people being those who degrade another race, culture, lifestyle, etc.) is that they are overlooking the fact that no matter who a person is or what they practice, they are still people. People with souls, dreams, hopes, desires. People who feel pain and joy. And the people, who discriminate, along with those being discriminated against, will both eventually die. I am not saying that every practice in life is necessarily one to be accepted, if it is degrading or harmful to others, but I don’t see how someone who wants to marry someone of the same sex is harming anyone. Also, those of different races or cultures, who has the right to say which one is better. And those of different religions, how can we judge them for believing in a god no one can say for certain does or does not exist. (Not that I understand all religions and why logic seems to so often get forgotten) But I also get the same hot headedness about immigration. How can we refuse acceptance of a different race, those trying to make life better for their families. Like Professor Richards said in class, when our ancestors came to America no one was at the borders asking for passports. I understand the need for English, it unifies us, and it is that assimilation that made us the melting pot. And I understand the need for safety. But I don’t get how we can arrest someone, due to their heritage, send them home, degrading them and stripping them of all pride, all because they didn’t enter in the way that some man or woman said they should. A lot of legal immigrants might be irritated with my argument, because they went about it the right way. But the right way these days, with a citizenship exam that I couldn’t even pass isn’t exactly making it easy to have a shot at the “American Dream.”
I know that my thoughts have been scattered, but what I am trying to say is who has the right to judge the next person? I know it is a little hypocritical, since I am judging Rick Warren as I say all this. I just think everyone deserves the chance to be happy. I don’t understand where people miss the idea that we are all human, but addressing these people with anger and irritation isn’t the right way to go about it. Maybe I should learn from Obama and try to accept “bringing everyone to the table.”
[Reply]
I feel it is very important to have “everyone at the table” because it not only opens to doors to all the possible solutions to a problem, but it allows people to see another side and possible influence them. To be honest, while I was reading what Warren had said in his interview, I was getting frustrated because I disagree with it. I have no problem with people of the same sex getting married and I feel they should have equal rights like everyone else. However, when I kept reading I started to understand what the article was all about. Since no president before has actually brought everyone to the table, it is hard for us to digest the other side of the argument and accept that everyone has different opinions.
The previous presidents just said what we wanted to hear so we are not used to having different views. It is very important that we break this habit because we are all different and this is not something that is going away. I find people today dislike others for not having the same side on topics and I think that is stupid. I think we get too caught up in what people think. I have friends that don’t agree with everything I think, but we still have enough in common to get along.
I respect Obama for having someone with opposite views as many of his fans to speak at his Inauguration. I think it made people upset for obvious reasons, but everyone has the freedom to their own opinions. You can’t please everyone. I think it is important to listen to all sides, not necessarily agree with them. I have no problem with LGBT people and I disagree with Warren, but I don’t hate him just because he has different views.
“How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree–and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” Unfortunately, I feel we don’t allow people “at our table” because we are scared to actually open our minds. We are scared that we might actually be wrong. Change is not a bad thing. Many people are afraid that changing our minds will make them hypocrites. However, I think we should start being exposed to all sides of an argument and choosing the one that fits us. If it is different than how we felt before then so be it.
Obama seems that he is actually a man of his word and that is refreshing. Hopefully people will be able to adjust quickly to this “everyone is welcome at the table” method because I think it is about time we have our ideas challenged.
[Reply]
I understand. I understand that people have conservative views. However, I believe that a lot of the moral based views of conservatism stem from the ideals of religious based ideas. I know that the majority of America shares the same moralistic views that come from their religious beliefs but I swore we were supposed to separate the church from the state. I mean really, how a country can have laws that are purely based on text that stem from religious beliefs, and then apply them to millions of people. The point is I believe that the only way this country can come together is if we are able to accept the ideas of others around us. We have to get to the point in which people can discuss their differences instead of totally ignoring and disregarding others ideas. I actually think it’s a great idea that Obama brings people in that may not share the same ideals as him. It helps him understand the mindset of people that opposed him and it also can give others an understanding of people who may not share the same conservative values. Personally I do not think it is right that our government forces people to submit to the values that derive from biblical text. However I do understand that people want to protect their religious beliefs but I do not think that the government should support one religious belief over something else and deny any American citizen the equality that we all deserve. So when it comes to Obama having this guy play a part in our presidential proceedings I think it benefits everyone. It is only fair that Obama listens to others because if our leaders continue to listen with deaf ears we will never hear the voices of America. Many American believe that gay marriage is wrong. Others believe that nothing is wrong with it. However it is up to our elected leaders to decide and to deliberate what is right and what is wrong for our country. I truly believe that we will no longer be bound to the moralistic views of our past and we will open up to the more modern and more liberal way of life but in order to any change to take place in our country we will all have to listen to each other and come to a consensus about the many issues we face today. As long as we discontinue communication we will always be divided. We just have to learn that others do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others. As long as a person doesn’t affect our property or our well being that how can we as a country tell people they do not have the right to be in love.
[Reply]
Time and time again we hear the same arguments between people happening because of their inability to accept other people’s views or see matters from another person’s eyes. Many of us are so stuck in our beliefs that we refuse to even listen to what others have to say. I think this has become the biggest obstacle to living peacefully with one another. Each of us constantly talks about how if we could only live together without passing judgments and looking at each other as equals, then the world would be a much more peaceful place. Using the example of marriage, why is it that we fight for equality of the races, but not of people’s choice of marriage? If we want to treat each other as we would want to be treated, then why is it still hard to treat same sex marriages the same way? We cannot say that this election has solved the ongoing problems of inequality when we still refuse to let same sex marriages take place. I believe Obama more so than any other president will look at both sides of all matters in his presidency. Because of his own struggles, I feel he will be able to relate to all those battling for equality. People do a lot of talk and pointing fingers, but what really matters is what actually happens. We need to all step away from our stereotypical beliefs of how this world should be and that everything that goes against those beliefs is wrong. Maybe “sitting at the table with someone you disagree with” in order to see things from another standpoint is all we need to bring about peace to such a hateful and intolerant world. We can only hope that Obama will bring that to the table, but we must wait and see instead of jumping to conclusions right away. All of the Rick Warren’s in the world may have their set racist beliefs, but they must meet people half way and hear them out. Everyone wants to be treated as an equal and that can only happen if we choose to make it happen. Although my religion believes in marriage being one man and one woman, I do not oppose same sex marriages. I believe everyone has a right to live the way they choose to live. Just because I was raised that way doesn’t mean I can have my own views. Obama will hopefully bring about this change in equality of all matters, but we can only wait and see.
[Reply]
Well it seems as though people these day are getting more and more sensitive and the bad thing about two people disagreeing on a topic is that there is no basis to where those to people can sit down and work out the difference that they have. I personally feel that we are not in an age where everyone is perfect, but we tolerate things that are not in our personal control. What I mean by this is that a lot of the time we accept things from people and of people that we would not personally partake or agree with. I’m a straight man and I can say I have no problem with Gays doing their thing, but until it personally affects me I will not have a problem. For instance I can say being Gay is ok, but if my kid were gay I would have a big problem because it would personally affect me. This to me can be seen with this topic and with family because people are either accepting of something or they are not. There are many times where people choose to disagree because of ignorance and some people choose to disagree because of straight fear. To be honest with you there are times when I am happy that people are in disagreement about something. Not because I want to see people conflict, but I love to see people who are in conflict with each come to an understanding or basis where they can work out their differences or become just gain a different understating that they came into the argument with. I guess it goes back to the question that is supposed to be answered. How do we come to a common understanding or sit at the same table with those that we disagree with or those who we do not share the same belief with. I think the answer is we can’t turn around and act like nothing happened, but we have to sit at the table and have a heated conversation. In this case we can learn and understand new things from both side of the spectrum. Sometimes when we see things or at least try to understand things from another side, both sides can gain from the given knowledge. In light of the negativity that people can have when disputing personal beliefs people tend to forget the hidden misunderstanding that people can have when choosing to speak up and not taking stands on certain things. People don’t agree on the same things and don’t have to, but if people cannot even understand why they are disagreeing or why they are taking the sides that they choose then maybe they should sit down and don’t say anything. The people who actually have problems and conflicts and understand why they are having those problems should be the only ones really talking and sitting down at the same table.
[Reply]
To be honest, my knowledge and dedication to following our nation’s government, and specifically this past presidential election, is by no means extensive. I have never really gained any interest in politics in general thus resulting in my unawareness of most of Obama’s views/ideas he supports. To gain knowledge of this “situation” between Barack Obama and Rick Warren has helped to open my eyes a little more regarding our presidential status. In a sense I have gained more respect for our new President not deriving from simply being our first “black” president or finally getting Bush out of office or anything else an uneducated US citizen regarding politics would know. I feel that having Rick Warren deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration is a true sign of character in Obama and how this change he’s been talking about may not just be a strategy to get elected. Is this just Obama “doing the right thing” or having a more open mind regarding “enemies” or does it have more in relation with his public image and maybe just done to help feed the thought of Obama’s obviously popular public persona? I have always felt that the media controls more in this country than almost any other comparable force so I cannot help but to think about this aspect after hearing about the story of Rick Warren delivering the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration for a man who he obviously does not see eye to eye with. It just seems like a very predictable thing, or stance, for Obama to have took on the situation when you consider the one word his entire campaign has rested upon: change. But nonetheless, this situation does make me look at Obama in a more respectable way and I am forced to simply view it as it appears and not attempt to figure out any other potential underlying reasons for why Rick Warren was present to deliver the opening prayer. The first thing that came to mind when I read this blog was the old saying of “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.” I strongly believe that this was more of the tactic that resulted in Rick Warren being present at the Presidential Inauguration and delivering the opening prayer for that matter. In a sense it almost forces the public to view of this entire situation to be in Obama’s favor, and what else would our nation’s government want other than having a positive public view of our new president, especially considering how split the nation seemed to be during the Bush administration, a kind of you either love him, or hate him… really hate him. Overall I feel it just seemed very convenient and is just another strategy used to help direct the public’s view in a positive direction regarding their views of our new President.
[Reply]
Sherrell Obaji- 976036594
Sam Richards – Soc 119
Due: 1/30/09
What Bringing Everyone to the “Table” Really Mean:
I admire the fact that Obama is addressing the issues with same sex marriage. He’s addressing everything he said he would when he was running for President (he’s moving slowly but aggressively). I think that shows that he is a man of his “word”, and that means he can be trusted (unlike that rest of the presidents in office before him).
I first want to address the term “bringing everyone to the table”; when I think of an express such as this one the first thing that I think of is “ two parties come together in the state of affairs and addressing (voicing their opinion) everything while sitting at the table. In my opinion, when using this way of coming to a solution there is a 50/50 chance that it will end on a positive level or a negative level.
Which brings me to the issue with Rick Warren and Barack Obama, Mr. Obama is trying to come to some common ground with people that have disagreements with same sex marriage and the people that agree with same sex marriage. The problem is people that have a strong religion background will find it very hard to come to terms with same sex marriage (in some cases it’s usually the older generation that thinks that way); far as the LGBT community is concern they should have equal rights like every other American citizen (which is only right).
On a personal level, I think bringing everything to the table in the business world can really help with all the confusion people.
Also, I really don’t have much of an opinion about same- sex marriages, because I never been the one to judge anyone; no matter what the situation was, and if I start now it will be out of character for me. But, I do believe in equal rights for every individual, no matter what the culture different maybe. When the United State Government can out with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title 7), they were trying to show the American people that treating everyone as equals in the employment sector will show how diversified we have come as a nation. My point is the United States have amended more than ten constitutions with clauses indicating equal rights for everyone. The United States is not recognizing how their treating the LGBT community, they’re not treating them as equal.
[Reply]
I don’t understand what the big deal is with Rick Warren doing the opening prayer for the inauguration just because he has an anti same sex marriage belief. He is a very good man, and well respected within the Christian community, and most importantly very well respected by Barrack Obama. So if that’s who is choice is for the person delivering the opening prayer, then who the hell cares. It’s just like the controversy we talked about in class about Michelle Obama wearing dresses at the Inauguration that weren’t made by black designers. It’s a dress for christ’s sakes! Its also just like the controversy over Reverend Wright’s comments. I understand that it is Obama’s pastor, and I cannot disagree with many of the comments he has made at various sermons, but it isn’t like Obama was the one making these comments. The church I go to has a priest that says some very radical right statements every Sunday, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with everything that the man says. It would be ridiculous to say that my priest could be a spokesperson for my ideals and beliefs, and the same goes for Obama. How difficult would it be to find someone that is a man of faith that is well respected in the community and that also shares every single belief that you do on every single important topic that this country cares about? I can’t even begin to describe how upset this makes me. I’m not even an Obama supporter and this infuriates me. It’s topics like this that make most of the public sick and tired of the media in this country. They will try and find every single little angle that they can to try and chastise a public figure. So the man doesn’t support gay marriage, so what? Does that make him not qualified to deliver a prayer? Its not like Obama asked him to speak at a gay rights rally. He asked him to deliver a prayer; to do something that he does, and to do something that he does well. Can’t we focus on things that actually matter? For example, how about we devote the time that people took covering some moronic angle like this, and focused it on how President Obama is going to fix our economy. Or, how about more coverage on where billions of tax dollars went that were given to the banks in this country, and now have suddenly disappeared? It boils down to how no one really cares about issues in this country, but just focus on idiotic topics such as the gay rights views of a minister that’s giving a sermon. Bottom line, subjects like this just piss me off, I don’t know what else to say about it.
[Reply]
The article that I decided to respond to reminds me of the same sex marriage ceremony that I attended last semester in the HUB. The thing that bothers me is that people get so worked up about same sex marriages and acting like it really affects their lives, but seriously, I really feel like it doesn’t affect their lives at all. Honestly, how does my life affect a gay couple’s marriage? It doesn’t affect anything and it makes me so mad that so many people are against it. How does two people of the same sex who want to get married affect their life and what they do in life? NOTHING. It doesn’t affect their life and I don’t understand why people care so much what decisions other people make. My cousin was a homosexual but he died of AIDS, and one of my good friend is a lesbian but whatever decision they make does not affect any decision that I make in life. They can do whatever makes them happy whether I agree with it or not.
Attending the same sex marriage ceremony really opened my eyes up to a whole outlook on life. It made me realize that you can accomplish anything that you put your mind to, whether society agrees with it or not. We should have the freedom to do what we want, say what we want and as we please. I was never really exposed to many gay couples growing up, but after attending Penn State and meeting people from all different types of cultures really opened my eyes to a lot of different expectations. Before I came to Penn State, it’s not like I was against gay marriages, It’s just that I never really experienced any one or really saw anyone who decided to go that route so I never really thought about it. After attending Penn State, I have became very close with a few people who are homosexual, but it doesn’t bother me at all. I respect them with whatever decision they decide to make, whether I agree with it or not.
I don’t think I will ever understand why people care so much about other people’s lives who they don’t even know, but I guess that’s life and that’s how people will always be and I will just have to accept that. Some people are just so used to one certain lifestyle, and once they see something that steps out of their box, they panic and automatically don’t agree with it, which shouldn’t be the case. In conclusion, I think everyone should accept people for who they are; they can’t help their sexuality and I don’t think people should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation. You should accept them for the person they are and how they treat you as a person.
[Reply]
“How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree–and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” I would say that we share this “table” more often then we care to pay to attention. I would say that we share this “table” and yet we only do it to make ourselves not look bad. These people are the ones who are afraid to let their true feelings out. My personal beliefs are my own opinions. The same as anyone else, we are all entitled to our own opinion and although I may not agree to something does not mean that I can tell someone they are wrong. Personally I have nothing against gay marriage, the benefits, or gay couples adopting. I feel like Obama might have a similar idea. If he is not like the other politicians in the world then he will keep his promises. He will give it his all to unify this great country. American and its people have come a very long way, yet we still have to much more to change. That is what Barack Obama is about, change. He will be different then any other President that the United States has seen. I believe in Obama, I feel that he will lead this country into a new way of thinking. One that makes us think outside the box, one that will allow us to teach our children this way to think and will make America’s future even brighter. I believe that Obama’s presidency will open the eyes of this country as a whole. By saying this I mean that more people will change their minds about the issues that plague this country. I feel that this nation will never reach its full potential if we do not learn to accept people for who they are not what they look like on the outside or their sexual orientation. This is something that will hold us back and only keeps us from progressing and making America a better place to live. Understanding is something that is necessary in the evolution of the United States. As for Minister Warren, he has his point of view and neither I nor anyone can tell him his feelings are wrong. He is entitled to his feelings. I have been raised Baptist. I am not a practicing Baptist though, I have read the Bible and gone to church, yet religion has never been a large influence in my life. Minister Warren is obviously different. I feel that sometimes religion can cloud our judgment even when we feel deep down inside that something is right. I believe that some people allow religion to be their excuse for not wanting to hear or understand someone’s point of view. I have a friend who is Catholic. She is a practicing Catholic, when we spoke about the election prior to the voting she told me “I am not sure who I want to vote for. I do not agree with McCain on a large majority of his views, but I feel that I can not vote for Obama because my religion disagrees with his views on abortion.” To this day I do not know who she voted for, but I believe this is the perfect example of what I mean about religion clouding judgment. Barack Obama is someone who I believe will not allow his true feelings to be changed due to his religion. He seems like he will make decisions after long thought and not on what he read from a Bible. I say bring on the table and save me a seat because I am more then willing to listen and help make America a better place.
[Reply]
There are many things that could be said against the institution of marriage as it is defined today. Historically high divorce rates, for one, do not necessarily indicate that modern marriages are successful components of our society. In fact, one could argue that when asked, a child would choose to have homosexual parents that remain together in a committed, loving relationship, then heterosexual parents in the midst of a bitter divorce. And of course, children are not born with the hatred and bias that would turn them against homosexual parents; it is in fact society which deems homosexuality “abnormal” and propagates heteronormative ideologies.
I think that in the argument against gay marriage, many raise the question, “What about the children?” This question is as much hypocritical as it is ignorant, and it represents a gross misunderstanding of gay individuals and gay culture. To assume that gay parents would in any way harm their children because they are gay, or “turn” their children gay, is unbelievably offensive. Again, a happily married gay couple would do an arguably better job raising children then an abusive straight one. Also, I often wonder where those who are so concerned about the children can be found as our country and world over-consume resources and hurtle towards environmental catastrophe, one which these same children will be responsible for managing.
I find Warren’s comment about 5,000 years to be his most unintentionally amusing response. To judge the validity and morality of human behavior on its historical precedent is nothing short of laughable. Those arguing for the American institution of slavery in 1865 could have well claimed that slavery had been a part of the fabric of America for almost 260 years, and therefore represented the natural and sound law that some humans were less valuable than others, and therefore subject to the whims of those above them in the hierarchy. Humans often do foolish things for many years before they are able to see the error of their ways.
Yet I tend to agree that the choice of Warren to deliver the opening prayer was not an egregious error. While I myself might have hoped to see a more progressive, open-minded individual delivering the opening words, it is clear that President Obama is making a conscious effort to include his would-be critics and detractors. President Obama seems to realize that isolating the woefully ignorant is no way to make progress. In some ways, choosing Warren makes President Obama more approachable as a leader to those who find his ideas radical and alienating. I do not think the choice of Warren blemished a day which was so much greater than the individual; instead, it represented a collective movement of society towards a place of greater compassion and understanding.
[Reply]
As it stands now, Obama seems to be holding up to his end of the deal. Many Americans, myself included, might be a little hesitant to give him credit yet because of our past “leaders”. It is too early to tell now whether or not this will last, but as of his fourth week, he’s holding strong.
Obama’s first major action was the stimulus package. The bill was for $800+billion. The only problem I see with this is that although it will be given to these families to spend, I think most of them would save. It is the same problem that was present when the Fed offered the bailout to the banks and companies. The idea was for those companies to spend the money and get rid of the bad debt. What happened though was that these companies saved it to save their asses when shit hit the fan.
Obama has surrounded himself with people who hopefully understand what is going on. Recently his Secretary of Treasury nominee was up for debate when they found out that he hadn’t paid taxes for more the two years. This spoke a lot for Obama and his character. He stood by his nominee and defended him through muddy waters. I was surprised to see that with all that was going on with him that he was there right by his side. He must really trust him because God forbid something happens that could be pinned on Geithner, Obama would get a good portion of the ridicule.
While reading the blog I started to think about what Warren said about gay marriage and other topics. He has the right to think anyway he wants. Even though it might not be the “right” way to think, it’s this little thing we call FREEDOME OF SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not on topic or anything, but reading the blog started to make my mind wonder. It’s funny to see how we care so much about being politically correct. In class we spoke about the word “queer”. I come from a family born and bred overseas where there is no politically correctness; it’s whatever you feel you say. People spend more time on trying not to offend anyone or watching what they are saying then being real. FUCK IT, let it out!!! As long as you aren’t doing it to be malicious I think its fine.
We as a country need to spend less time trying to find other ways to not offend people and start fixing the problems we already have. I don’t care if I offend you. My goal in life isn’t to have everyone like me, it would be nice if they do, but then you spend more time on that then you do getting things done. I am a person of action. You are naive to think that everyone will like you. That just won’t happen. It’s time we step up and fix our problems and Obama might be the way to get the country going.
[Reply]
As it stands now, Obama seems to be holding up to his end of the deal. Many Americans, myself included, might be a little hesitant to give him credit yet because of our past “leaders”. It is too early to tell now whether or not this will last, but as of his fourth week, he’s holding strong.
Obama’s first major action was the stimulus package. The bill was for $800+billion. The only problem I see with this is that although it will be given to these families to spend, I think most of them would save. It is the same problem that was present when the Fed offered the bailout to the banks and companies. The idea was for those companies to spend the money and get rid of the bad debt. What happened though was that these companies saved it to save their asses when shit hit the fan.
Obama has surrounded himself with people who hopefully understand what is going on. Recently his Secretary of Treasury nominee was up for debate when they found out that he hadn’t paid taxes for more the two years. This spoke a lot for Obama and his character. He stood by his nominee and defended him through muddy waters. I was surprised to see that with all that was going on with him that he was there right by his side. He must really trust him because God forbid something happens that could be pinned on Geithner, Obama would get a good portion of the ridicule.
While reading the blog I started to think about what Warren said about gay marriage and other topics. He has the right to think anyway he wants. Even though it might not be the “right” way to think, it’s this little thing we call FREEDOME OF SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not on topic or anything, but reading the blog started to make my mind wonder. It’s funny to see how we care so much about being politically correct. In class we spoke about the word “queer”. I come from a family born and bred overseas where there is no politically correctness; it’s whatever you feel you say. People spend more time on trying not to offend anyone or watching what they are saying then being real. FUCK IT, let it out!!! As long as you aren’t doing it to be malicious I think its fine.
We as a country need to spend less time trying to find other ways to not offend people and start fixing the problems we already have. I don’t care if I offend you. My goal in life isn’t to have everyone like me, it would be nice if they do, but then you spend more time on that then you do getting things done. I am a person of action. You are naive to think that everyone will like you. That just won’t happen. It’s time we step up and fix our problems and Obama might be the way to get the country going.
[Reply]