(Dec. 18) - In a move that's infuriated some rights activists and other supporters, President-elect Barack Obama has chosen an evangelical minister opposed to same-sex marriage to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
The controversy over the selection of Pastor Rick Warren, reported by Politico.com, threatens to put something of a damper on the inauguration festivities. Warren is the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California, and he supported a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Liberal groups and gay rights activists have expressed outrage over President-elect Barack Obama's decision to have Rick Warren, a popular evangelical minister, deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration Jan. 20. Here, Obama appears with Warren on Aug. 16 at the pastor's Saddleback Church in Lake Forrest, Calif.
14 comments:
I'm pleased to see that our next President doesn't cave in to the pressure of gay and other fringe groups regardless of how many votes they represent. Recognizing the inherent value of man, regardless of their sexual preference, which is what Obama did, is a far cry from saying they deserve the same Biblical rights and recognition as a heterosexual married couple. It's high time someone in government made the distinction and stood up for what Warren and the majority of the American people hold as our values.
former
USA citizen
Thank you USA anonymous. Visitors to the blog will be interested to know that several 'formers' and 'actives' have asked that "we" address the issue of gay officers. No distinction has been suggested; writing about celibate or those in a relationship.
I know that this issue is a thorny one and of more concern in certain territories and cultures than others.
I welcome your private emails to me at selmoscow@aol.com with views/comments/articles. Or, you may wish to add your comments directly to the blog with your views on addressing this important issue.
If anyone wishes to write an article on this sensitive, important and timely issue we welcome it. Regardless of the position you take it will be published. As always, we ask that no names be included, including your own if you wish.
Merry Christmas !
Sven
If homosexuality is such an issue, why did Jesus never mention it when He did address many issues that were obviously of importance to Him.
Perhaps you, like me, were conditioned through your formative years to view homosexuality as perverse and unnatural. We apply those words to many conditions and attributes that fall outside our own norms and understanding. And, those adverbs stem from what is probably our too shallow view of relationships as we dismiss the key attribute in any human relationship, love.
Much of the current debate about gay marriages and civil partnerships focus in on the wrong thing - sex. Consequently the much more important issue is ignored - what it means to develop a truly Christian relationship with another human being. We give so much attention to the sexual issue that as Christians we fail to notice how far into the secular pattern of thinking we have been lulled. We concentrate on the concept of where a person seeks to lay claim to exclusive sex with another person and reject them for finding it in persons of a sex we aren’t prepared to accept. We decide for them. That concept would be abhorrent should it be applied to us: having others decide for us whom we are allowed to love and with whom we can enjoy a committed exclusive sexual commitment.
We (I) fail to take even a passive role in seeking or helping to create the kind of all-embracing love that Christ has and expects of His followers, and making that the central focus in extending our acceptance, or rejection, of gay relationships. Perhaps we have avoided confronting the issue from the standpoint of Christ’s acceptance and inclusion of these ‘other’ God’s children because we are confused, having to wrestle with the knowledge that deep down we know that, as unnatural as we may deem their sexual practices, their loving spiritual commitments to each other differs not at all from our own.
Has the argument for too long been drawn on, from the Bible’s almost silence on the issue, by both sides? Perhaps we ought simply to pay heed to Christ’s admonition, LOVE ONE ANOTHER, and seek to move on and give that thinking a central place and stop placing conditions on what God ought to smile His approval on.
Sven
Sven, I've never approached the issue from the perspectives you suggest. Brings a whole new slant on things and also explains why I accept certain gays as close friends but dismiss gays who I don't know as obvious deviates.
former US
As a human being first, a Christian second and an officer third, it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS/CONCERN what activities transpire in the bedrooms of straight and or gay people.
Active
SFOT
Rather than replying further on this topic why not give thought to writing an article ?
The article(s) will run in the new year.
Sven
Sven,
Has TSA ever approached you as an officer to write for it's many publications? What about an a former officer?
I think this issue would be great for The Officer magazine!
While an active officer I wrote several pieces for THE OFFICER (International & Sweden), THE WC (several countries) and various other SA publications I never wrote on the subject of homosexuality, and that's a good thing; my understanding of the issue was nil, and my tolerance for gays even less !
I have submitted a few things for consideration to the WC and last year my re-gifting article (the one used in the blog) was accepted for publication BUT I believe they weren't ready to have a former high profile officer re-surfacing, re-married and re-formed as a university professor. Interestingly an article I wrote on 9-11 subsequent to my resignation was published, however, I was not yet re-married and a non-interesting subject for gossip. Maybe I got it wrong....
In any event, I believe there are many formers out there who can better address this topic, including some who have very real experience and can share how The SA handled the subject.
Blessings, Sven
One more point- It used to be that non-officers were never published in THE OFFICER. However, I noticed that a non-officer had an article in the most recent issue. The very first articles I submitted were rejected as I "was not a of substantive rank". I was only an Auxiliary Captain. Three years later, and having earned a Master's degree the articles were published (I was still only a lowly Aux, but the addition of MEd. to my title apparently brought my musings to a higher intellectual level... go figure LOL.
Blessings, Sven
Love your wit, humour, and style. The SA's very own Christopher Hitchens !
UKT
You have to posses a good sense of humor and wit to deal with certain army types - officer and non-officer. I find it interesting though that if you were remove/strip the rank from certain officers (the higher ups) there goes their identtity!
Good writing, Sven.
One quick question; what about cohabiting (non-married) monogamous heterosexual couples? Should they need to be "sanctioned and blessed by church and state" ? Or can they now claim the same rights as gays ? Live in union in support of gays until such time as the law recognizes homosexual legal unions ? How slippery should this issue's slope allowed to become ?
Former UKT
PLEASE NOTE- NO MORE COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED AND SAVED FOR FUTURE POSSIBLE USE.
OR, PLEASE SAVE THEM FOR FUTURE REFERENCE AND 'CUT & PASTE'.
I AM HOPING SOMEONE WILL WRITE ON THIS ISSUE BY JAN 1, 2009.
Blessings, Sven
Post a Comment