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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
229 comments:
1 – 200 of 229 Newer› Newest»"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?" My answer to that would be the majority of the time. Let's say for instance discrimination or being prejudice; both of these are under the ideals of other people's hatred and belief system. It is almost like we as a people cannot be independent and that we work off of others' instincts and character instead of our own. In my eyes Obama seems like he can change that. Like in the blog, out of all the presidents known to man in the United States all of our hopes have been let down because of that same broken promise of saying that unity will come to pass. But Obama is the real deal. Look at it this way.... Obama has had the most successful campaign for the time period that I have been alive. "Who else can take a group of people who have been opposed to each other based off of race and ethnicity and be a living contradiction, himself being African American, and cause most Amricans to vote him as president and people to slowly but consistently loose the idea of racism?" Only him! And who cares about Warren's comments... as if you never made a mistake or said something so bold; which is our problem of worrying about outside problems and others, and not the issue at hand. Obama is not Warren so even though what he says might affect him in the long run as long as Obama does his job then that is all that is important. Besides the prayer was great and Obama showed forgiveness and showed that the "cold shoulder" in the midst when everyone needs to learn to come as one is not a smart move. I believe Obama is "universal" which is the reason why he is able to work around various comments about homosexuals, marriage, unity, and etc. I also feel like if we can become a little bit more universal then all of these issues involving "bringing everyone to the table" with separate ideas and minds of our own, then there would be no huge dilemmas. The day that happens is a long time from now because lately everyone loves to co-sign instead of produce ideas and agree to disagree.
I also feel like now the President is being watched more so than ever. Because of this Obama now needs to watch and make wise decisions just for the simple fact that people are waiting for him to fail at the very same thing that every other president failed at; and that is creating a union. Not only is he being watched but his family also.
Hopefully, Obama upholds to his promise and that as the first BLACK President he makes the first REAL change!!!
I grew up in a household that was strictly conservative. My father and the majority of my family members are republican supporters and always have been for various reasons that, up until this election, I had never really taken an interest in. Now, with such a dramatic change in the presidency taking place this year it’s hard to turn a blind eye to a situation that will so greatly impact my life in the future and has allowed me to begin to develop my own thoughts and ideas on the subject matter at hand. “Bringing everyone to the table” and “change is upon us” are two things that ran through American’s minds as Obama was inaugurated and the entire nation watched as history was made. Now, the time for campaigning and making promises has ended and the time to take action has begun. Obama promises to bring people from all cultures, activist groups, race, religion, political beliefs etc. to make our way toward a common goal of restoring our economy to its prosperous state and to break the barrier that this country has for so long been blocked by to allow everyone to come together as one. The question raised is, “can he do it?” Focusing more on the concept of seeing things from both ends, I think that it is something really difficult to do which is perhaps why so many presidents in the past have failed at uniting this country. As we’ve learned, there is no real way to categorize people because we are all so unique and different and come from so many different backgrounds. Because of this, you have your Obama supporters, your non supporters, and then your people in between. Bringing all of these types to the table to make decisions and decide how to fix our country for the better is a battle no one person has ever been to accomplish. I think Obama did himself a favor at the inauguration by having Warren there, showing that he is willing to step outside the box (a rare occurrence)and do what he has to, to accomplish the change he has promised. Yes, Warren has made some bold statements in the media that are very conflicting remarks with what Obama stands for, but did anyone stop to think that that is a good thing. Maybe having different ideas and aspects of a concept backing such a controversial president will help to gain supporters that otherwise wouldn’t even think to be behind our new president. Even my father, the McCain supporter with the”Drill baby drill” stickers on the back of his car and negative view on anything democratic has himself taken a step back to see what this new president has in store for this country…hopefully, depending on our views, we will all be satisfied and surprised at what Obama has in store for us. But like everything, only time will tell.
What surprised me the most was actually Rick Warren’s interview in which he said he supported equality and equal legal rights for all people. Before the inauguration, I admittedly had never heard of this minister. I still don’t really except the few snippets from the news I pick up here and there. However, it amazes me how I thought he was a gay-bashing, hateful person, and this interview reveals more of his humanity. I think Obama not only tries to bring people with divergent viewpoints to the table, but he also seems to take the time to get to know people for who they are and not for a singular perception of them.
Additionally, I agree wish Sasha who called Obama the “real deal.” It’s been said that talk is cheap, and it’s obvious that politicians throughout the ages have talked the talk but have rarely walked the walk. While it has been only one week, it seems Obama has hit the ground running and is trying to stick to the promises he made during his campaign. He is taking the American ideals of unity and mutual respect that people often discuss and showing the United States it is possible to put into practice.
He has already shown that he is going to change the direction of the administration from Bush’s. On the first day, he signed a promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay and to stop using certain torture methods that tainted Bush’s administration and reputation. His “time for change” mantra is already coming into fruition.
Additionally, Obama met with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya network in an effort to reach out to the Muslim world. In eight years as president, Bush rarely met with the Middle East foreign press. This is yet another stride toward becoming a global neighbor and changing attitudes from the recent past. Obama wants everyone at the table because he realizes the importance of listening to one another and building relationships instead of building barriers.
I admire Obama for showing his commitment to diversity of opinion. It takes a big person to listen to critics and take their viewpoints into consideration. It seems safe to say that this new president is already making this a priority. Hopefully our current situation (economically, politically, socially) will take an upward turn and it will lead people to follow his example and become more cordial and open in their dealings with other people.
When people with opposite viewpoints begin to talk freely and respectfully with one another problems can be more efficiently solved. Seeing the world from other angles helps to give a more complete view of the world, and thinking outside the box and on a more global level will help us all take on the future better.
“ 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.” This is one of the many things that President Obama advocated during his campaign trail. Many Americans who supported Obama were inspired by his plan to cross political lines and reunite the country, at least I know I was. Change and unity are two things that do not come easy, realistically everyone should know that. If you look at American history, change, has never come easy, it has always been a struggle or a heated controversy. For example, the Civil War and the civil rights “struggle” were two issues that pertained to harsh treatment and inequality of colored individuals. The midst of the Civil War brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln. The emancipation set the stage later for the civil rights movement. There was a hundred year span of struggle for equality among colored people from the Emancipation Proclamation to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In essence, the Civil Rights Act was a revolution, it granted political, economic, and social to all, regardless of race. It was a turning point in history because it encouraged people to see each other as equals. Inequality still plagues our nation, despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but a revolution is a long, slow process. As stated in the blog, “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 has stated on numerous occasions that he would listen to views, even if they contradict his own. He is trying to turn the next page in American history, that presidents have tried to turn before him. Would it be safe to say that Obama is trying to bring forth a revolution? I believe so, and I think it will be a communication revolution. Chester B. Himes stated in his essay called The Crisis, “Martyrs are needed to create incidents. Incidents are needed to create revolutions”. He wrote the essay to encourage blacks to take aggressive political action against segregation. I believe Himes’s theory is true in order for a revolution to drastically change society, but I feel it differs from the revolution Obama has in mind. Other presidents have tried to bring forth the communication revolution that would bring unity and change to the United States, but have failed, why? I feel in a sense that they were not the right individuals to create incidents that would spark a revolution, politicians, such as Clinton and Bush, were too tightly knitted to their political constituents. Obama wanted to prove from day one, his inauguration, that he will stick to his words and not his constituents. He repeatedly stated that he would listen to people who he vehemently disagrees with, like Rick Warren. Obama, in my eyes, is the individual who will spark the revolution, I believe he used his inauguration as the incident to set the scene for the revolution to take place, and will fulfill his communication revolution through his policies and tenure as president. The communication revolution will consist of actually listening to people when they talk, take it in, and speak when they are finished speaking. I think this revolution could have to power to end many of the wars that are fought over meaningless misunderstandings. Obama is the beacon of hope to unify and change, not only our country, but possibly the world with the communication revolution.
Barack Obama stands for change, and in the case regarding the inclusion of varying viewpoints being brought together as one, our new president has done just that. No matter what Americans strive to achieve regarding unity and equality, when it comes down to it, our country is still divided by political parties and religious beliefs. It is in that sense that a universal agreement amongst laws is still in the works. I truly admire Obama’s efforts to include the very people his principles disagree with into his candidacy. This effort proves to the country that he is the not only the first black president, but the first president to stand by his word and unite the United States of America. His efforts offer people the opportunity to consider others’ views and understand varying opinions.
On the other hand, I understand where the thousands of LGBT supporters come from when they express their dissenting views on Rick Warren’s opening prayer. As democrats, they voted for a liberal political party to take over the White House who supports their desire to be recognized as equals in the marriage department. Because Obama has Warren contribute to his inauguration it appears as though the person they support is betraying them. Therefore causing haste amongst Obama supporters. I do not believe Obama’s intentions were to hurt his supporters in any way, but to unite all American citizens.
Because of this issue, I feel as though it is in Obama’s best interest that he clearly expresses his desire to bring America together fully and incorporate all people and all of their opinions, beliefs, and ideals into one to make our country stronger. People will never agree on subjects across the board when dealing with a country so large, but I admire Barack Obama’s desire for people not to necessarily all agree with each other, but to understand other’s view points and be considerate of other’s views and beliefs. By being a more understanding society, our country will be more supportive of our people and we can avoid hate groups and protests.
Obama is bringing everyone to the table, in a sense, because he wants every American voice to be heard. He wants to change the ways of America and I stand by his beliefs and ideals. I think it is important to keep in mind as well that he has only been inaugurated for a week and his ideals will not show results instantly. He has a period of at least four years to make a difference in our country and prove to society that all Americans, whether they disagree or not, can all get along to strengthen the American soul. I hope that his goals can all be achieved and that America can be recognized for our changes and improvements as a whole.
As I watched the events on January 20th, I was one of the many people that were surprised when Rick Warren stepped on the stage to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration. Given that I had been following the Obama coverage over the last months, I was aware of their strained relationship and difference in opinions.
Given that Inauguration Day was probably the most memorable day in Obama’s life, I would expect that he would want the crowd, supporters, and speakers to be filled with friends, family, and allies. It is because of this, that Warren was one of the last people I expected to see in the stands, let alone giving the opening prayer.
As surprised as I was, and as much as I disagree with many of Warren’s statements, I have to congratulate Obama for having the strength and character to allow him to give the opening prayer. Obama has said many times that he will listen to the other side of the arguments and try to work with those who have opposing opinions, and instead of just saying it, he showed it on his first day in office.
Obama realized that although he and Warren disagree on certain viewpoints, that there are many people that do agree with the minister, and it is important that Obama recognize those conflicting viewpoints in order to keep supporters.
Although Warren’s ideas insult many of Obama’s supporters, I think that they should be proud of their new president in sticking to his word to bring both sides to the table. Instead of making idle promises to the public, he stayed true to one of his goals set during the campaign and people should respect him for that.
I am one of those people that truly respect Obama for allowing Warren to give the opening prayer on Inauguration Day. I know firsthand how hard it is to agree with people on certain issues and to allow those ideas to be brought to the table. It is much easier to insult and put down other opinions and viewpoints than to hear them out or make an effort to learn the other side, which Obama easily could have done. I can’t even imagine how hard it was for Obama to allow Warren to speak on the biggest day of his life, a day that was centered on him.
Past presidents have made the promise to listen to other viewpoints, but all have failed to do so in their entire terms. Obama was successful on his first day in office. I think that this is one more reason for people to respect and admire our new president, whether they agree with him or not. I think that this was a perfect and respectable way to start his presidency, and I can only hope that Obama will be able to keep his campaign promises as easily and quickly as he kept this one.
In my personal opinion, I support gay marriage. I was raised as a Catholic. Growing up, I went to church, I read the bible, I went to Sunday school, I was baptized, I took communion, and I was confirmed. But somewhere in between learning all these ideas and beliefs, something just did not click. Especially when it came to love and marriage. Now, I consider myself to be spiritual because I questioned the things that I was raised to have faith in. Much like our discussions in class, I want to believe in certain things written in the bible, but there is no hard proof. The things that make us believe these things that are written are our faiths. Going back to the issue of gay marriage. Not only did I grow up learning Catholic views, but I also grew up having a gay uncle who I loved and was very close with. My favorite uncle was gay. I knew this and I accepted it as did the rest of my family, but my faith and the faith of my family did not. How does this occur? This is one of the first things that made me question this. I do not think that any religion has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong in terms of love. Love is love. No one would question the love between a mother and a child. So why should others question love between one human being and another human being regardless of sexual orientation? However there is also the issue of bringing things to the table and sharing ideals. Personally, I do try to share a table with the people with whom I disagree with because I think the greatest thing one can do is open their eyes. I want my mind to always be open to new things and although I may not always agree with others, I want to be accepting. For most, it is much easier to bash our enemies and declare their thoughts as wrong, immoral, etc. I will even admit that I have done it in times of frustration. But, if we can get people to just listen to each other and open our eyes, maybe we could focus more on similarities than differences between ideas. Even if similarities cannot be found, maybe everyone could just come to a mutual acceptance that everyone has their own opinion and no one is particularly right or wrong. People have failed to be uniters so far, especially our Presidential leaders. But with Obama, there is hope. Right now a lot of his promises are still just that, promises. However, there is so much more behind that. The way he went about his campaign and the way he made a country come together to elect him as president has touched so many people and made them think again about many issues. They might have different opinions, but in the end they have that one thing in common, that they all voted for Obama. Maybe they did not agree with every one of his ideas for change or every one of his policies, but they did all agree on the fact that he could bring about change and he did indeed unite a country. I have hope that Obama can change many things and bring everyone to the table. I have no doubt that he will surprise us all.
An interesting question posed in the “Bring Everyone to the Table” entry is raised when asked to consider how often we as a society and as individuals are placed in a scenario where we are surrounded by people of both similar and differing view points. I think we are faced with this situation more frequently than we realize. We are surrounded by different people everyday: in class, walking down town, or even when sitting in Internet chat rooms. However, the more important question would be, how often do we actually take notice of all of these ideas and do we really ever try to put ourselves in the other person’s shoes? I think people have a hard time simulating in their minds what another person believes, especially when it is drastically different from their own views. Society has raised us to aspire to be strong, opinionated citizens, but at the same time, somewhere along the way we did not stress enough that you should really listen to both sides of the argument, and try to compromise a plan to appease both parties. People are so set in trying to get their own way, that they may not consider that there can be a middle ground where everyone is made relatively happy. Now does a middle ground on same-sex marriage exist? Maybe, maybe not. However, until society, and people like Rick Warren, are willing to stop seeing marriage in such a trivial way and realize that there is no one perfect relationship, there will always be a struggle in convincing people to see the other side’s point of view. The only blame can be placed on stubborn mentalities and pure ignorance and the single-minded people that are still held in high regard in society.
There may not be enough people in positions right now who are as willing to take such steps in communicating with the masses. This is where we can look to the future, and hope that generations to come as well as maybe even as soon as the next election, we can hope to see more open-minded politicians. Classes, such as Soc 119, should be mandatory in some form or another in schools and even as seminars for those who have already graduated. Telling someone to put themselves in another person’s shoes is not something so easily done as said, but I do think it can be taught and there are methods to help people acquire better skills in opening the lines of communication without causing an uncomfortable situation. Even something so simple as participating on my high school debate team where it really helped me learn to see both sides of an argument, and at times, I may not have agreed with the position, but I was forced to argue it as well as I could in order to win a match. This was the perfect way for me to see the positives and negatives for both sides, learn how to respond in a healthy manner, and listen to what other people had to say. Now President Obama may be the most current exception to the rule as actually following through on what he says he will do as far as presidents in office go. He is willing to listen to each side of the story and considering different options and ideas. I am sure if he keeps this approach through his entire term, he will be more liked by the public, even if some of his decisions may not go there way, and will most likely see himself serving a second term. We can only hope he has filled his Cabinet with as many patient, open-minded people as he has come across to be and together they can work to make our society more tolerable and accepting of all lifestyles and individuals in general.
It is somewhat hypocritical of the LGBT community, and its supporters, to vehemently oppose Rick Warren’s participation in the Presidential Inauguration solely because of his position on gay marriage. At a time when everyone – blacks and whites, Americans and foreigners, Democrats and (some, hopefully most) Republicans – is sharing renewed feelings of hope and optimism, and visions of equality and unity, the LGBT community and its supporters appear rather selfish and close-minded. To clarify, I fully understand why the LGBT community would be against Warren delivering the opening prayer. Many members of the LGBT community volunteered for long hours and many days during Barack Obama’s legendary campaign, and I reckon that an overwhelming majority of the LGBT community voted for President Obama because he presented a very real opportunity for all minority groups in this country to finally have a voice and be heard. (On a side note, I strongly feel that an argument can be made that President Obama was slightly hypocritical for choosing Warren while a large number of his supporters support gay marriage.) However, denouncing Warren because one belief is exactly what the LGBT community is fighting against. To the LGBT community, the fact that the “controversial” Warren does not directly support gay marriage overshadows his rather progressive position on the issue. Although Warren does not feel that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, his comments show that he does “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.” Compared to the positions held by others affiliated with churches, it is safe to say that Warren’s stance is much more evolved and accepting of different lifestyles. Furthermore, I feel that the LGBT community’s reaction highlights our (Americans) shared misconception of what “unity” really means. To most, unity is a world where everyone agrees with everyone on everything and there is never any dissention or disagreement or debate. Or, in other words, unity is a Coke commercial, complete with every person holding hands and coming together. Unfortunately, unity is neither of these unrealistic things. Unity is not unilateral thinking and widespread acceptance of a given issue; it is the exact opposite. A much more realistic depiction of unity should involving giving all sides a voice and a forum. It should give all sides an opportunity to step up and disagree with one another in a RESPECTFUL and INTELLIGENT manner. To me, this is the meaning of unity in the context of today’s world. Past presidents were poor unifiers most likely because they sought the former image of unity rather than the later. (On another side note, it can be argued that President George W. Bush was definitely a unifier. When he left office, more than two-thirds of this country agreed in their disapproval of him.) Yet, President Obama has the potential to be a true unifier, as Professor Richards noted, because he embraces the latter image of unity, which basically fosters togetherness through dissention.
I, too, grew up in a very Catholic home where being gay was unheard of and our faith was certainly against it. I did not have a gay uncle but I was always curious about how people accepted those who were interested in same sex marriage. I think there are many new issues, which our new president will deal with differently, and people should definitely be open to his new suggestions. Our new president is obvious very different from the previous ones, not only in his race but also in his high level of intelligence which will obviously benefit our country. I have high hopes that this Soc 119 class is going to open my eyes up to very new approaches and ways to think of the world and the people in it. Already, I have heard so many new things in class. Today’s class, for example, when Professor Richards talked about creationism and the views that he has about God, if there is one, being a woman because she “gave birth to our planet.” Similar to how our country’s new president wants to bring everyone to the table, I think our Sociology class will do the same. Although everyone may not be eating the same food at the table, we will all be sitting there openly discussing our views on people and the world we live in today. That is something that is becoming the trend in today’s world, which is evident from the election. Many people who are of a different race came to the table and checked out all of the options before choosing our country’s leader. Race was disregarded as an issue when choosing our president. I think our world is gradually growing to disregard, race, religion, ethnicity and sexual preference and look at people for who they are on the inside and what they believe in.
When asked in class, how many of us have sat at dinner with a person of a different cultural background, a few raised their hands. That is a huge step from where we were many years ago when people of different backgrounds and color would not even be sitting in the same classroom together at the same university. And to think, we have our first colored president. Things are certainly changing towards a more UNITED States of America. I think Obama, just by being elected has started opening the eyes of many Americans. Those who supported him will grow stronger and continue to accept others. Those who were not on board with Obama at first, will certainly realize what a change our country is about to face. As our class comes to the table to discuss the differences and open up to the many opinions of our class, let’s hope that our country can do the same thing under such a strong leader who we hope will surprise us all.
It is extremely hard for me to make my own opinions on these types of situations. I wish I could say I was like everyone else in here and make it seem like I’m completely for Obama, or that I agree with same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, however, my parents are heavy-practicing Catholics and intensely conservative. My mother, especially, is very into politics of the sort and has forced a lot of her views on me throughout my life. This has turned me off greatly to some extent but I will not back down and say I completely agree with everything that is going on or being talked about. I have several friends that are gay and have no qualms with their feelings – the whole issue of marriage is almost difficult for me though, and I hope no one takes offense at that. On the other hand, however, I find it very interesting that Obama invited Rick Warren to give the inauguration prayer. Considering that indeed the last many presidents have not fulfilled their words, I find it promising that Obama is looking to “bring everyone to the table.” The world is made up of so many different views – how often do we all really take the time to listen to someone else about something so important? Yes, we are here at Penn State and yes, 40,000 diverse and culturally different people surround us every day, but that doesn’t mean that we take the opportunity to understand where they are coming from.
I always take notice of the fact that when a group of people is asked if they consistently hang out with people of the same ethnic background, USUALLY those people will answer yes. That includes myself. Although I do have a few friends that are culturally different from me, the majority of my friends are all white. With Obama taking advantage of this situation so early in his term is something that future presidents should take note of, in my opinion. However, I do believe that we are making great progress in the way that we view other people in our lives. It seems that we are starting to realize skin color doesn’t make a difference. This is obvious by the fact that we have our first black president. Although I am not a die-hard fan of Obama, I do appreciate the fact that he is showing the world the right way to go about doing things. Just because he is the one living in the White House every day for several years does not mean that he can run this country alone. It takes the people of the country to express their thoughts to him and it is his duty to listen. And in my opinion, so far, so good.
I am not going to lie; I do not find the remarks made by Rick Warren to be out of line. I agree with him and disagree with him on particular points in the argument. I personally find the definition of “marriage” to be a holy union. As such, I do not believe that a civil union should be considered a “marriage”. That being said, I fully support gays receiving all the rights and benefits that a marriage entails, the only thing that does not sit well with me is the actual term. My parents are members of the Independent Party, and in this particular election they supported McCain. Perhaps it is the generation difference, but I have found the mannerisms and actions of Obama to reflect equality on a grand scale. The FACT that Obama let Warren speak at the inauguration speaks volumes. All too often politics is marred by handshakes and fake smiles, with opinions largely being dismissed. In these times of economic turmoil it is important that people of differing beliefs and mantras come together. Many disagree with Warren, but many agree as well. “…his [Rick Warren] views about same-sex marriage are in line with 52 percent of his state's (California) residents.” (Richards) America is built upon differing beliefs, the beauty of our country lies in the fact that we are allowed to think and express differently!
Throughout life we are often forced to sit at a “table” with those that disagree with us. That table can be the workplace, the classroom or ones home. It is a fact; for the most part people meet change with anxiety and reluctance. Such is the case when others force them to alter or change their views entirely present individuals information. Many people find it extremely difficult to view a particular issue from an altering viewpoint. Think about it, all conflicts at their root are disagreements in which both sides failed to see the others issue. It seems to be that placing oneself in another’s shoes is easier said than done.
So where do we go from here? Our economy is in shambles and once again there is conflict in the Middle East, this time dealing with Israeli issues. Through all the turmoil, I see the United States going nowhere but up. Although times are difficult I believe that the right man is in place for bringing our country out of the economic doldrums. However, some issues concern me. The proposed 825 Billion economic stimulus plan in theory will allocate 550 Billion to new spending. This is a huge step, but what about the additional dealt that will be laded on future generations? USA Today reports that the plan “would add 347 Billion in interest on the national debt over ten years.” (USA Today) Change is on the way, but at what financial cost to our children?
Despite the Obama mania that has taken this country and what seems to be the whole entire world, I have to admit that I actually like the guy. Putting aside his political persona, Obama is someone I can relate to. He worked from the bottom up to push his way through Columbia and Harvard. He has good taste in entertainment- he likes Jay-Z and has said The Wire is his favorite television show. I never understood how people accused Obama of being an elitist- he is a self-made man. Unlike a majority of our other presidents, Obama worked to where he got today- he didn’t have a name or the wealth.
For the first time in my life I was able to vote. However, I didn’t watch any debates or hear any speeches made by both candidates. Therefore, I had no idea who I was going to vote for and called my dad. He told me that I had to vote for McCain and to call my sister and tell her to vote for him too. Then my mom called me and also told me to vote for McCain. My parents were hard-core McCain voters. They even dressed up as them for Halloween. haha
So Election Day came on November 4 and I voted for McCain. I only voted for him because my parents told me I had to and they only shared his beliefs with me. I knew Obama wanted change and whatnot, but I didn’t know this could be a day in history. How many presidents changed history or gave a good attempt to?
The way Obama says he’s going to bring everyone to the table actually makes me believe he’s going to. I trust him and I know he will lead our country right, even though I had not voted for him. He promises to bring all race, religion, culture, political beliefs and activist groups together and I believe him. Is it because he’s black? Yes it is. I’m so happy that we now have a different race as a president. Now our country leader can actually stand to his words. If he can bring his supporters with the non-supports and even the people in between it would be a true miracle. He’s already changed my perspective. Has he started to change Warren’s perspective? Now Warren is saying that he wants people to be treated equal. Does this mean that he agrees with some of the democratic views? I’m glad Warren was at the inauguration to prove this. I feel that he is satisfied with Obama and is held back a little because what he knows is to be a republican. This shows that even people on the other side of the political party can still agree and can still be persuaded into what Obama will bring to our country. He will bring it all to the table. He will bring even the liberal person to the table. Obama had Warren there to show the people that he can bring anyone to the table and everyone should still trust him. He wants everyone to unite and not feel threatened by the other candidate or political party.
All we have left to do now is sit back and watch him over the next four years and maybe eight. We’ll watch him take over history by uniting us as one.
I’m not sure if I interpreted this blog in the way it should have been, and to be honest, I’m not one for following politics; therefore, I don’t know all of Barack Obama’s plans. Because of this, my journal this week is about how I interpreted this blog, so don’t get too mad if I’m wrong.
Personally I think that Warren does not know what he is talking about. In the first question he states that he “fully supports equal rights for everyone.” Then he goes on to say that he does not support gay marriages. To me, that is a bit contradictory. Part of equal rights, in my eyes, at least, is being allowed to marry whoever you want. Just because gay marriages aren’t the “traditional” marriage doesn’t mean that gays and lesbians should be denied their right to marry.
Warren also talks about how for over 5,000 years in every religion, marriage has been between a man and a woman, and that he doesn’t think an adult man marrying a teen is a marriage. Sam makes a good point about how way back when, parents would send their teen daughters to marry a man twice their age. Today, most people would not do this, but back then, that is how marriages were arranged. My point is that the rules of marriage have evolved and changed. So if they are evolving, why can’t we allow gays and lesbians to marry? Today’s world is very different than the world that existed 5,000 years ago. Most people don’t believe in arranged marriages anymore, but back then, that was the most common way to get married. Sure, gay marriages were not allowed back in the day, but why should it be that way now? We, as the United States and as humans, have changed traditions and rules because our culture is forever changing. Gay marriage is one of those things that should be accepted today. Gay people are humans so why can’t they get the same rights as every other human on this planet?
Another point I want to touch on is the whole “bringing everyone to the table” thing. I think it is great that Obama is doing just that: bringing everyone to the table. And hopefully he will follow through with his word unlike the last 43 presidents. I just think it’s an interesting point that Sam makes. He asks, “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?” And this is so true. Everyone has their own set of beliefs and sticks to them. But sometimes we just need to push our beliefs to the side and listen to what other people have to say. Their beliefs may be the exact opposite of yours, but that’s okay. You never know what other people’s opinions will do to yours. Maybe they will change your own opinion, or maybe they will make your opinions and beliefs more concrete to you. I personally believe that to truly believe in your beliefs means that you can look at the other side and either reject it or take something from it. Either way, whether you’re in the Senate or just in a debate in class, everyone should look at the other side of their arguments because you will always learn something from it. So I challenge you, the next time you talk politics or anything, listen, and I mean really listen to what the other people are saying and see what it does to your opinions and beliefs. The other person may change your beliefs, or really set them in stone. Either way, you are getting something out of it.
In my immediate family consisting of my mother, father, and brother we often times share our views on very controversial matters and we can never all agree on an answer. Often times, we end up forming allies where two of us agree on one side of the answer and the other two agree with the complete opposite of the answer, but I enjoy these conversations and I find them quite entertaining. Especially like them because I can also hear the person’s logic behind why they believe in what they believe in and hear that are sort of evidence that is supposedly suppose to validate why there belief is suppose to be the correct belief, and why my belief is suppose to be the wrong one by providing arguments against mine. As far as friends and casual acquaintances I usually do not sit down at a table with them, and listen to their views because it is not a very enjoyable experience for me. I tend to be very emotional about my opinions and take a lot of opposing ideas to offense, so I end up becoming very angered and annoyed. So to avoid a very possible serious spat I try not to get on the subject of these certain ideas where I know I have contrasting ideas if this is a friend who is very close to me and who I do not want to lose over a petty argument, or if the individual is someone who is just an acquaintance than I just try to avoid deep conversations with that person. So from what was just said, I can say that I do not often times share the table with individuals who have different views than I do.
I do sometimes make a strong effort to see the world in their eyes and to understand why they think the way they do, but what most often times occurs, is that I see how absurd there thinking is and I find it very funny. So it makes me stick to my opinion even more, because now I am even stronger convinced that my view is correct. I am aware that sometimes my views may also seem crazy and out of touch, because I know I am very weird, but in a good way, like unique or genuine and that’s why I think in such peculiar ways, and I am proud of that. It is definitely easier for me to simply lob derision grenades on my enemies because it is easier throw the criticism at one person and continue to believe that my own idea is obviously the accurate one, then to say oh, no maybe I am wrong and you are idea is correct, but by nature humans do not like admitting that they are wrong.
Obama so far seems to be a man of his word and is working toward a greater nation. He, like each and every person in the United States has his own opinion about any topic that comes up in the public including same sex marriages. The fact that Obama is attempting to actually ‘bring everyone to the table’ is the difference he has with many other previous politicians. This idea of bringing everyone to the table that most Presidents attempt to do, basically seems to me to just be a ploy in order to get everyone or your side. Ultimately, it is in human nature to do what is in your own best interest or essentially whatever you want to do. There are some people who can truly be good quality people and try and do what is for the greater good but a lot of times saying that you are going to bring everyone to the table could just be a scam. That person is then in power and is able to revert back to their own best interests and make rules or laws however they see fit.
Although it has not been completely proven yet, Obama seems to be on the right track to keeping his word in ‘bringing everyone to the table’. It is a very difficult task to step out of your comfort zone and your ‘own head’ and listen to what you have to say and critique it with the same level of questioning as you would anyone with a contrasting idea. Once this ability is achieved it is more likely that you will be able to see everyone’s point of view while simultaneously having your own logical opinion.
From the interview on the blog it seems that Warren is not a diehard radical about being opposed to same sex marriage, it just seems to me that he has an opinion. This opinion, although differing to Obama’s is one that many of the American people agree with. So in order for Obama to be the leader of this country and to represent the views of the American people he must be willing to listen and understand the ideas of its people as a whole. I feel that by inviting Warren to speak at the inaugural dinner he was depicting a literal picture of the ‘bringing everyone to the table’ statement. The entitlement to an opinion is each person’s right and is difficult to dispute, but looking past their opinion and recognizing the fact that they have other qualities is the hard part. In order for this nation to prosper and for President Barack Obama to succeed as the leader of our country, the open-mindedness of American citizens is going to need to increase and ‘bringing everyone to the table’ is going to need to become a priority. But like everything, time will tell.
It is essential, in any situation, to “bring everyone to the table.” To really get a good perspective on a situation you need to hear about it from all different sides and angles. You need to listen to the views supporting your opinion and the views against it. Otherwise, how can you really be sure that your opinion is an informed one? It would be completely unfair to allow only one side of an argument to be heard by the public and doing so would go against everything our country stands for. I believe that President Obama made the right choice in allowing Warren to give the opening prayer, even though they may not see eye to eye on every issue.
I think that a lot of people have trouble with accepting others. Especially when those others believe in opposite things. What I feel is right is to accept a person even if you hate everything they believe in. Doing this is difficult, yes, but just because someone may have different values and believe in different things doesn’t mean they deserve any less of your respect. Even if you feel what they believe in is bad, it doesn’t make them a bad person.
As far as the definition of marriage goes, since when is a “traditional” meaning not allowed to change? Our society is one of change, and not just changes in technology, but changes in the way of life. If we stuck to traditional definitions, allowing for no change what would that make us? If we stuck to the traditional definition of “treatment” would we still be putting leaches on our skin instead of taking medicines? Things change and we need to be open and flexible to those changes. Just because the old definition of marriage was between a man and a woman doesn’t mean that definition must still be true today. I feel marriage is more about commitment and less about gender, especially in today’s society. If two males or two females or even three or more people want to make that commitment to each other, then why shouldn’t they be able to. With our changing society, I really feel we are going to begin to see more and more untraditional families and marriages, and I really hope that with these changes our society becomes more accepting.
With that being said, there is nothing wrong with a person who believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It would be completely wrong to silence this kind of person and not “bring them to the table” just because what they believe might be different from what I believe. If we all believed in exactly the same things and had the same values, our country wouldn’t be the diverse place that it is, and I really think it would be a lot less interesting. It is always good to take a step back and listen to opposing viewpoints.
We often share a table with people whom we disagree with. However we do not exclude them for their beliefs and practices. It is essential to be open and accepting to all people’s opinions. However, we do not necessarily need to neither understand nor accept their opinions as our own. Rick Warren’s traditional Christian views on gay marriage do not make him a homophobe. As many Christians believe that marriage is between a man and women, we did not say they could not come to the inauguration. I can also see why Obama supporters have been annoyed by Warren’s views, however it does not mean he is a horrible guy and should not be included. Many times we may not agree with some individual’s ideas. Therefore we criticize them and do not acknowledge their views as the truth. But they also feel the same way about us. It is a no win situation. We need to accept the differences we share and not criticize them. Pastor Warren is a Christian and his Book the Purpose Driven Life has been truly inspirational to me. I may not agree with some of his ideas, but I do not exclude all of his beliefs.
I remember watching the debate between than Senator Obama and McCain and seeing both answer tough controversial questions about their past life experiences and their faith. Although President Obama may not agree with everything Rick Warren believes does not mean they have nothing in common. Obama has a gift of being able to listen to others viewpoints whether they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent. His quest for bi-partisanship makes him stand out compared to our past presidents. We may not know what to expect in the upcoming years from him, but we have to give him the chance. The night before the Inauguration President Obama joined many in honoring his former opponent John McCain at a honorary dinner. This past campaign was very brutal in terms of negative attacks toward both candidates. They have come to put their differences to the side, and try to working together to get our nation out of this economic crisis. In 2004 did we see President Bush honoring John Kerry? Just this morning President Obama has been working with house republicans to agree on a stimulus to help fix the economy. He has been open to all opinions. He also has republicans working in his cabinet.
I went to They were very conservative and did not accept any other views but that of Republican. However, I have many close friends from high school that our views on issues are completely different, but I accept them and listen to them. My girlfriend and her family were avid McCain supporters, as my family and I were Obama Supporters. Often times it led to heated discussions but we loved each other at the end of the day. My Father has voted republican for all his life. He is a military man that had been very conservative. He served a year in Iraq and learned how poorly managed the war was and how, the military benefits were not to the par they used to be. He became inspired by Obama and made the change to vote for him. We will have to see what the president does in the next few years. He is going to be watched constantly with people waiting to criticize his first mistake. He has a lot of work ahead and his ability to listen to other people’s views makes him an effective leader.
“How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we stridently disagree?” I believe we share a table all of the time. However, “…and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” Not so much. If a majority of people honestly took the time to see things from others perspectives more often than not, there would be a far less rate of conflict in the world. To attest that you do, on an individual basis, might be true, but it is foolish to think that most people act this way. To generalize, people are stubborn-- set in their belief system and not usually willing to change unless something fails them. Take religion and politics-- everyone's favorite dinner table topics. I live in a house with five girls (myself included). The other four are all conservative republicans, consisting of two Catholics, two Christians and then there is me: A self proclaimed Unitarian-Buddhist-hippie-liberal who was the only one to cheer when Obama… the only one. I live with these girls. I eat with them; I go out with them; I have long discussions with them. We couldn’t agree less. I have taken the time to see things from there perspective, and I can honestly say I have tried to put myself in their shoes. Because of that, I swallowed the idea of having this “cool liberal image” and just started going to a Baptist Church, and have actually enjoyed my experience. So it is safe to say I give others a try. At the same time, the girls I live with are pretty set in their beliefs, and that is sad to me. Not because they believe what they do, but because their lack of self-exploration has led them down the very narrow path that their parents forced them to walk down. None had their own ideas, opinions, or values. They were spoon fed their belief system with no room for questioning and no reasoning when they themselves are questioned. A token “well, I was raised that way,” or “my parents taught me that,” is the typical response. Two of my roommates actually fear Obama being in office. This makes me ill. I do see them as crazy. I will admit it. I would love to lob derision grenades at them, if even just to get a response of some sort. I see myself as an educated girl. I have been taught things but taken most with a grain of salt. They however, may see me as a radical tree-hugger (which really is not the case). And that is okay with me, I am not really concerned. My point is, I see things from their side, and I still disagree with them. I am not sure how they see me, but I know they don’t agree with me, and they are too uninformed by their parents to give any other thoughts a shot. My blog was really not as specific to Obama as I would have liked but I think you can see my point. More often than not we are surrounded by people we don’t agree with. I think it is up to the individual to scrutinize the other person’s beliefs fairly, and then come up with your own conclusion. All you have to do is listen.
I grew up in a very conservative household with conservative political views. I have an average boring American family. I live with both of my parents who have dated since high school I have a brother and a dog and I live in development where all the house look the same exception some variations in the shutter colors. So growing up did I ever “share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree--and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” quite honestly no I didn’t. Both my parents are very adamant with their beliefs and my opposing views were often told to be wrong. I had a friend in middle school whose older sister and parents who had very liberal political views, which they often shared with me. After bring over at her house I would come home and tell me my mom what they had said and she would get so angry. It eventually came to the point where my mom made rules so that I basically couldn’t hang out with that friend anymore. So other people coming into my home with opposing ideals was uncomfortable and usually avoided. When I was younger I didn’t really realize this whole thing was happening until I was older especially in high school. I went to the second biggest high school in Pennsylvania and I graduated with almost 1,100 other students. So even though I’m from a suburb of Philadelphia I’ve seen a lot of diversity. After I started going to school with so many different people of different races, cultural backgrounds and religious beliefs I really started to see the small mindedness of my family of 4. There is where I started to branch and get to know the different people around me and understand who they were and where they came from. But this was all from a sage distance. I would get to know someone for only a few hours a day and hen when it was over I went back to my house in the more wealthy part of my school district. Coming here to Penn State changed all of that. For the first item I was literally living side by side with people totally different from me. This was different from school because in high school even though my peers were maybe different than me we all lived the borders of my school district. Here I was living side by side with people from different areas, different states and even different countries. I think this was really the first time I started to stop getting to know people at a safe distance and really shared a table with them. But it is hard to continue that especially when you start to meet people who share your ideals and are similar to you because then its easy again to hide behind these people and keep your distance from those that you are not so comfortable discussing your dissenting beliefs with.
I believe that Obama doesn’t judge a person by their cover, he go and find out what and who that person really and truly is from the inside out. Warren made some comments that are out there and Obama understand that but still asked him to be a part of his inauguration. These kinds of things Obama cares for but is trying to not break a promise that he made to his people. Obama stands for change and change he will bring. This was a big step that could have made or broke Barack Obama. I think it was a good thing that even though he doesn’t believe in what Warren said he still didn’t let that faze him. He is willing to step out and let everyone look at him and realize that he talk the talk and walk the walk. A lot of people biggest fear is accepting people for who they truly are. Many people had a problem accepting the fact that Obama calls himself black. “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 always are share the table with people who disagree with us. If we all agreed to something then it would be no point in anything. It is a good thing that we all disagree in some way but that shouldn’t be the reason why we should not come together. This is a big step and many people are just waiting for Barack Obama to fail at things so they can start pointing fingers. Obama wants everyone to come together and bring change and everyone is going to watch him and his presidency to see if he can make this “change” happen. We need to just have open arms to change and stop being scared of it. Yes, the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman but I believe that if two people are happy with each other and not causing any problems let them live their lives in peace. Majority of the presidents we had in the past made promises but they really didn’t come out on top of their promises. Obama wants to start a new trend where he cannot break the promise that he makes. We don’t really see ourselves how they see us. We don’t step into their shoes and wonder what they see in us or how they view us. We just know what we see them as and what we see ourselves as. Which is not fair but it’s what happens. Things would be so much better if we could see what others saw.
I feel that Obama did the right thing by inviting Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. Even though he might not share the same views as all Obama supporters it does not mean Obama should alienate him. We are the UNITED States of America. The president’s job is to make sure that everyone remains united because it makes for a much smoother running society. He should open it up for everyone to be able to share their opinions about what they feel necessary because if he doesn’t there is going to be conflict throughout our country. I feel like Obama is going to deliver his promise for change and bringing everyone together. Obama is going to have a hard time getting people to conform, but as long as the people in power are able to make the changes society will see this and slowly start to change. Therefore, Obama started his presidential term off with a bang by setting an example for the entire nation to see. I hope that Obama is able to bring everyone to the table, and I hope that people become more willing to accept the change. If this is to occur our world will be a more peaceful place to raise my children in.
I don’t agree with Warren’s opinions about marriages in the past compared to today’s world. He believes they should remain heterosexual marriages just like in the past. In the past that is all that was accepted, but he needs to take into consideration to accept different points of view. If Obama supporters are supposed to accept another point of view on an issue why shouldn’t Warren? Our society is changing constantly. People that were gay in the past married heterosexually because they knew they would not be accepted in society. Therefore many people were forced to live their lives with a lie. Everyone should have the opportunity to live a life full of happiness and honesty.
It is obvious that Warren does contradict himself that marriages of today should be more like the past, but he doesn’t agree with polygamy, incest, and older spouses marrying younger spouses. Like the blog says I find this hard to believe because of the older men always marrying young children in the past. Despite the fact I don’t agree with Warren on this issue in particular, I am not going to just avoid everything the man has to say. I feel that he probably does have some very good points, and I am open to hearing what others think. I may not agree, but it makes me gain an appreciation for someone willing to let their opinion be heard openly without trying to make others think with the same idea.
In today’s society I feel like there are a lot of people who walk on egg shells around others who share different beliefs or values than themselves. Lately it seems that if anyone expresses their beliefs that are against the norm or the “correct” beliefs of society, they are immediately greeted with anger and distaste. This has been exemplified through the media, for instance the situation with Warren. I feel as if we have become less confident in our own beliefs for fears that they are “wrong” and that we will offend one another if they are expressed. This results in people either simply not saying what they think or people who only converse with others who have the same beliefs. This only leads to an increase in misunderstanding and more racial divides. If we could just take time to listen to others opinions and to learn to not feel afraid of different opinions then we could all grow to be united. In the case of Obama he is working very hard to develop this unity. By inviting Warren to the inauguration Obama should be viewed as someone who, although doesn’t agree with the beliefs of Warren, will not rudely shut him out for being different. This is a key example of what we should all follow as people. We should understand that, yes there are differences in opinion, and no we shouldn’t ridicule others because of it.
By modeling the behavior of acceptance Obama has made an image for himself. This image spells out that Obama is not a man with a one track mind. He is willing to accept the views of others without holding it against them. This in turn will bring more people who are not already comfortable with Obama closer with the new president. Lets face it, there are obviously people out there who are actually scared of what will happen in this presidency. With Obama certain Americans believe they are taking a huge risk. This is simply because nothing like this ever happened before. Some Americans fear that Obama will take over the nation and suppress the whites, causing the nation harm. Although this is far from the truth, many Americans still feel it because never before has America been run by a president other than white. This is both new and different for Americans and as a result they are hesitant. But I believe that because Obama is proving to America that he does not run with a one track mind should put many Americans at ease. They should feel relaxed to know that their president will do anything to understand the thoughts of others without delivering an authoritative stance that is oppressive. This will hopefully serve as a model to all Americans that they too should see the other side of things without being afraid. If we are ever going to move past racial barriers we first have to be comfortable with our own views and gain the acceptance of the views of others. And Obama is an excellent example of this.
After reading the most recent blog “What ‘Bringing Everyone to the Table’ Really Means”, I definitely think that we may finally be headed in a direction where controversial issues can be discussed rather than argued. Rick Warren is far from shy when it comes to speaking about his views on gay marriage and how it violates the traditional definition that has been in place for “5,000 years.” Although the combined LGBT supporters/Obama voters were less than thrilled at the invitation extended to Warren to speak at the inauguration of our new President, this simple act could have many long-lasting positive effects on our country. The blog references former Presidents Bush Sr., Bush Jr. Clinton, Reagan, Carter etc… as not being able to be unifiers. We are absolutely due for a leader who will not ignore or downplay important differences, but acknowledge and work through them. Even on the smallest scale, the simple act of having Rick Warren speak at the inauguration shows that Obama wants to subtly satisfy the anti-gay voter contingency without changing the LGBT view of him. As I mentioned in my blog response last week, our generation is that of acceptance and tolerance. 20 years ago we would have never had a black president or a woman president and this time last year the possibility of both existed. We are the generation that, for the most part, accepts LGBT for who they are and does not try to isolate them or prohibit them from being an active part in society. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man and realizes that there is a large portion of the country that would favor Rick Warren’s opinion on gay marriage over his, which begs for the question “can’t we all just get along?” Maybe it is too much to ask for us to all get along, but for everyone to have the opportunity to have their voice heard and for civil conversations instead of arguments to take place is more than a drastic improvement. Having a leader like President Obama in the White House is just what this country needs as our generation graduates college and starts their lives in the real world. Although the kind of time needed for a society’s opinions as a whole to noticeably change is most likely going to take much longer than the 8 years that Obama may be in office, he is the right leader at the right time to act as the catalyst. I’m not saying that we are on the brink of a neo-Shangri La society and that everyone is going to live in a prejudice-free world of harmony. I’m simply just saying that although the Warren/Obama issue is small and may seem to have little significance, continued acts of “bringing everyone to the table” can have a large effect on our nation.
Each individual is unique and has their own set of beliefs and values; its what’s makes humans so incredibly complex and interesting. "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 love this statement because it really gets you thinking about the differences amongst ourselves and others around us. It’s not only that we all look different, but every thought process is completely unique and separate from anyone else’s. It truly is amazing. However, with differences often comes uncertainty and disagreement. Disagreements can not always be settled; people can not always take a step back and see from another person’s perspective. Enemies? I would hope that not many of us can say we have enemies. However, people we dislike, perhaps there are many. Sometimes my roommates become the people I dislike (for short periods of time of course), they often are the people I disagree with upon many issues. For instance, during the campaign season one of my roommates received Ann Coulter books from her mother. I didn’t agree with anything this woman wrote in her books or with what my roommate was preaching from them. However, taking a step back and trying to see where people are coming from is an awesome and unique ability. Many people are too stubborn or self righteous to be able to do this. But if you can, the more power to you. I think many people are now starting to realize why Obama was liked by so many people. His gift for giving amazing speeches not only inspires Americans but also makes us believe that change will come. Obamas theme for his presidential campaign was simply “change.” Sometimes I think people couldn’t relate to this. Perhaps they thought he was being too optimistic or that he was just like every other president that promised “change” and failed to actually do so. Afterall, it just seemed too simple. It has been so long since we’ve seen a president who has actually started to do what he has promised (time will only tell). Or perhaps it’s that it has been so long since we’ve seen a president whom many Americans can actually relate to; who seems personable, so much so that that’s why we believe in him. So it comes as no surprise to me that Obama would be a person to have that gift, of seeing from someone else’s perspective. I think we needed a President like this; one who seemed to understand from a broader perspective and not be so narrow minded which is easy to be in politics. Obama showed a great deal of acceptance by having Warren there at his inauguration. I think he showed a lot of people that while disagreements exist, and always will, there are times when these disagreements can be put aside for something greater and more important.
The inauguration of Obama on January 20 was a momentous occasion for millions of Americans, especially those in the LBGT community, who were promised new rights under his presidency. These people were understandably upset when Obama announced that Rick Warren, a controversial minister who has many strong opinions about marriage, would be giving the opening prayer at the inauguration. Rick Warren is known for his controversial views on gay marriage and gay rights. I heard a lot about Rick Warren during the political campaigns, but I never really understood his views. After reading what he said in Sam’s blog, I was almost surprised by how accepting he is of gays and lesbians. He obviously is not completely open-minded toward this lifestyle, but for a religious man, I consider his views almost liberal. I’ve heard my own priest saying things much more demeaning to the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Although he may not think it is appropriate for two people of the same sex to get married, it is important to note that he does support LBGT people having rights equal to those had by straight people.
Although I understand the anger felt by many LBGT people, especially those who voted for Obama, when hearing that Rick Warren would be speaking at Obama’s inauguration, it also seems hypocritical of them to feel that way. As a group, the LBGT community is constantly fighting for acceptance although many in America disagree with their lifestyle choice. They should be the first group to understand that people in America have a myriad of different opinions and should embrace all those opinions. I think Obama deliberately chose Rick Warren to send the message to the American public that although they may not agree with his views and may not have voted for him, he is willing to listen to their opinions and do whatever is best for all the people in America.
By including every view point in his inauguration, Obama is sending an important message. He is showing that he really will stick to his word to include both sides in the political process. With the state of America as it is today, Obama is proving that he knows it is important not to hold bias against any view point and to take ideas from all sides of a debate. Political parties should not serve as a dividing point in Washington or else nothing will be accomplished and Obama knows this. He took an important first step by showing that he will not be bound by party lines and his own opinions and that he will take advice and use all suggestions to help make America a better place. Although they may not agree with his views, those in the gay community should understand why Obama chose Rick Warran to speak and should understand that it was an important part of the inauguration.
Bringing everyone to the table is what is needed during this time, if not now then when. Right now this country’s culture is more open to change that if people don’t take advantage of this window who knows what will happen in the future. Yes, Obama is a significant change to our government system and we are all looking at him to see if he is really going to bring change to this country but, he can’t do it all himself. Many people are waiting to see what his next step is, when individuals need to focus on THEIR next step to help with changing our country. Yes, the individuals that voted and help put this great man in office was the first step. Now that he is office people need to take the responsibility for what we can change and effect this country for the better. Bringing the same energy that was brought to the polls and putting that it towards changing this country’s mind about issues that have not been brought to the table because of FEAR.
When the question “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 thought about when I have actually had a conversation with someone when our ideas clash completely, on issues like same sex marriages, abortion, race, religion. When I thought about those conversations I tried to remember if I actually took a minute and thought about it from their point of view, and after a lot of thought I never thought about those issues from another point of view. I think that is the major problem is that everyone is talking but no one is actually listening and thinking about what is being said. For example, with the same sex marriages and relationships, in my experiences people look down on those individuals if because of THEIR life choices and believe that they are not living their life the American way.
Bringing everyone to the table can bring out a lot of ideas, disagreements, agreements, and understandings. Having a president that is willing to deal with that is probably one of the mant great changes that can happen to this country. Obama has taken many risks and most likely will take more risk to ensure that the promises that he has made to this country are kept. I think that Obama is going to make many decisions that individuals will disagree with but in the long run realize that is was best for the country. For people that didn’t vote for Obama have to realize that their going to be a change and they will be at the same table with the people they disagree with sooner than they think.
I read the article “What “Bringing Everyone to the Table” Really Means”. This made me think about how important the decisions Obama makes can be. Depending on what he chooses, many things in this nation can change. Our previous presidents have been very strict with what I would call being conservative. It’s almost as if people who are not conservative don’t matter to our society. I haven’t heard of any lesbian or gays in the congress making huge decisions about our country. I don’t think that is fair to those people. Though I don’t know anyone personally that is LGBT, I think what this country is about is making everyone equal. I don’t think that people are equal right now. I feel like LGBT are looked down upon, at least in my home town. In my high school, there were maybe a handful of people that were LGBT, and they were treated unfairly. People were rude and inconsiderate because they were different. They could be considered outcasts, yet they are a part of our society. The people against them have never put themselves in these people’s shoes and tried to get through one day. What they believe may be different, but that is what our country is all about. What the people in my town believe is a terrible thing. At Penn State, I think people are more open about these issues, especially after sitting through a couple Sociology classes. I was very sheltered at home, with no opposing views. Obama needs to be the person that fixes this wall that straight people have put up. We had a discussion in my English class the other day, and most of the kids in my class don’t think that if Obama does something then everyone will follow. But I think that Obama is in an extremely powerful position. If he changes something, and truly brings everyone to the table when making decisions, then the nation will be a better place. If he is forcing everyone to become involved, citizens of this country will see that Obama is working on doing the necessary things to make this country better than it is now. Truly, our country needs some work. After eight years of Bush working our country into a recession, I am really hoping that our new president can show the people against him that he can change what is wrong. I agree with what Sam said in the blog entry. It made me wonder that if I was “brought to the table” would I treat everyone equally? I wonder if I would have some underlying stereotype that would make me act differently. I think true feelings come out when we are put under pressure. I want to see Obama do what other presidents failed to do.
This article nearly epitomizes the greatness of our new president, Barack Obama. Obama is a diverse political character, and I feel he embraces others’ differences, as well as his own. Having Rick Warren be the one to deliver the opening prayer at the inauguration showed the nation that Obama is able to put aside differences, which gives us, the people, the confidence we need to have in our new president. Some could say this openness makes Obama soft or without a backbone, but on the contrary, it is truly admirable in a person of his position. As was stated in the last paragraph, many presidents before have said similar things, but have not acted on these words. That’s what we need in a president.
I was just informed that there is a website that keeps count of all Obama’s promises he has made, and when he accomplished one, or even compromises, it says it on the website. I don’t think any other president had to deal with this kind of technical networking, so the pressure is on for Obama. Obama is the most capable of delivering these promises simply because of his outlook and inspiration to the people. He has a lot on his table due to our economic situation, the war, healthcare, and the moral debates presented at this time (i.e. same-sex marriage).
I also agree with this article on the basis of gay marriage. I believe if a couple wants to be recognized by their state as a couple then they have every right to do so. I cannot understand why a “civil union” is an issue at all. I do think same sex marriage, as in the Catholic Church, should be allowed too. I’m a Catholic myself, and I have always been turned off by the traditional and ritualistic ways the other Church; times are changing and the Church needs to stay with it if they want to survive the next few decades. I can see why the Catholic Church wouldn’t agree with same sex marriage- from the beginning of time it has been between a man and a woman. But who is to say that there were not gay people back then? Maybe there were fewer, but I’m sure they were all too scared to live as they felt they needed to, and to make things easier they would become lay people. Today, people are freer to live as they want to because they have a support system in their community, and if they don’t, they leave to find one. Because the Church, or even the state for that matter, does not recognize gay marriage will not make there be less gay people- so I don’t see what this discrimination of gay people is going to accomplish.
As Rick Warren compared gay marriage to incestual marriage or pedophilic marriage is demeaning to the gay life style and just shows Warren’s narrow mindedness.
Although people may not agree with Rick Warren, some do and you cannot hate the man for believing what he does- he was brought up that way and his strong religious beliefs makes him thing that way. This again shows Obama’s meaning to “bringing everyone to the table”.
Personally, I do not understand why people object so adamantly to the marriage of homosexuals. One of the behaviors I find most vile is when a person tries to force his own views onto someone else. If two individuals of the same sex wish to get married, it absolutely has no effect on anyone else. People need to accept that homosexuality is not going anywhere and mind their own business. Scientists have found enough biological evidence to absolutely conclude that homosexuality is a genetic occurrence, not a personal lifestyle choice. In fact, many wild animals display homosexual behavior. So why should these people experience discrimination when it comes to marriage? What is so sacred about the word “marriage” anyways? I feel like the people who oppose gay marriage and honor its “sanctity” act this way because of religious beliefs. This clearly violates the separation of church and state and should not be a valid reason for legally opposing the issue. The decrees of the Bible should not affect the laws of the United States. Furthermore, as was pointed out in the blog, America’s definition of marriage has evolved as times have changed and life spans have increased. Girls are no longer married off at the age of ten without any choice of husband. In a society where people frequently embrace and accept homosexuality, gay marriage seems like the next logical phase in the matrimonial progression.
Although I do not agree with the philosophies of Rick Warren, I think Barack Obama’s decision to have him speak at the inauguration showed the president’s immense maturity and his strength of character. As one of the most prominent individuals in the public eye, Obama needs to set a good example. Holding grudges and internalizing negative feelings towards another person or group does not fare well for a role model. Most Americans do not idealize such qualities. He is willing to put his pride and their differences aside and listen to what Warren has to say. This quality marks a truly savvy politician and with this action, Obama is able to appeal to the large percentage of Americans who oppose gay marriage.
This effort on Obama’s part will hopefully help mend the divide that runs through America concerning this issue. In a time where the economy flounders and many citizens fear for their jobs, unity will prove vital. I commend Obama for his effort and I think his supporters should understand why he invited Warren to speak. Clearly, Obama still supports gay marriage, and whether or not Warren speaks does not affect this. Warrant is not our president, Obama is. Thus, Obama allowing Warren to speak only shows the quality of the president’s character. His supporters should not see his “peace offering” to Warren as a slap in the face since it does not change anything. The only effect that could come from this incident is enhanced unity in America. LGBT supporters should not jump to conclusions so quickly and should try to see the bigger picture of the matter.
“Bringing everyone to the table” is an idea that Barack Obama should be commended for--after all, “everyone” does in fact refer to not only people whose ideas mirror his own, but also those who vehemently disagree with him. Giving equal attention to both his supporters and non-supporters is the only way Obama will be able to unite the people of this country, and although I do not personally agree with Rick Warren’s ideas about same-sex marriage, I applaud Barack Obama for standing by his decision to have the minister deliver the prayer at the Inauguration. However, my outlook for the future is not very rosy--although I believe Obama does have the best intentions for this country and genuinely wants to help heal deep divides, I believe his supporters’ inability to play the devil’s advocate is going to force him to fall back into the more traditional political role of pleasing one’s own political party at the expense of fighting for the greater good and attempting to see issues from another perspective.
I don’t have this opinion because I am a pessimist or because I want to rain on everyone’s parade and be the naysayer during this time of new hope for our country, I have this opinion because I know this is how politics has always worked and it is in people’s natures to simply block out the arguments of our enemies. Some people try to see the other side of issues in an attempt to settle differences, but even with the best of intentions about unity, Barack Obama is going to have a very hard time going against the opinions of his own political party. Despite his almost messianic status among his supporters, the very people who fought so long during the campaign in order to see him in the White House and later rejoiced when he won the election would turn on him in an instant if he stopped espousing the ideals he believed in during his campaign. Now, this might seem an obvious fact to everyone--of course the same people would no longer support him if he failed to deliver his promises--but what worries me is how closely people are going to be scrutinizing Obama and holding him to his party’s principles. The main thing his supporters should be keeping in mind was that Obama was not elected to represent only them, but that he was elected to be president of EVERYONE--including those whose stance on certain issues may be drastically different from his own.
If Obama does his job well, he will indeed “bring everyone to the table” and attempt to accommodate different positions on important issues--people should not criticize him when he doesn’t take his and his supporters’ side 100% of the time. The fact that he was criticized for the choice of Rick Warren as the minister at the Inauguration (an action taken before he was even officially in office) makes me shudder to think what some of his supporters will be complaining about when he really tackles the tough issues that face our country today. Although I think Obama will be strong enough to do the right thing for awhile, I have little hope for it to continue if his own supporters keep criticizing him and I fear he will buckle to their demands under all the pressure.
I personally did not follow Barack Obama’s campaign that much at all. What I did hear from what I did listen to or read was that Barack Obama is all about change. Not only is he a change in it of himself, but he is going to change what goes on in many different areas in many different ways. Obama knew he had to prove this change right from the get go of his presidency. Now I think that he just did this to agree with what his campaign was all about. I am not saying that he is not going to bring everyone to the table, not at all. I just think that he did something very radical already that he might have just put on a very good show. I do not think that Obama lied in his campaign he is most certainly going to bring everyone to the table but not this is a little too soon for my liking. I mean it is great that he is doing it, but now since he has actually gone through with it so early is he really going to keep up with it? My main problem is that if he does not then I will be disappointed at whom I think is going to be one of the better presidents of my time. Although, on the other hand, Obama has followed through with what his campaign was all about, change. This in itself does give me a sense of comfort and reliability in Obama that I did not even have before I voted for him. I also think that because of Obama’s background, race, and ethnicity he is the best one for the job of seeing the views of everyone at the table. He is most certainly the person who can really look and see what other people who have opposite views than him are really thinking and why. That is why I think it was perfectly fine for Obama to have Rick Warren at the inauguration.
To address the question, “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.” I have always “sat at the table” with people who disagree with me in many things. My one problem is that everyone was too afraid to share their opinions that I could never look into why they felt that way. To be honest I assume that I would be like that parent listening to the teenager telling me why they did something. I would listen to them and understand what they are saying but I wouldn’t believe in what they are saying at all. I think that most people want to feel like they do see why other people feel different than they do and that’s why they say that they do. I don’t think most people actually see the other side. With that being said I think Obama is doing everything right so far by bringing everyone to the table.
I understand what this post is getting at, that we should reflect upon ourselves and consider just how often we try to live in the shoes of another if only for a few minutes. Most of us hardly ever try to see things from an opposing point of view. For many, including myself, holding fast becomes the very nature of opposition. I find Sam's words quite admirable in this regard, a sound message for all of us.
But it wasn't that part of the post that really caught my attention. Rather, it was Rick Warren's words regarding the definition of marriage. This is something that's been on my mind of late, especially after hearing John Stewart go head on with Huckabee on this topic. I'm an anthropology student, and in four years of considering other cultures, I've learned quite a lot about mating and marriage rituals worldwide and throughout history. I can't call myself an expert by any means (though Dr. Stephen Beckerman certainly is), but I can tell you about what I've learned so far. I'll apologize now, in advance, for the anthropocentric perspective I'll bring to any and all discussions in this class, if it starts to get annoying to anybody. Hopefully by the end of this course my views won't be so ruled by one field.
Anyhow, Warren states very confidently that for "5000 years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion...as a man and a woman." A bold statement, to be sure. As far as I know, I would say "5000 years" is playing it safe. For all we know, 35,000 years wouldn't be too surprising either. Perhaps Neanderthals had the same definition. Maybe our predecessors, Homo erectus, also upheld a similar institution, we don't really know. In any case, the definition of man and woman in marriage is almost certainly older than 5000 years. With no written records before this time, though, it's difficult to track the particulars of institutions like this.
However, the question of time is not the most pressing. The real question I want to examine is whether or not, as Warren claims, marriage really is defined by every single culture as being only between a man and a woman. I think this is a far more decisive caveat than exactly how long it's supposedly been like this. I won't contest that every major world religion holds marriage as such, it's the culture claim that caught my eye.
The truth is, in my four years studying the customs of various cultures around the globe, I never learned of one which practiced same-sex marriage. Not in Africa, not in New Guinea, not in Europe, not in Asia, and not in the Americas. I simply never heard of it. Of course, I would be most indebted to the person who slapped me upside the head and corrected me, saying "so and so" practices socially recognized marriage between those of the same sex. Keep in mind that I could be totally wrong. Also keep in mind that sex is biological and gender is cultural. Take Eddie Izzard, the famed comedic "executive" transvestite as an example. He wears heavy makeup and dresses in the manner of feminine gender, and is thus of the transvestite gender, but his sex is male because he has the penis and testicles that he was born with.
Anyways, as I said I don't know of a society that practices same sex marriage, either extant or historical. In this case we must also recognize marriage as the institution that it is. It's not courtship, it's not hooking-up, it isn't sex for a long time or anything of the sort. It is a socially sanctioned contract that involves three parties (in no particular order), the first being the man, the second the woman, and the third being the society which is sanctioning or approving of their coming together. In essence, the society is approving of their union, and by that I mean their conjugal union. The society, however large or small, is effectively saying, "Yes these two (sexually mature) people are sane enough to make babies and take care of them together." Keep in mind that not all contracts specify any requirement for monogamy at this point, like ours does at least in mind. In any case, these are the express conditions of marriage.
I know not of a society which socially sanctions the making of babies between members of the same sex. This is probably because it's difficult to achieve biologically, but we'll get back to that. For now I want to elucidate just how unusual homophobia really is. The ancient Greeks, for example, the great civilization from which our founding fathers took so much in the creation of our novel system, were super cool with male homosexuality (don't know about female). To the Greeks, the male figure was something of an ideal form in nature, which is part of why they liked to carve it so much. Imagine a BOD commercial with philosophers in togas checking out young Olympian nudes stretching before a track run saying, "tight bod! hot bod!" and you'll get the picture. Male homosexuality was acceptable there and then, long before Christ of course. In Highland New Guinea, even today, homosexuality is an integral part of one's sexual life. It is believed by many highland tribes that semen is a finite resource, and that men do not naturally manufacture it. Prepubescent boys are brought into the woods by older boys, about high school to college age here, where the younger boys perform oral sex on the older ones. It is believed that by ingesting semen they will develop a store of their own, and it they don't, they'll quickly shrivel up and die, because semen is the ultimate source of male life force. When the older boys age further, they'll be expected to take a wife and cease these homosexual encounters and settle on heterosexuality. Thus, one starts out homo and ends hetero as a natural progression of sexual activity in life. Beyond the transmission of life force semen, this might also be a way for these men to relieve sexual stress and tension. You see, men there fear women because they menstruate. Men live in dwellings separate from women because they believe menstrual discharge is the planet's most deadly toxin, and women are avoided when possible.
In any event, homosexuality is accepted in more cultures than one may be willing to realize. However, neither of the examples I mentioned grant same-sex marriage. Why? Quite simply because marriage is and was largely about procreation and the bringing about of future generations successfully, and keeping kids alive was a much greater challenge in the past than it is now. It was also an important way to forge or solidify interfamilial alliances and relations, a way for some societies to promote the exchange of wealth and resources. Homoeroticism might make for fantastic sex, but it rarely results in children. As such, it simply didn't fall under the "definition" of marriage for many cultures, at least none I'm aware of, because it can't achieve its purpose of making babies. This is a practical explanation rather than an ideological one. I think this is a result of biological realities rather than the Word of the Lord or something of that nature. But why was procreation important? Quite simply, thousands of years ago (let's use Warren's 5000), human populations were not so outrageously inflated as they are today. It was very practical to bring about the next generation. Humans have always found strength in numbers, and have always been territorial. It was good to have people, and it was good to bolster your population. Remember Sam mentioning that enslaving people from neighboring clans was a way to build up your population. You wanted your clan to be strong and large, and besides enslavement, making babies is a really great way of increasing your numbers, a great way to multiply. How else to bring about fresh sons to fight territorial wars? Unfortunately, people of the same sex don't make babies well. Marriage was the bringing together of two who could do their duty and bring about more people.
But here's the catch, or so I think. Marriage has changed. In saying this I don't mean that the definition of marriage has changed, I mean the very ideal of marriage and how it actually happens has fundamentally changed in western culture. With the advent of the industrial revolution and effective contraception, we see a fundamental shift in the nature of heterosexual relations and family life. It used to be that hetero sex almost always meant a pregnancy, and with a birth, the responsibility of child care (unless infanticide or abandonment is employed as it often was). Now men and women can have sex on end without a resulting pregnancy, though accidents do happen. I think this changed our cultural attitudes entirely.
Marriage never used to be all about love. Indeed, spouses often found a way to love each other and work together, but that was rarely what initiated or guided their eventual elopement. It was a socially sanctioned contract that existed for other purposes besides the "happiness" of these two people. Arranged marriage was the norm. In recent times, we've brought romance into the fold. Now it's the romantic ideal to find Miss or Mister "RIGHT," fall in love, find that you are the only two people in the world for each other, exchange rings and vows, grow old together and live happily ever after, etc. Think about eHarmony. This is a totally new image of how marriage occurs, and in some sense, what it's for. I'm not saying it never happened like this in the past, but it was certainly a rarity. Our decision to marry is now our own, and it comes from a totally new, love-centric place with respect to history. Of course, many people still feel obliged to start a family, but it's not as if we need more people these days, it's not imperative. Many couples decide not to have children now, and in the past they would have been missing the point.
So, the real question is, do we base today's legislation on historically accurate definitions and historical facts, or do we base it on meaning, i.e. what marriage actually means to us as modern Americans, how marriage actually proceeds and how we actually feel about it? Being in favor of the latter, I do support the legalization of same-sex marriage. I believe that the ideal of marriage is of a different spark today, it exists in a different mode and on another plane. Lasting relationships occur by choice, not by necessity, and they occur by the same mechanism whether homo or hetero. Gay people want to marry for essentially the same reasons that straight people do. It is my feeling that history is in this case subordinate to modern needs.
But let us consider history yet again. It was once believed that the only true form of government was monarchy, a form that had proved its worth over millennia. By definition, monarchy was government. For whatever reason, the American colonials felt differently. That's not what their cultural experience meant to them. In the face of adversity, and perhaps certain death against the undisputed military power on the globe, they declared independence and formed a democratic republic. For the first citizens of these States United, it was not historical, monarchical definition that mattered, it was their current feelings, their present ideologies, their modern take on justice and reality. In 2008 a black president was elected. This is what I mean by current feelings, current meanings.
Of course, it is true that for most Americans, the current feeling is still that gays should not be wed, regardless of historical definitions of marriage. I agree with Sam when he says that this will change. Our children may think us bigots for having had to juggle this issue about for so long. In any case, I hope what I've written makes some amount of sense to somebody. I'm shutting the hell up now.
In today’s society there is no doubt a huge amount of issues that people have their own differing opinions about. Whether it is politics, sexual orientation, religion, etc. it is only natural for there to be many views on each subject. In order for society to work today, everyone must accept people for who they are and their differing views. If every group with a different opinion thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong without looking at the subject through someone else’s eyes, confrontations will naturally occur. In the article “What Bringing Everyone to the Table Really Means,” there is a good point brought up about how everyone really does sit at the same table with people of differing viewpoints, whether you know it or not. Gay rights are a very hot topic right now being debated by this country, and there are people on both sides of the argument with very intense beliefs. On one hand, very conservative people refuse to believe that gays should have marriage rights, while on the other hand, there are many people who believe very strongly in the words that every man is created free and equal in which our country was founded upon. I do believe that every person is entitled to their own belief however; I also believe that every person should take a step back and think about the reasons behind other people’s differing opinions. Yes, Rick Warren’s choice to bring up 5,000 years of marriage history was a little outrageous considering that there were many things done in the past that are looked at as taboo in today’s society. Legal marriage age was very young, and Warren chose to conveniently leave this out of his argument. To me, being able to do this while having your own opinion shows maturity and intelligence, and makes everything operate a lot smoother.
On the topic of whether Rick Warren should have been asked to say the opening prayer at Barack Obama’s inauguration, I think this shows maturity on the part of President Obama, even though Warren disrespected Obama when he came to his church, because he was able to look past this, and invite him to what might have been the most important day of his life. LGBTA members have come a long way in the recent past in gaining equal rights in society, but I don’t think they should be outraged by President Barack Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren speak at his inauguration. Although it does make sense that this act might be looked at as a slap in the face to LGBTA members, at the same time, Obama has shown that in order for our society to move forward, differing opinions must be able to sit at the same table and accept everyone’s views for what they are.
I would like to think of myself as a very accepting person; I have no problems with anyone of a different race, ethnicity, sexual identity, you name it, but at the same time I find myself having a great disdain towards people who have very limited views. Is this a contradiction within myself? This would be saying I do not approve of those types of people even when I just said I accept everyone. Or is it right for me to think that anyone can have whatever beliefs and behaviors for themselves that they wish, but everyone must also be accepting of other’s values too? There is also a difference between being accepting of someone’s choice and believing that it is “right”; for example I do not believe that being a porn star or prostitution is right, but I try to remain open to the fact that this is how some choose to live their lives (where prostitution is legal) and am accepting of these choices. So for me, if you are defining the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, that is not allowing for people to freely make their own choices. The government is not supposed to decide what is morally right for each individual, but than I do see how a line has to be drawn somewhere and this line will have to be made based on our culture and the present time period. But it is completely absurd for Rick Warren to say that he believes in equal rights for each individual regardless of their particular lifestyle choices, when on the same note not allowing people of the same sex to get married is denying them of the right to be equal. Whether it is simply the title of marriage or having the same benefits, it does not matter, there is no such thing as separate but equal. Going back to personal matters, I look at the statement in this blog “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?” Just recently I met someone who had complete opposite views from me on every subject including the topic of sexual identity. He said that he thought that gays/lesbians/bisexuals choose to be that way (they could be straight if they simply wanted to), while I on the other hand think it is by no means a personal choice, which I will not go into a tangent on my reasoning. The point being is that I still found myself to like this person, though this comment was shocking and not attractive to me whatsoever. I wondered if I should continue to be friends with this person; would this mean I was not standing up for what I believe in by allowing myself to associate with them or would it mean I was just being accepting of someone who is allowed to voice a different opinion than my own? Everyone has grown up with different influences in a different environment and with diverse experiences, so could I truly say that if I was in their shoes I would hold the beliefs that I do now? As of now I have come to the conclusion that is fine to be acquaintances with someone who has polar opposite views as myself, but that most likely that relationship could not and will not ever become as strong as most other friendships would.
Many people would not have the courage to step out of their comfort zone, inviting people that do not have similar views as them. I think President Obama made his first attempt to prove to the country that he will be “bringing everyone to the table.” The American people should be thankful that finally a president is sticking to their word and actually doing what he campaigned. Obama’s main campaign was “change is upon us” and without hearing other people’s views and opinions and seeing it through their eyes this change will not happen. Obama realizes the importance of making relationships with people that can help his goals be accomplished. It also takes a very committed person to see his critics’ opinions and take them into consideration before just disregarding anything they say that he doesn’t agree with (like most people would do). So why not give Rick Warren the opening prayer at his Presidential Inauguration? Did this prayer make the citizens think that Obama’s views have changed just because he asked Warren to do this prayer? I see the reason why many of Obama LGBT supporters had problems with this because they do not agree with Warren’s views but they need to think about this in a different perspective and see reasons why our president decided to have him do the prayer. This invitation in no way stated that Obama was agreeing with Warren’s views of LGBT people so I do not think it is a slap in the face. If they are supporters for Obama, they should trust his decisions and see a positive reason for why this was made. I don’t think you would find many ministers that wouldn’t have similar views about LGBT marriages, maybe they wouldn’t speak them as boldly but everyone has their own opinions it doesn’t mean that they should be unaccepted at such events. This bold action that was done by Obama should open other people’s eyes to maybe not agree with everyone’s viewpoints but to at least listen and hear the person out with their reasons of why they believe differently. I am glad that Obama is not like the rest of the presidents because when he said that he wanted change to occur in the United States he meant it and is determined to make that happen. Bringing everyone to the table will make the United States a stronger country. It allows unheard voices to be heard, opinions and viewpoints to be considered, and all in all everyone wins. I have faith in the decisions our president makes because I think he wants change to occur just as much as every one of us; a renewed economy and a united country. Time will tell if Obama continues to uphold his promises but I think he is off to a good start.
Obama’s invocation choice, Rick Warren, has certainly made many people turn their heads and wonder what he was thinking. Rick Warren stands for many beliefs that do not go along with Barack Obama’s plans for hope and change across our world. Some people may feel that the decision for Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration is a slap in the face for Obama’s supporters and everything they stand for. Warren’s views do not represent the equality that Obama and our country is going to work towards.
Rick Warren is an extremely controversial pastor who does not agree with same sex marriage and supports Proposition 8 (which eliminates the right to marry for same sex couples). Warren states that incest is equal to gay marriage, an unfair comparison that is not measurably the same what so ever. I do not agree with his beliefs AT ALL, but I do feel that Obama has made an appropriate and well thought out decision. To me, this decision seems FAR from a “slap in the face” to the LGBT community and others who feel hurt from Warren’s beliefs—but rather, a step closer to our ultimate goal of change and equality.
The decision to ask Rick Warren to speak only made me more confident in our forty fourth president, Barack Obama. Obama’s maturity and strength as a leader truly shines through when looking at his decision making process. It shows that Obama can easily put differences aside to work out issues and come to agreements with others. Although our new president does not agree with Rick Warren on many issues, he asks him to speak to “bring everyone to the table.” It is extremely important to work with people we don’t see eye to eye with. It would be almost ignorant to not discuss everyday issues with those who disagree with us.
I do not believe that we “sit at the table” with others that have different views from ours enough in our society. People tend to stick to those who agree with them and do not challenge their ways of thinking. If we only discuss issues with those who feel the same as us, then we never see the flipside of things- we never get to experience or understand the other views on the issue. It is extremely important to accept all views and address all opinions although they may differ from our own. Obama is the first president in our country, who has said he will listen to all perspectives and actually has followed through with this. Obama will truly bring about the much-needed change in not only our nation, but in our world as well. He is already starting to unite enemies and friends with the ultimate goal to come together and see eye to eye.
I can agree that when faced with people that have opposing opinions compared to my own, I may feel unwilling to communicate with the person. It is not that I am not open-minded, I just feel challenged when I hear an opinion that does not represent my beliefs. I think that many people feel this way as well. Many of us like to think that we are right all of the time and that the way we think is the best so we deject anything that could prove us wrong. Feeling this way will not lead to a growth in knowledge or ability to understand people who are unlike us. The presidents of the past have shown this way of thinking by relying on making their decisions through people who think like them and not venturing to diversify their resources or uniting with a wide range of alliances. This had caused the problem of creating a one-sided government that either did one thing or the other, based on the president's personal beliefs or party. We could almost always be able to predict what the president would do. We knew if he would be a supporter of abortion or if he would decide a war was appropriate based on what his party is expected to believe. It seemed that no protest or suggestion could persuade the president to change his mind about something because he himself found his idea to be the best option for the country and did not want to accept that he could be wrong about something. President Obama could be the one to break this chain of old presidents stuck in their ways. President Obama seems to be one to accept the opinions of others that disagree with him in order to broaden his range of knowledge on a topic. He had stated that he would look towards the ex-president George W. Bush for advice. George W. Bush, the man that so many Americans disliked. But that doesn't mean that Obama should restrict him from his list of resources. Presidents need all the help that they can get, and Obama will be willing to accept help from any credible source in order to diversify his knowledge on anything. By his inviting Rick Warren to his inauguration to say a prayer Obama has already shown that he is willing to accept the opinions of people with very different thoughts on something. Although this step may have offended the LGBT community, Obama was just expressing his right to expand his “comfort zone” and listen to how someone else feels about something he does not believe in. His accepting opposing thoughts only makes him more of an educated man.
Bringing everyone to the table really means a coming together of people of different race, culture, political affliction, and sexuality. As far as the issue of marriage and gay marriage in America- I have a strong opinion about that. I am in full support of gay marriage. The world is changing and people should be open to changing along with it. Just as civil rights changed the nation forty years ago- gay rights is slowly improving. Who’s right is it to say who can and can not marry? Love is one of the most powerful notions out there. Whether it is the love of a parent and child, brother and sister, man and a woman, man and a man, or a woman and a woman- love is all the same. Love is the unifying force that can bring everyone to the table together. Everyone deserves equal rights- and I think gays should be allowed to marry. President Barack Obama represents change, hope, and unity. I believe he has already and can continue to bring this nation together in a monumental way. So why not apply this change for a huge part of society that continues to be discriminated against? I agree that Bush was not a uniter- if anything he was more of a divider. After leaving the nation in shambles we have become a more divided nation than ever before. Whether it’s over the conflict in Iraq, the crumbling economy, or gay marriage- this nation has become divided over many things. But I believe President Obama can change that and bring us together. We have to come together and stand up for what the founding fathers founded this nation on- equality, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Why not allow that for everyone? Gays are still not seen as equal. Gay senators resign in shame and many gay youth are depressed because they feel like they have to live a lie to avoid the discrimination they may face if they came out. I believe most of the people who are against gays and gay marriage are conservative and/or religious. But there is a separation of church and state in America- and for good reason. The issue of god or religion does not serve a place in the argument of homosexuality. Just as Martin Luther King dreamed that people of all races can come together- so that dream should be extended for the LGBT community. Despite disagreements we all sit at the same table of the United States of America. The word “united” is in the name of out nation. It’s time that we all sit together as table as a united front. The quest for equality is a never-ending battle- but I believe the fight for gay marriage will be a victory to further bring us together at this table of togetherness. President Obama can hopefully help bring this nation together.
Tolerance: what a sticky thing. Isn’t it funny how when Barack Obama tolerates Rick Warren a majority of the LGBTA community proclaims how intolerant Obama is being for allowing Warren to speak? It sure seems as if our nature has forgotten that tolerance is NOT acceptance! You can tolerate someone who you disagree with and yet completely respect them as a person (in this case, Obama’s tolerance for Rick Warren). I am impressed by Obama’s ability to tolerate other religions than his own and other viewpoints than his own. However, this tolerance should not lead him away from taking a specific and definitive stance on issues. The President of our country should have his clear stances on issues and then be able to tolerate and respect those of others.
While I am personally impressed by the willingness for change that Obama possesses, I am still quite critical if his stances are solid on divisive issues, and will not be susceptible to his promised change. I am not sure whether Obama truly respected Rick Warren or he was merely inviting him because, lest we forget, the majority of this nation is a God-fearing nation and generally agrees with Rick Warren.
If Obama was voted in by a majority of American citizens, then you would think that his views would be consistent with the majority of the United States (as illustrated in the above portrayed relationship between Obama and Warren). However we look to the issue of abortion and find that on this issue, most of America do not agree with Obama.
His stance on abortion is one that would surprise many, if they would truly look past his rhetoric and see his voting records. Given a 100% pro-choice rating by Planned Parenthood, Obama disguises his extremely pro-abortion voting record with rhetoric on women’s rights and rape-deduction. While these are both important issues on the subject of abortion, let’s take a look at what he’s actually acting out as president. During his run to the Oval Office, he promised listeners in a speech on July 17th, 2007 that one of his first actions would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. The Act was written by some of the most radical pro-abortion activists and would disgust the majority of Americans (the same majority that voted in Obama). The piece of legislation takes away the requirement of consent for the individual to receive an abortion. With the act it would make it harder for a sixteen year old to receive an aspirin as opposed to an abortion.
Tolerance is a wonderful thing, particularly displayed in Obama, but that we should also hold Obama (and any American president for that matter) to their moral stances that led them to be elected by a majority of the country. So either we saw the moral differences and disregarded them when we voted for him or we didn’t see them at all. And I am scared to think of what decisions could be made by Obama if the latter is true.
The United States of America… Sometimes, this is not necessarily the case. Americans are often divided in the stances they take. One prime example of this is the views of the Democratic and the Republican parties. Their views differ completely on issues like abortion, same-sex marriages, how much government should be involved in business, etc. Often times, it is tough for Congress to get legislation passed because they are so divided. As Mr. Richards has stated, the last few presidents have not done such a good job uniting our country. From George W. Bush all the way to Carter to even prior presidents, all have failed to do so. However, I believe there will be a change with our new president, Barack Obama.
Being the smart individual that he is, I feel that he has taken the past and history very seriously. He has studied what works and what does not work and will apply the lessons that he has learned. A divided Congress is no way for a President to get agenda completed. This is why Obama has already tried to bring a stimulus package to the floor that benefits the Republicans as well as the Democrats. He realizes that unity is needed more than ever in this the toughest of America’s times. We need to be united to help out the economy, provide more jobs, improve education, combat terrorism and radical’s threats, resuscitate Social Security, etc.
I believe that Obama will succeed at the unifying job that many have failed before him. His choice of allowing Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration is a prime example of why. I feel that Barack Obama was trying to send a message to the country with that decision. The message is that we all have conflicting opinions with each other. Very easily, these differing opinions can bring us down. However, we must work through those differences to become a better, stronger nation. When Obama invited Warren to deliver this prayer, he was saying to him, “I know we have differences and that is evident; however, I am willing to work with you despite those differences because there is something much greater than two men opinions. Unity is much more important.”
Many people would have simply brushed off the conflict of interest and returned to live their lives. Not Obama. Obama did not want to lose a potential ally, friend, supporter, etc. He decided to stand tall, not to write Rick Warren off as an enemy or foe. This is why Barack Obama is different from any other president thus far. He is willing to work with the enemy in order to find the common cause of action. He is willing to take the step above what has been done in the past. This is why I believe Obama will be a great, influential president.
The question raised in this blog entry about Obama “bringing everyone to the table” is a very interesting point and characteristic that I think differentiates our new president from his predecessors, and, in my mind, makes him great. He is a Democrat, but he is not only concerned with pleasing those with liberal leanings, he will implement ideas and policies that benefit everyone in our nation. He will do this by making sure that he is constantly surrounded by different viewpoints. Bipartisan politics is a concept thrown around by politicians, but is never actually achieved because they are unwilling to really listen and accept other views, they simply want other to bend to their own.
I had heard of this Warren Buffet guy earlier during the campaign, but it was interesting to hear his views and comments in a different context. While his views on gay marriage are not what most Democrats and liberal-leaning people would support, that does not make them invalid or unworthy of consideration. Nearly half of all Americans voted for John McCain, so obviously there are opposing viewpoints that must be considered when it comes to policies and legislation.
I support gay marriage and gay rights, but I also understand the argument about protecting the sanctity of marriage. An opinion I might offer about the topic is the end of the using the term “marriage” as an umbrella term, and instead call everything a civil union. “Marriage” could still be used a sort of religious name for the union of a man and woman, but under the law, anyone could undergo a civil union. This would mean that everyone who wanted such a partnership would receive equal rights within it, while the sanctity of the term “marriage” could be protected. This is just a suggestion, and not necessarily answering the question at hand.
“Bringing Everyone to the Table” means that all those at the “table” must be given equal time and consideration. This allows for growth and exposure to new and different ideas. Ideas that may differ from your own, but will challenge your own beliefs and either enhance them, or cause you to consider a different viewpoint.
The conservatism and partisanship that came to characterize American politics obviously were major factors contributing to the state of our ailing nation today. Change is needed, and I believe it has come in the form of President Obama. This change can only come through examining all sides and all viewpoints. We are all faced with the challenges at hand, so everyone, along with their differing political ideas, must work together and compromise to solve our nation’s problems,
I am proud of our new president for sticking to his promise to surround himself with differing viewpoints, and judging people based on their character, not on their political beliefs.
Same-sex marriage is a tough one to swallow. I grew up in a conservative, Roman Catholic household and my parents (and church) taught me to believe that marriage was between one man and one woman. I was someone who believed homosexuals chose to be that way and the government should not intervene because of separation between church and state. It wasn’t until I reached college that my beliefs began to shift.
One of my closest friends here at Penn State, who I met almost four years ago during freshman year, is gay. I accepted him right away when I found out his sexual orientation, but when he asked me how I felt about gay marriage; I didn’t know what to say. For twenty-one years, I believed people of the same sex were unable and not allowed to wed.
As I got to know him, I realized that I wanted him to have the same life and future that I am allowed and expected to have. He didn’t choose to be gay and he wants to have a husband and a family someday. So then I started thinking… why the hell not?
So I took my Catholic, close-minded beliefs to the table with a homosexual who, in time, changed my thoughts on same-sex marriage. For the first time, I saw the world from someone else’s eyes.
I love that Obama plans to bring everyone to the table during his presidency. And I love that gays were in the presence of Rick Warren during the inauguration last week. They were all there for the same reason, right? To watch the first black man become president of the United States. Obama is stressing the importance of bi-partisanship in America and like Richards said in his blog, the past presidents have failed at that attempt.
Although I believe in same-sex marriages, a large portion of the United States does not and that’s okay. We are all allowed to have our own beliefs. That’s why we live in the great country that we do. Some people around the world can only dream of expressing his or her thoughts and opinions freely like we can. Unfortunately, our expressions can sometimes lead to prejudice and closed mindedness, which I think President Obama is trying so desperately to change.
I think having different opinions on issues is important. The world will never be perfect and I don’t think there will ever come a time when every American will agree on every issue.
Obama’s goal is to open minds. Make people see the world differently through someone else’s eyes. I don’t think his goal is to change religious beliefs or ideological beliefs. I hope his plan for change pans out differently than our past leaders. Maybe one day we’ll be an open-minded, united nation.
What are we really bringing to the table?
Obama for Mankind?!-Or Just Another of the “Same” Kind
It seems disturbing to me that in any argument that stands that there would not be some opposition towards individuals and their perspectives and yet, I have to plead the case of Warren on this particular point. If a man should oppose the ideas of ethical beliefs that are against his own, does that make him any less American? Does that make him wrong, and is there a such thing as a “right” or “wrong” answer to such statements?
I beg to differ. While Americans far and wide fought for the right of Barrack Obama to get elected the 44th president of the United States, at the same, time, Obama’s religious views, despite the support of the LGBT community are the same. While he is all for equal opportunity, it is not something that he encourages or supports. And therefore, what happened to the policy of “separation of church and state.” Now, normally, I wouldn’t debate this statement, but I believe that in certain circumstances, such as the affairs of the church, and the affairs of the state, there should be an equal division.
And with that said, when Obama says he seeks to bring everyone to common ground and “bring everyone to the table,” although there is opposition, I see no harm in differences being separate from business affairs.
In this statement, I can’t help but think of King Arthur’s table and the connotations behind it. If anything, although Obama allowed Warren to speak at the inauguration, his thoughts and opinions on certain issues are just that of his own. As long as he is not imposing his ideals and beliefs in a sadistic way, then I say the man is fine.
Is Obama’s actions a slap in the face to some of his supporters from other sexual orientations…no. I say let’s not look deeper into this than what it is. As far as I am concerned Barrack Obama is the epitome of America. He represents every difference about us, and every common goal. His words haven’t seemed shallow up until now and I say, without substantial evidence, it’s hard to believe that he’s just the same as every other president. He’s only been in office for a week.
And as for Warren, I think that the media and its influence on the general public can sometimes stir unnecessary attention from people who follow public affairs. I believe the statements made by Warren before hand was of his clear knowledge and should be acknowledged as such. It should also be considered that he did not reference those opinions at the Inauguration, and therefore what weight do they hold? Yet, his opening prayer was just that…an opening prayer.
No…what ifs, ands or buts about it!
I agree wholeheartedly. While some would argue that since President Obama won the election, he’s entitled to do what he wants to do while in office, which would seemingly be change policy to reflect his views. But after running as a different type of candidate that would make change, he has a higher standard to uphold. A large part of his platform was opening up the lines of bipartisan communication. Whether you, or President Obama for that matter, agree with same-sex marriage is irrelevant. What matters is that most polling shows that roughly 55 percent of Americans opposing terming a gay union as “marriage.” Because of this, as a public servant it is up to President Obama to do what both he sees fit and his constituents see fit as well. And since a majority of his constituents oppose gay marriage, then he has a duty to listen to them and their spokespeople, in this case, Rev. Warren. And for President Obamas supporters to bash his decision is quasi-hypocritical. They voted for him because they wanted something different. The problem comes because they thought something different meant the opposite of the past eight years, which would be an extremely liberal decision-making Whitehouse. But in reality, the change from past politics is listening to the other guy rather than making brash decisions along party lines. So in essence, had Obama invited a gay minister or reverend that supports gay marriage to his inauguration, he would have been doing the status quo by pushing his agenda rather than listening to all parts of an issue, especially the majority feeling.
That aside, I have to slightly disagree with Rev. Warren. On the one hand I was raised Catholic and the sanctity of marriage and the duty to procreate in God’s name is well-known to me. But at the same time, since I was a youngin’, whenever I’ve heard the term “marriage,” my first thought was always love. Not just sex or mushy, gushy valentines, but deep, heartfelt, everytime-I-stare-at-you-my-insides-turn-to-mush-just-like-the-day-I-met-you kind of love. And if this is from strong emotional, physical, mental and spiritual attraction, why can’t it happen between a man and a man or a man and a woman. As far as the old man and the young woman, that’s just gross, I mean come on grandpa, how are you supposed to make babies if you can’t get her away from Hannah Montana? And the brother and sister, well unless you want your kids to have curly tails or piss maple syrup (which by the way is a horrible disease that inflicts many members of the Amish community), you don’t wanna be doing that.
So to sum it all up, I don’t agree with Rev. Warren, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been invited. If we are truly entering a new era in politics in this country, the best thing President Obama could have done to show that was invite a prominent conservative to his inauguration. While many of President Obama’s supporters believe it was a slap in the face, it was actually the best, and most hope-inspiring thing he could have done.
Obama handled his pastor situation last year pretty well I must say. I believe that they put a lot of pressure on him to leave his church because of his pastor’s beliefs. I just thought it was pretty funny how all of America, who stresses being an individual, being free, and speaking your mind, basically made the pastor the spokesperson for not only for Obama, but for all his church. RIDICULOUS. Because one person supports Obama does not mean that Obama and that individual will have the same beliefs. Everyone took the pastor’s comments to an entirely different level because religion was involved this time around, and it questioned Obama’s beliefs and integrity. Again, Obama handled that fiasco in the making very well. He basically said, “nah, I’m not gonna disown you or my church because of what you said. However, I’m just not gonna mess with you until I fell its safe for me and you to be in public, and the nation realizes we have certain differences.”
“Bringing everyone to the table” holds a lot of meaning. It’s not a brand new catch-phrase, but especially in this election and in our times now, everyone’s opinion really needs to be accounted for. I think this is the kind of ideal that we want to hear. Personally, I believe it’s a good way to keep everyone a little more civil, but with some of the decisions that will be made during this election, not everyone will leave the table happy.
Especially during high school, I felt that especially being on student council, or just generally being friends with people that don’t get along, I was put into the position where everyone has to be brought together to formulate a compromise. It’s funny, because you will rarely see people try and step into that position, because once you’re there, it’s probably one of the worst cases to be in. It’s hard, it’s frustrating, and often, you have to sacrifice yourself or perhaps your feelings to make everyone else happy. Most people will say, well if you’re putting yourself out there to “lose yourself” so to speak, you’re not compromising the right way or you should have seen that coming. In actuality, most don’t see a successful compromise or decision if everyone isn’t fairly happy. Someone’s going to be a little uneasy with the situation, and it’ll more likely be the mediator of the situation.
In regards to gay marriages, I don’t see what the issue is. I haven’t really been exposed to that type of lifestyle until I got to PSU. When I mean exposed, I haven’t had any legitimate gay or lesbian friends. And when you come across people that are, realize that people are stuck in the old days. I think that putting the whole religion aspect of same-sex marriages is garbage. It’s contradicting what God says about all people. God loves everyone no matter what. However, he didn’t make marriage for everyone. God didn’t intend to make fighting okay for justice, but we do it anyway. In the Bible, it says to turn the other cheek if someone comes at you the wrong way.
Let us all hope that unlike most, if not all, presidents that came before him, Barack Obama will stay true to his own word and truly work to listen to others. It’s quite an interesting concept, listening. It is one of the first things we are able to do after being born, yet after years of living we seem to all forget how to do it. The most important values we learn in our life, we learn as children. Shaped by our parents, our family, and by the others in our lives, such as teachers, who have a great deal of contact with us. Yet, why is it that something that is so ingrained in our brains, something so primitive, we all have no idea how to do? The truth is, we are products of our own society. We all speak out of turn, most of the time not answering any of the questions posed to us by others. Why is this? Well, because we don’t even bother to listen to what the damn question was in the first place. We all want attention. It’s the downfall of the human race. We want attention at work, at home, from lovers, from friends. It is all about us. With such a selfish society, no one takes the time to listen to what is going on in the world around them, or for heaven’s sake, in the same room. Barack promises to listen; to bring all willing parties to the table to talk. Talking is great. It is how we express and communicate and get our feelings out into the world. Let’s just hope everyone at this table is as prepared to listen as they are to talk. Like King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, let this circle of men, and hopefully some women, do justice to the people they serve for the right reasons.
As for comments made by Rick Warren, I do understand where he is coming from. It’s very hard to redefine something that has been considered so sacred for millions of years. People are not yet ready for the idea of marriage to be between people of the same gender. And you know what, that’s perfectly fine with me. We need to take baby steps with this. As hard as it is to say, celebrities such as Ellen DeGeneres and Lindsay Lohan have helped bring homosexuality into the public light and make it slightly more acceptable and understood for those who were in the dark. Great for them. As a female who has been in a relationship with my girlfriend, happily, for the past 9 months and is considering future plans with her, I’m not necessarily offended that the public isn’t ready to call it marriage. Lets first just get us the rights we have so long deserved by being joined as wife and wife, or husband and husband. We’ll work on some sort of amazing name for it later. But we need to get to that point somehow, and hopefully it will be soon.
I'm personally not going to lie when I say that I had to choke back laughing a little when Warren was being sarcastic about redefining something that had lasted for 5,000 years in "all religions" as relations between a man and a woman. It always seems to me that when it comes to particular issues such as religion to people, they begin to bend things to their own will to try and shove things down your throat. When it comes to Obama's choice to select Warren to give the prayer at inauguration, despite his views, I can't disagree with the move. Obama's plan has been to be a unifier; to incite (as often as the words have been barfed by the media) hope and change in people and to provide a better tomorrow; even if I disagree with Warren's views on gays and gay marriage. However, I do feel that when he also decided to attack the view of one man marrying many women (polygamy) as something that wasn't marriage, well, perhaps if he had a history lesson or two about incredibly powerful characters in history with a ton of fame he'd change his view. Caesar had two wives; Alexander the Great a wife and a male partner, just as his partner before him. Genghis Khan, well, he went to the extremes when it came to his own. The other thing that seems to bother me in regards to all of this are the relations that exist between people of other religions. If they all exist and have something in common such as marriage, then why is it that they couldn't agree on issues that don't mean near as much as marriage? Is it a matter of they can't use semantics on one another to disprove another's definition of marriage as their own? Quite honestly, I wish that people would stop trying to define their major beliefs and rituals as something that if you speak against or differently of it, that you'd start a crusade. Or, perhaps, people forget that if you simply live with someone of another sex for eight or more years, you are considered married, and I don't hear of many people disagreeing with that. It's basically the same as a union that exists now between gays--what is the big deal with changing the word "union" to "marriage"; after all, as shown by day one, words are words and only people put a spin on them.
I think that it was perfectly acceptable for Obama to have Warren at his inauguration. By having Warren there, it shows that Obama is open to hearing and accepting other points of views that he may not exactly follow or agree with. Isn’t that what the LGBT community wants? Last time I checked Obama was married with children, yet supported equal rights for the LGBT community. So why can’t he hear the opinions of Warren without being criticized? I think the fact that Obama is open to all opinions and wants to make change on the entire nation is what made him so popular to the younger generations, the older generations, and different races and ethnicities all across the field, so for Obama to close up now and stop hearing the views of all people would be nothing short than hypocritical. There is one area where I am a problem with Warren’s comments, however. The United States is a land where anyone has the right to worship as they please (or worship nothing at all) as well as have equal opportunities and rights. As much as Warren has the right to follow the Catholic religion, LGBT have the right to be married, just like everyone else in this nation. For those who chose to follow no religion, there is no statement in a Bible or Koran telling them that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. If Warren feels the need to follow his religion so strongly, then can atheists have same sex marriages, because only their non-existing religion tells them they can’t. I believe that any person should have the right to make decisions on his or her own decisions and follow any particular view or belief that they chose. I would never get an abortion, but if a woman chooses to do so it is her own choice and I cannot criticize. I am not a Catholic, but those who are have every right to follow that sect of religion. I am not LGBT either, but I feel that those who are have just as much of a right as anyone else to freely marry and be in a legitimized relationship. Warren is allowed to believe whatever he wants, and the world accepted that. Nearly every American spent some time watching the inauguration regardless of the fact that he said the prayer. Now it is time for Warren to accept that not everyone agrees with him and his religious beliefs. If he is able to have and express his beliefs and values in front of the entire world, and everyone including the president of the United States was willing to listen, then it is now time for Warren to hear out the 50% of America who doesn’t agree with him. We listened, and now it’s our turn to speak.
This country faces many ideological problems when it comes to domestic and personal issues. One of which is this inability to see the antithesis to what one truly believes, and another, perhaps more vital, is not having a thesis to begin with. Apathy, according to Thomas Jefferson, will be the downfall of democracy, and it is seen daily with people who do not wish to concern themselves with the pressing issues of same sex marriage, abortion, or even animal rights. However, assuming that we have a strong opinion concerning any moral or domestic issue, the opposing argument should usually be considered. Beyond uniting differing ideologies, fully understanding one’s own argument and thought process is incomplete without challenging it. Evolution existed as purely theory based on scientific observation, however now it has evolved into a social ideology based on differing beliefs. Seeing the arguments against evolution, in favor of God, many have reformed their beliefs to include or allow the basic tenets of evolutionary theory or faith. Similarly, the discrepancies between pro life and pro choice now wrestle with not only moral aspects of terminating a pregnancy, but also when life truly begins in the womb. Without challenging arguments, these opinions and views would have remained stagnant as a basic yes or no decision.
Separately, there are instances where the opposing ideology is not worth consideration. While radicals shaped this country and our belief system, there exists radicals on the other side of the spectrum who are fueled by hate, greed, and destruction. Many of those opposing the civil rights movement did not base their political argument on logical points, but instead based it on hatred and self-proclaimed superiority. It is difficult to qualify an opinion when there is no truth behind it. Similarly, same sex marriage is a moral issue concerned with rights and equality. In the history of this country, one would be hard pressed to find a rights movement that was not eventually approved. Women’s suffrage, emancipation of slaves, and the civil rights movement are all looked back upon as absolutely necessary, and it would be difficult to conceive a country where blacks and women were considered second citizens.
Basically, I always attempt to come to the table with an open mind when it comes to anyone’s opinion on any matter. But when the opposing argument cites unfounded ideas, pure party rhetoric, hate, or racism my mind is immediately made up, and the argument no longer possesses a shred of credibility. No mocking or ridicule necessary, it is obvious that the arguer simply does not desire to have an open dialogue. And so I am glad that Obama wishes to open party lines and hear every word across the spectrum of beliefs, but I hope he is wary of those who are simply waiting for their turn to speak, and not actually listening to the dialogue he hopes to create.
For some people, it is hard to give people they do not agree with a chance. For example, a black man may never want to sit with a white man or an Asian man, etc. But, for Barack Obama to invite someone he does no agree with to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration means something. This man may actually truly believe that it is time for a change in America. It seems that he is really trying to “bring everyone to the table.” I have never heard of this minister, but from what I’ve read, I see that he does have different views then most of President Obama’s supporters. To me, for people to have the idyllic vision of marriage that has been around for 5,000 years as their true belief, is ridiculous. Not so long ago it was all right for a man to pick his bride based on her family’s money, no matter her age. Is this the kind of world we still live in or want to live in? I know I don’t. It is odd to think how closed minded this minister is. It is ironic how he still holds very strong to his 5,000 year old definition of marriage that states it is only ok for a man and a woman to get married and yet Barack Obama is putting his beliefs and the majority of his supporters beliefs aside to hear what Rick Warren has to say. That is the sort of irony that goes along with this. Many would argue that the definition of marriage is to love, honor, and cherish each other forever. Apparently, the minister is preaching that it is ok for forced marriage, or marriage for anything but love. I am not disrespecting Rick Warren’s beliefs because everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I do admire President Obama for trying to respect this man’s beliefs, showing that we are in fact a united country. I feel as though some people can forget what is right and go with what seems right. For example, would Rick Warren oppose gay marriage but accept marriage in Las Vegas at an Elvis wedding chapel on a whim? I am not sure. But I do know that there is no right and wrong. There is only accepting and respecting other people and their beliefs. The lesson in learning of what major step Barack Obama made not even as the President yet is a major stepping stone for our nation. This should teach us that as Americans, we are allowed to believe different things, but we should not exclude someone for their beliefs. For some, taking Sociology 119 is a big step for trying to accept the different races and try to “bring everyone to the table.”
Does it really do any good to sit down and listen to both sides of an argument like Obama does? I mean sure, it’s great what he’s doing. First President in history to follow through on campaign promises. But as he sits there and listens to the words and accusations of someone with whom he doesn’t agree, what is really being accomplished? Devout Obama supporters as well as many others will say he’s doing what’s right. He’s giving everyone an equal chance. I don’t mean to be cynical, but I think he’s the first.
I mean, how likely is it that Warren would even consider listening to the other side. When interviewed, he circumvented answering as long as he could. Why? If he’s such a holy man, why does he blatantly ignore the words of Jesus? In the words of the great savior himself, there is nothing wrong with loving thy neighbor. Even so, I can understand Warren’s position. And I don’t have a problem with him being against gay marriage. Okay, good for him, let him marry a woman. But what gives him the right to prevent other people from being happy?
This country was founded on the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays and lesbians aren’t hurting anyone. Why do so many people insist on hurting them? Because they’re different. They aren’t necessarily a different race, this isn’t looked down upon as much as racism, but really what’s the difference? It’s still a hate crime.
What gives anyone the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do? There were people in front of the Bouke building not too long ago trying to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. On what grounds did they base their argument? Were they parents? Relatives? Concerned friends? No. This group of people gathered in front of a building that houses a “safe zone” to force the very thing that the safe zone protects against. Why? Because of a book. One little book, published in more languages than any other book, but a book nonetheless; the ink on its pages no different than any other, the paper made from the same trees as countless books before and after. The word of God, it is called. Words written by human hands, changed throughout history to serve various needs with infinite translations.
For those who claim the word of God is that no man shall love another I challenge them… Show me. Point out to me the specific words that state that there is only to be union of man and wife, and that no other love is allowed. If that were truly the case, if some almighty being had decreed that no one is to be gay, why then do gays, lesbians, bisexuals exist? Why has it not put an end to this?
I am willing to listen to the other side. I will hear out the words of Warren and others if they so desire. But as long as I live I will NEVER let anyone tell me who I can and cannot love. Because without love what do we have? My world’s a better place because of the love provided by so many people. And I myself am more than willing to share that love with anyone and everyone in my life. It makes me sad to think there are some who cannot share that sentiment.
This blog primarily struck me when Dr. Richards spoke of most people’s “idyllic vision” of marriage and families. Without even getting into specific statistics it is obvious, at least to me, that marriage isn’t the sacred sacrament that maybe it once was or we’d like to believe it ever was and still could be. Can you say divorce rate? In high school I was the only one in my group of friends that didn’t have divorced parents. I think almost anything that is special about marriage has been tarnished. It’s just not the same. And engagement is a whole other thing I have issues with. I know a handful of people who had been engaged only to call off the wedding shortly after. Or better yet, those who can’t just be dating and committed to one another and feel the need to be engaged when realistically they have no intentions of getting married in the near future and aren’t even thinking about planning a wedding. Basically I just think marriage is so many things. It varies based on family values, religious values and even from person to person. Ultimately I too want to follow to status quo and get married and live happily ever after but without the financial benefits I don’t totally understand what the point is. But like I said I still do have that desire to be married. Probably not for a long while, but it is something I hope to do. I think it’ll be emotionally gratifying. Never say never but I do not plan to be married until I have absolutely positive I have found someone I want to be with for the rest of my life and would never consider divorcing. When it comes to same sex marriage I may or may not necessarily agree with it but I would hate for anyone to be denied the same emotional gratification that I desire to feel free marriage.
When it comes to Obama bringing everyone to the table I admire him for having Warren deliver to opening prayer. Although many Obama supporters do not accept Warren’s same views Obama is not the president of the entire country, not just the people who has supported him from the start or who voted for him. I’m not quick to declare Obama as the ultimate uniter or even to think that he will be able to follow through on all the promises made throughout his campaign but I do admire this specific event.
I think that I have a way of being able to “share a table” with people who I may disagree with. I’m pretty easy going when it comes to people having opposing opinions. In fact I find beauty in it. I appreciate differences and would never want everyone to think the same. My closest friend votes differently than I do and it hardly phases me.
My family is a group of republicans, and so I was raised with a set of conservative views. This past election was the first one which really made us stop and think, “who should I vote for?” We knew that no matter who won the election, that person would have to be more flexible to accommodate the global issues and face both economic and “moral” issues here at home.
With Barack as our president, his “table” will have to include everyone to make sure that every point of view is considered to come up with an appropriate compromise for our country. Even if having Warren say the opening prayer at the inauguration offended some of the LGBT people because of his infamous homophobic views, it is important to overlook that and see President Obama’s vision of including everyone.
Everyone, as mentioned in the blog, includes people we may or may not agree with. It includes people who are very similar to us, and people who are opposite of us. Everyone includes Warren with his own opinions.
As a comment on the 5000 year marriage definition, I think I may have another way of saying what Warren was trying to get across. First of all, I understand that children used to be married off to men much older than they were, and this disgusts me. However, I understand the symbolic nature of language. I think Warren brought up the point of the sheer length of time that the word “marriage” has meant what it means today to show that trying to change this would be silly. From his perspective, “marriage” symbolizes only a man and a woman entering a union with God. He neglected the fact that even though the definition hasn’t changed much, its symbolism has changed. “Marriage” long ago, as brought up in the blog, was seen as between a young girl and a much older man. Because this was the norm, the symbol of marriage was just that. Later on, this became looked down upon, and marriage was seen as between a man and a woman of similar age. With this as the norm of that time, it became the new symbol of marriage. Today, however, Warren doesn’t realize that the symbolic nature of “marriage” has yet again changed. Now that many of us have begun to realize that “marriage” does not necessarily mean between a man and a woman, we see the other possibilities. Many now see marriage as a union between two people, regardless of sex. This, I believe, has become the new symbol of marriage.
As a conservative Christian, I can also see why Warren would not want marriage’s definition to be expanded to include same sex couples. The religious definition of marriage and its symbolism have changed much less than the political notion of marriage. However, the static nature of religious marriage is irrelevant to the nature of legal marriage. Separation of church and state takes over from here: it is silly to not include same sex couples in the group of those eligible to get married.
Anyway, I just wanted to kind of explain a bit more Warren’s side to make him sound like less of a homophobic jerk. Even though many people will still see him as such, he should still sit at Barack’s table because he does represent quite a chunk of US people. Anyone opposed to him should keep in mind, Warren isn’t the only one sitting at this table.
Critics of Obama are quick to jump on him for being an idealist, a man who can talk the talk. Can he walk the walk, they ask? Obama supporters, myself included, have argued tirelessly to defend this man who truly seems to represent change. Sure, his slogan is “change we can believe in”, but is it wrong to really take some faith in that? In a two-party system, we will never see a President who represents every belief our nation’s people hold. We will never see a President who can truly identify with every race and religion. But what we can find in Barack Obama is a pledge to honestly try to understand the nuances among our diversities. From day one (Inauguration day), he put onstage a man with whom his beliefs are not consistent. Obama is clearly a freer, more modern and progressive thinker than Rick Warren. But Obama really does only represent the beliefs of maybe half of America’s population. So what about the other half? When Obama promises a transparent government that brings people together, he is implying that all opinions are deserving of a voice. I think that Rick Warren’s presence was an attempt by Obama to convince his opposition that he really will listen, and that he really will try to create policies that result from a full understanding of issues. Just as I’d be upset if Bush passed an anti-abortion law without listening to pro-choice perspective, conservatives would feel abandoned and betrayed by government if Obama blindly made gay-marriage legal. More so than trying to do what he finds right, he is trying to convince a struggling nation that we don’t have to be so politically extreme. Obama is fighting for some middle-ground, and for a respect from liberals and conservatives alike. For reasons I’m not sure of, I really trust Barack Obama. He just seems like a really down-to-earth, fair, honest, intelligent guy. Even Bush fanatics should relish in the fact that this guy is really trying to be different; really trying to stand for something greater than our innumerable divisions And in times like these, what more can we ask? I try vehemently to be open-minded. But forcibly tangled up in my attempts is my distaste for anything I find to be close-minded. When I see those religious fanatics standing outside of the HUB, holding big signs that inform me of my eternal damnation, I want to spit in their faces. I’m not sure if this makes me less open-minded for not trying to understand their beliefs, or more open-minded for rejecting something so negatively exclusive. I believe in freedom of thought; believe what you will, but help you God if you try to push it on me with unsubstantiated threats.
First, I want to comment that it amazes me how anyone can immediately look to condemn our new President for his inclusion of Rick Warren in the inaugural events and think that it was an insult to LGBT people. Barack Obama’s platform for the presidency was based upon his views of equality for all. In his acceptance speech on the night he won the Democratic nomination he described the “American promise” as an obligation to treat each other with dignity, respect and equality. On same sex marriage, that very night he said, “I know there are differences on same sex marriage but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free from discrimination.” Is his statement that night so different from the views expressed by Warren; views that are probably more in line with the American people than those who want to call same sex unions “marriages?” Why should there be any doubt that Obama will not try to follow through on his support for those who are LGBTs? Why should there be any question that in 9 days since being sworn in he has already turned his support away from them?
In Obama’ administration, no one should be excluded from helping to form and develop policy. In order to do that, everyone must be heard. No one should feel inhibited in expressing their views, even if they are contrary to popular opinion. Everyone must have the opportunity to express his/her opinions and feel comfortable and welcome in doing so. It is easy to say you are open-minded and willing to listen to other people’s beliefs that differ from their own. You can easily sit in front of a friend, acquaintance, colleague, professor, or family member who is telling you their positions on issues and you simply nod your head and smile in agreement. There are probably countless times you have done this, whether it’s to avoid an argument, follow the crowd, not look like an outcast, or just out of pure laziness in not wanting to fight the fight or expend the energy. It may often be your fear of reprisal, retaliation or criticism that prevents you from openly participating in a discussion. So while you sit there and agree with everyone, underneath it all you are desperately trying to control your temper and blood pressure as you refrain from expressing your disagreement. This is wrong. It is important that you express your opinions and say what’s on your mind. No one can tell you your opinions wrong. The First Amendment of the Constitution gives you freedom of voice. While others may not agree with you and try to convince you otherwise, freedom of speech is one of America’s liberties. Should we condemn the Nazis who want to march in this country; or silence the anti abortionists; or prohibit ultra conservatives from talking on the radio? No! So, instead of sitting in silence speak up, whether in a filled room where many may hear you or whether there is an audience of just one person. You have no idea what kind of impact your voice could make.
Now it is Barack Obama’s turn to make an impact and to use his voice. It is now Obama’s turn to bring what he has to the table and to lead us for the next four years. It is Obama’s turn to listen to all the differing voices of America. He is not doing this alone. He has filled his “table” with very respectable and intelligent advisers to help guide him in the situations he must face now and in the future. We do not know how many of the views and opinions expressed throughout his campaign he will actually be able to put into practice. What we do know is that so many Presidents before him forgot to listen to others. Obama has promised us that his goal is to give all Americans what they want and need – a good education, jobs and health insurance as well as equality and justice for all. He has promised to listen to the American people. He has been in office for only nine days now and people are already questioning him. Obama won the popular election with 67,066,915 popular votes, 52.7%! The country voted for him for a reason so let’s have a little faith, please!
For starters, I completely agree that the LGBT community should not be condemning Obama for being all-inclusive. They lead huge demonstrations in cities across the nation proclaiming their need and desire acceptance. Therefore, I’m a little unnerved that they choose not to accept Rick Warren when, again, they strive for acceptance in the first place.
Moving on, I must also commend President Obama for inviting Rick Warren in the first place. I suspect that it was purely a political move—so he would look good to Christian conservative families. Nonetheless, he did it and I think, if he makes doing things like this a trend, the country will benefit from it.
All this sounds well and good, by I think ‘trend’ is the key here. Obama must continue to do things that he sees as good for the country or, at least, particular groups. In doing so, he must make sure he doesn’t show favoritism to a particular group nor can he disregard any group.
Obama is in a unique place. He has many supporters and many critics. These critics though, unlike critics of previous presidents, do not have nearly as much to go on. When they criticize (and often, I find myself agreeing with critics—I voted for McCain) they are looking at a very limited political career. When they question his motives, they question a very young man. It’s hard to predict exactly what impact a person will have when he is, ultimately, unknown. This being the case, Obama can easily surprise and impress even his toughest critics. He can do things like have Rick Warren speak at his inauguration and he can do things like close Guantanimo Bay. When he does this, he gets scrutinized, but he also gets praised. Even though I wasn’t an Obama supporter, I’m excited to see how else he can do this.
When Obama ‘brings everyone to the table’ nobody can really complain. Sure, they can raise a fuss, but when you get down to it, we live in an (supposedly) accepting nation with understanding and tolerance intertwined to make America what it is. Therefore, if Obama sees fit to join Atheists and Christians, LGBT supporters and those who don’t support homosexuality, black and white, rich and poor to the proverbial table, we’re all better for it. I admit, I agree 100% with Rick Warren’s views. I would never condemn a person for their life, but that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with it. Likewise, those people I disagree with (obviously) disagree with me. With Obama, it’s a case of ‘let’s agree to disagree.’ Honestly, I’m ok with this. Obviously, I think it’d be great if everybody agreed with me. Nonetheless, this is not a reality. If tolerance of everybody at the table—as long as everybody truly is at the table, then I don’t see a need to complain.
I just do not understand why people have any problem at all with these comments. I actually am very pleased with how he answered his questions. Marriage is a religious ceremony and is clearly defined as between a man and a woman. Period, no arguments or any way around it. This minister has said nothing derogatory against gay people. He even supports a civil union. Why do people keep calling a legal binding contract between two people marriage? It is not. It is a civil union. All I want is to be covered by my partners’ insurance policy so that I do not have to work. I could give two shits if the fucked up Catholic Church recognizes this or not. The people who are getting upset in the LGBT community about these statements have a lot of other issues they need to deal with before they can even decide to get upset over some small time ministers comments. Not everyone has the same views as them. Why make a big deal about it? That's like me saying I didn’t want Aretha Franklin to sing because she doesn’t sing in baritone like I do. People are dumb. Is Obama supposed to comb through the entire U.S. to find a minister he is on friendly terms with who supports “Gay-Marriage” a few weeks before his inauguration? Here is the bottom line, the minister was present and nothing was said against the LGBT community at any point in time by Obama or Warren. MOVE ON. If members of the LGBT community feel like they got slapped in the face then here is my advice…. Get over it. I am sure they are used to much more personal anguish. Also, if it is so important to them, maybe they can consider focusing their energy on forming some sort of rally on the National Mall in order to gain more attention and have civil unions recognized in all 50 states. Remember people, let’s take small steps and then take it from there. Why get all worked up over nothing when there are much bigger issues at hand. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I think Obama has done a great job at listening to EVERYONES views. Personally, I agree with the minister… what church is he running? I want to join, I never heard Father Mcleary even acknowledge the gay community as existing in my catholic church, even though we all know he has probably been molesting little boys for the past 25 years. I think Obama has done an excellent job at letting the people know he is not just one sided. He is giving everyone a chance to express their side and their views.
Everyone including Minister Warren has their own opinions on various issues such as the LGBTA (which was previously stated in the blog). I won’t say that I 100% agree with Warren but I do agree with some of his views. Coming from a Christian home I was taught that a man and a woman were to get married. Also, since my family is predominately Jamaican, I had a vast outlook on how Jamaicans view LGBTA. Which is they absolutely do not agree with it. In fact, even if you “seem” or “act” gay, you will be ostracized and maybe even killed. But getting back to the point, President Obama is standing by his word, unlike other politicians, when it comes to the fact that he is “bringing everyone to the table.” Even though Warren has different views than a lot of the Obama supporters, it doesn’t mean that he should completely cut him off. As I said before, everyone has their own opinion on various issues therefore there is bound to be a disagreement. However, Obama’s tactics are to bring everyone together, no matter the disagreements and different opinions. Sam mentioned on how frequent we would share a table with someone we disagree with and then attempt to see the world from their eyes. That’s probably one of the hardest obstacles I would have to face, mostly because I try to avoid confrontation. If I knew that I would be sitting next to a person who had an opposite view of what I believe in, then I would have to move my seat. I also think that a lot of people try to avoid awkward situations; this is why it is not frequently done. For instance, I know with my temper I would probably get really pissed off and start to get really loud if I am in a conversation with someone that doesn’t see the world as I see it, especially on certain issues. I’m not sure how that would change my outlook on a lot of things but I am sure that Obama’s decisions on facing this issue will probably help us become a little more unified. Also, as the first (half) black president, Obama will have a lot of spectators and negative vibes coming his way. Many people also want someone to blame for the failures of the country, therefore President Obama would be the first on the list.
On the other hand, Obama cannot change the minds of everyone, but he is willing to become a “uniter”, which is what the United States needs at this point. Inviting Warren to pray at the Inauguration showed a lot of diligence, in that he wants everyone to come together (different races, cultures, backgrounds, etc.) and become unified.
Sitting in my living room getting ready to watch our 44th president, Barack Obama, take office, the last person I expected to step up to the podium to address the crowd of thousands beneath was Rick Warren. I personally do not agree with many of the ideas Warren holds, so the shot of him standing with Obama in the background was a little surprising. I know Obama ran on a platform that in general, disagreed with Warren’s views so I could not really lay a finger on why he was chosen to speak when I first watched. Then, the idea of uniting our country finally started to sink into me as I watched the entirety of the inauguration and part of the celebration that ensued.
However hopeful Rick Warren and Barack Obama’s professional relationship is for the country, I still feel skeptical that someone with such drastic views as Rick Warren should be even considered by Obama. I understand that many people within our country agree with him in what he speaks, but at the same time, it is a little disheartening. To think that someone can honestly compare two men or women getting married to that of a union between a brother and a sister is sickening. I hold my own beliefs on the subject, and I feel I am just as right as Rick Warren believes himself to be. His whole view on just that one small aspect makes me wary and that is without even thinking of some of his other ideas. But the fact that Obama himself can bring himself to rise above it and embrace this man, I have to put some faith into my president.
The changes happening in our country right now are incredible and I am so excited to be here experiencing all of it. It is very true that everyone always promises change, but rarely is it ever fully followed through with. Therefore it is refreshing that in the very moments even before Obama was elected he was already representing views very different from his own. I have faith this is a great sign of things to come and that he will not fail to bring our country to a whole new level. People I know do not believe that Obama will make much of a difference in our country, and that his slogan for change throughout the presidential race was a cliché. But just from seeing Rick Warren and Obama overcoming their differences to ring in a new American era, this change has become inevitable. I am thrilled to see our country uniting together, and I know Obama will not fail to bring about the type of America we have long been waiting for!
The idea of bringing all sides to the table is one that is of great importance in today’s world and that we are seeing much more of today than we have ever seen in history. This is not only the result of evolution and change, but also the product of our shift in social culture and newly found curiosity of other lifestyles. Our generation today (Generation Y’ers, as we have been called) is more open-minded and diverse than ever before. We ask more questions than any other generation; we question our parents, employers, and society at large. When I say we are more diverse than ever before, I refer to the fact that today people have reason to think differently and more openly, seeking to hear all sides of an argument and making personal opinion based on what we learn.
In the past, and perhaps this includes many of us Gen. Y’ers , we have based our beliefs and opinions based upon what we were taught, not only by our parents and teachers, but also how society ran as a whole. However, something changed this. Now, in a world inundated with ideas and opinions, brought on primarily by the Internet and technology, we have changed. We have learned to question our historical beliefs and standards. We have even moved past that and created our own, new beliefs and principals.
Therefore, I believe it is the work of technology that has led us as a society to become more open-minded and bring all sides to the table. Now, that is not to say that we have changed our beliefs to coincide with what we see and hear today; but it has allowed us to hear all sides of an argument so that we may have a better understanding of how everyone feels and the reasons why they may feel that way.
With this more open society that we have today, one could see it as close to impossible to find two individuals that feel the same way on just about every topic. With the enormous growth of the internet and social networks, along with numerous blogs, books and other media, society today has been flooded with infinite sources that provide opinions and support for those opinions, that in turn, help to persuade others to take in those beliefs.
In conclusion, as I have outlined here, we have shifted from a closed society to an open one, and this has given way to new beliefs and a generation that has willingly accepted to look at all sides of the table. This is a great feat, and one that will continue to grow in the future, with the possibility that one day inequality will end and all viewpoints will be heard and taken into consideration when making decisions.
We share this metaphorical table with everyone, everyday of our existence and I believe it is imperative to communicate with a willingness to not only listen but also to comprehend our peer’s thoughts. Two people will more often than not share different opinions about a subject matter and if anyone wishes to grow in knowledge it is crucial for them to remain open to new ideas when dealing with others. In my life I do the best I can to sit back and listen to what others are saying even if I have a preconceived notion that I will not agree with them. Even if a disagreement is reached I do my best to understand where two different ideas conflict and how they can reach an agreement if at all. In regards to viewing something from someone else’s perspective I always try to put myself in someone else’s shoes because I cannot understand their message unless I view things the way they do. A short story describes this method of viewpoints in plain logic. There was a ball which was split perfectly in half by color (black and white) and a teacher asked two students to come to the front of the class and close their eyes before viewing the ball. The teacher then stood in the middle of the two students and held the ball out and asked them to open their eyes and say what color they saw. The teacher presented the black side of the ball to one student and the white side to the other. Both students shouted out what color they saw and immediately began arguing over “the correct color.” When the students failed to come to an agreement the teacher asked them to switch sides to they could see what the other person saw which is when they realized the ball was two different colors.
I love this story because it shoes that no matter how confident someone is that they have the right answer they can never be sure unless they view the problem from every perspective. I believe that people do not generally view themselves as out of touch. This obviously isn’t a correct way to view things but I think it is natural to assume that you are right when you come to a conclusion. While this is natural I think everyone should learn that it is okay to be humbled by someone who may correct you because it is an amazing way to learn. If someone corrects me and I find out that they were right I am far more likely to remember that fact then something I picked up on my own. While it may be easier to lob these “grenades” at others it limits your knowledge in the overall scheme of things. I love that Obama surrounds himself with people he may not agree with but rather people that he respects. I hope this become a new trend in many areas of the world because everyone has the ability to gain knowledge through others.
“Bringing Everyone to the Table” really shows that Barack Obama is taking his new position as President of the United States seriously. The word united is definitely stresses in this blog. Obama invited Warren to deliver the opening prayer at his inauguration despite the fact that Warren opposes gay marriage and some of Obama’s greatest supporters were from the gay community. This shows for the first time that a President is taking his position seriously as a “Uniter”, and is attempting to see the world from all view points. However, this topic in particular is a very new and extremely sensitive topic to many people. Gay marriage has always been a sensitive topic and probably will continue to be throughout my lifetime.
Personally, I was raised a Catholic with all the ideals of marriage and how it was something sacred between a man and a woman, and sense I attended Catholic schools for twelve years I never really had a reason to “attempt to see the world from someone else’s eyes”. Since I was brought up believing that marriage is something between a man and woman it is hard for me to apply the same term to two men or two women. I believe that everyone should have equal rights and be under equal protection under the law despite their sexual preferences. I see nothing wrong with “partners” receiving benefits from insurances and anything else that opposite sex marriages are entitled too.
However, for some reason I cannot bring myself to be okay with the term marriage being applied to them. Even after reading this blog and seeing that fro centuries the legal age to get married was ten years old in many states, I still do not believe that same-sex people should be allowed to use the term marriage. I would definitely think the reason I belief this is because of my upbringing (parents, school, community), and it is difficult after believing something for my 20 years on earth to just change that opinion now. I truly believe in my heart that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law, but for some strange reason the term “marriage” is still a sensitive topic for me personally.
In the end this blog has made me think about following Obama’s lead and looking at this topic through someone else’s eyes because I will never grow until I begin to open up and talk to different individuals about different topics. My opinions and ideas about things like gay marriage and various other topics might change when I get a different perspective from someone else. Obama is the first president to actually pick people with different opinions than him and attempt to come to an understanding between all of them. I hope through discussions of my own that this will prove true for me as well.
Personally, I don’t agree with the policy of keeping marriage the way it has been for 5,000 years. What really makes the past definition of marriage the right one? Just because something has been one way for thousands of years does not mean that it is the way it is supposed to and should be. Also, the way things are now for marriage is already very different from the past structure of marriage. This is very clear given the fact that marriages used to be arranged and people used to get married a lot earlier. One top of this, the United States is supposed to be a country where everyone is considered equal and has equal rights. If everyone is guaranteed equal right then they should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of their race, culture or sex. I don’t believe that people being given the opportunity to marry the person they love is really hurting anyone. Meanwhile, being denied this opportunity really does hurt a lot of citizens. In fact, I think it is awful that certain religions and people want to deny anyone of these rights. This is a new time and things are changing so people need to change with it.
Clearly, I do not support the views of Rick Warren. However, I do feel that Obama’s method of “bringing everyone to the table” will prove to be very effective. In the past, most presidents, regardless of what they promised while campaigning, alienated and ignored opposing viewpoints. These presidents set forth to pursue their own goals and the goals of their supporters without taking the time to consider the other side of things. The former President Bush is a prime example of this and given his obvious lack of success during his presidency this is not an effective way of operating things. Even looking at earlier presidents who also took this approach, it is still clear that this is not working and there is a need for change. If this county is going to be able to come out of the crisis it is currently facing, leaders have to work together on a more united front. In order for the best possible decisions to be made, nothing can be ignored or overlooked. All different sides and viewpoints need to be considered for this country to begin to come out of this crisis. Overall, I think Obama is doing as he promised and taking the country in a new direction. Seeing how he has surrounded himself with a variety of different politicians and leaders, it seems Obama really is changing the way the executive office is run. Though it may be more difficult for policies to be decided on, I am confident that this change is one that is for the best of this country.
Being a member of the LGBT community, I can honestly say that I do not fault Obama for wanting to “bring everybody to the table,” regardless if it was Rick Warren (whose comments ruffled my feathers) or Osama Bin Laden; and I do not feel like I have been slapped in the face by Obama for appointing Rick Warren the person to lead the prayer at the inauguration. Obama attracted most of his supporters by running a “Campaign for Change,” and unity was apart of that change. The fact that Obama can actually “sit down” at a “table” with people with whom he disagrees shows not only that he is serious about making that change, and making a unity among those who are divided, but it also shows that he is respectful and willing to listen to other people’s opinions and point of view. “Bringing everyone to the table” will “put everything on the table.” In order to get to the bottom of any disagreement, both parties have to be willing to listen to the other sides point of view and perspective, and come to a compromise. Without understanding the other side’s argument, a compromise will never be met because arguing and disagreeing will continue. And if worst comes to worst, the last thing that should be done is agreeing to disagree. In order to restore the United States of America, unity must happen. I have to say that our president is off to a good start by keeping his word. Obama will not always have meetings with people that he shares the same opinions with; and we have to understand that the opinions of the people that Obama may have to associate himself with are not his opinions. So we cannot judge Obama by the opinions and views of others. Rick Warren is Rick Warren, and Obama is Obama, we must not forget that.
Although the blog is not necessarily about the comments that Rick Warren made, I still feel the need to comment on them. To say that you believe in equal rights, but that you do not believe in same-sex marriage is hypocritical. The LGBT community has, and probably forever will be fighting for equality. Believing in equal rights, but not believing that a same-sex marriage should be equal to heterosexual marriage is contradictory. I do not understand how he can flag off the term “domestic partnership,” but he says that he has no problem with “partnership benefits.” I believe that Rick Warren is totally against equal rights for everyone in America due to his statements in his interview. I agree that he tried to be politically correct, but he just did not succeed in my eyes.
I pray and hope that Obama will keep all of his promises, and that he will try to mend the broken pieces of what we call home: America. Obama, watch yourself, their waiting for you to slip.
I am a person who loves to argue. I’d rather share a table with those I disagree with than those who share my opinions – it’s so much more entertainment. My best friends used to tease me with the name, “Contradicting James,” because I had a habit of disagreeing with whatever was said, regardless of my own personal opinion. I learned that a good arguer is a quintessential listener. You must understand their whole opinion if you want to disagree with any of it. I share a table with people who hold conflicting opinions every day. And I listen to them. I don’t agree with them, I just try to understand their point of view (it makes it easier to defend why I think they are wrong). I feel that the majority of people treat can’t do this – whether they are close-minded, or just don’t like to argue enough I can’t say.
If I’m metaphorically “sharing a table” with people who all hold the same belief I’ll take the other side just to keep myself interested. I may know that I’m wrong (at least that I think I am wrong) but I will argue all the same: just to try to help other people see things in a different light. I’m not a person who is afraid of causing problems with opinions. I feel that people in general are too concerned with being right (their opinion of what is right) and too concerned with offending others with their opinions. I believe this holds them back from seeing both sides of an argument, or the multiple facets of a situation as complex as the “definition” of marriage.
Obama has much more at stake than offending people. His decisions on the issues brought before him will affect how people are treated and what they are allowed to do. I would hate to be in his position. I could argue for both sides indefinitely and at the end of the day I honestly wouldn’t care which side wins or loses. So don’t ever try to vote me into office, I would be a terrible president. Aside from having wishy-washy opinions I also keep political news at arm’s-length because politics just frustrate me. So hopefully, for the sake of my countrymen, Obama does a good job at bringing people to the table and making fair decisions regarding them. Maybe he will be able to break down the barriers of unjust opinions. Maybe he will bring equality to those who aren’t given equal treatment. I personally don’t live my life that way, however; I listen to others opinions and I at least try my best to understand where they are coming from. I will never try to impose my ideals onto another person, and I sympathize with those who have to struggle to be seen as normal in the eyes of the public. But as far as politics go I’m just not that concerned – maybe Obama will bring me to the table and by listening I will change my own opinions. I’ll have to wait and see.
I grew up in a syncretic family and country. Meaning everyone is part Christian and partially follows indigenous beliefs. We have a good balance of Christian values and morals that are incorporated into the old and traditional ways of the African culture. Because of this everyone abides by the same traditions and rules as everyone else. We were not taught much of anything else so I was never really exposed to people who had views or values that differed from mine. Then when I moved to the United States a few years ago I suffered severe culture shock because America is a very diverse nation. One of the things that took me the longest to swallow was the idea of ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’. I had never heard of such people and was not sure how I was supposed to approach them. I wasn’t sure if I was even allowed to accept them. My parents, having grown up in Africa all their lives and had our syncretic beliefs strongly instilled in them, were very unaccepting of that way of living. As a child I was prone to being the same way. But after making friends with a couple of gay people, I came to realize that they were people just like me. The only difference was that they lived a different way of life. And to me that was not an issue. We are all human at the end of the day, deserve equal rights not matter what walks of life we may come from. My religious and traditional way of life may not allow me to accept the idea of being gay or lesbian people but that doesn’t mean I should treat them any differently or with any less respect than I would a straight person. They too are a creation of God and the bible tells us to love all men. So I chose to adopt a way of thinking that went along the lines of, as long as you don’t try to impose your ways of life or beliefs upon me, I have no problem with you. And I in turn won’t get all preachy, judgmental or condemning on them. It’s how they choose to live and people need to accept that. As Christians, people need to realize that God gave everyone Free Will. So let them be. And I’m proud that Obama is a president how kind of sees things in that same way.
He’s a man who is willing to accept all people and listen to what they have to say. Even though he is a Christian, he is accepting of gays and lesbians. In a way he truly understands the meaning of separating church and state. People shouldn’t be allowed to make laws that restrict other people from living the kind of life they choose to because of their personal religious beliefs. I personally believe that America is a country that is not founded on Christian belief but the simple ideas that all men are created equal and should be treated as such. So to have politicians trying to impose a certain way of life on people is just wrong. Obama has show that he is willing to work with anyone in-order to bring the promises he made to the American people come to life. He has always shown that he was willing to “bring everyone to the table” and genuinely listen to what they have to say since the beginning of his presidential campaign. And I admire him greatly for that. He is the one man I truly believe can bring change and unity to the American people.
“How often do share a table with the people with whom we so stridently disagree?”
The answer for this particular question is very often. We share our table with people we disagree all the time. But the real questions here is how often do we put ourselves in these peoples’ shoes and try to see the world in their perspective to reach understanding, perhaps not agreement but understanding? Not very often.
It is hard for people to think outside of the box and think that there is more out there than just their beliefs and themselves. The reason for this is that we are the legacy of what our grandparents and parents were, we are taught to think and believes whatever our parents and grandparents believed in. Unfortunately, for many of us there is no other world, but that particular that our families created for us. Just imagine that someone was born and race with loving parents telling him or her how stupid he or her were. At some point in time they are going to believe it and think of themselves as stupid and irrational people that are impossible to deal with. My point with this is that change doesn’t happen over night and one must work very hard to understand others political, social and ethical views.
Personally I think that even though we come a long way, especially now that we have a half African American president that has very liberal views, we still have a long way to go to obtain the level of understanding and tolerance that Barrack Obama possessed. This reminds me of that old saying: “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.“ This is one of the things that we should learn from our president because the world wouldn’t be so divided if people try to think and act beyond differences and instead work on what brings them together and make them similar.
This is a very interesting topic because it made me questions my beliefs and the things I thought were natural just because my parents said they were. My family does not agree with gay marriage and have very conservative views on some social issues. While I was growing up I learned on my own that gay and lesbians are not any different than heterosexual people. They play, watch television and live normal lives just like everyone else does. This why I think that it will take a long time for people to start understanding, not agreeing, but understanding.
I would like to point out that I agree with Turq, I do not feel like I have been slapped in the face by Obama for appointing Rick Warren the person to lead the prayer at the inauguration either. This shows us that he means exactly what he says when it comes to uniting the nation and makes people worry about the real issues instead of superficial things that in the end are not relevant. However, I think is good that the media bring out how Obama can sit on same table with people of different views that he doesn’t agree with and have a conversation arguing about those differences and focusing only in what brings them together.
Cayla Rasi
First of all, I hope that Obama lives up to the things that he says he will bring to this country. If he doesn’t – then he’s just going to cause many people to stereotype blacks as being people who do not live up to what they say they are going to do. But if he does everything he says he’ll do, I know this country will become stronger and people’s opinions will be changing about each other—for the better.
I like to consider myself as someone who will try to take a step back and try and think the way someone else things. I studied abroad last spring and I voted for the primaries while I was abroad and during that time I was able to listen to what everyone had to say about our democratic and republican candidate. I listened to what everyone had to say—good and bad—and I quickly realized for the first time ever that people around the world are truly effected by how American’s vote and who we elect as president. People label the United States as “the most powerful nation in the world” and that didn’t mean too much to me until I went abroad. We are voting, we are changing what is going to happen to the world because of who we elect, and it sucks for people who are not U.S citizens because their lives are about to change and they can’t do anything about it. (This is why I feel so strongly now about people voting. My roommate did not vote because she claimed that people were voting for the wrong reasons in this past election. I strongly believe that it is our duty as a citizen to vote and make a difference. And if there is ever a moment in my life that I get lazy and want to slack off as a citizen I will remember all of the people that told me how I have changed their lives because I helped support Barrack Obama.)
When it come to gay rights, I am all for supporting homosexuals. My uncle was a Roman Catholic priest and he worked for Boston College in the 1980’s as a psychologist. When he came out, he was fired from his job at Boston College and he then opened an office specifically focusing on counseling gay men and women. He was also booted from the church and began preaching for Dignity services in Boston and Provincetown. Dignity is a church service that welcomes anyone—regardless of their ethnicity, race, sex, and it doesn’t matter if you are gay or straight to attend the service.
When I hear people saying that it is “wrong” or “the church says it’s wrong” in regard to people being gay or in regard to gay union, I get very upset. I am a straight college student living in a world where people are coming up with nauseating, destructive, and tortuous ways to kill one another—and people out there are saying it’s wrong for two people to love each other? Who gives a shit who you love and who you care for, just as long as you love and not hate. I really hope Obama can spread this idea of loving each other and not hating each other. He is in this position where he can start to change people, and look how far he has come so far! I am very optimistic.
Many people believe that President Obama will not bring change. They feel that every president prior to Obama has always said one thing but has done the other and he is no different. "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." President Barrack Obama has already proven people wrong, showing that he is going to stick to his word. This is evident when he invited Rick Warren to speak at the presidential inauguration. With having Warren speak at the inauguration, Obama truly shows that he wants to bring every one together. Many people believe that having Rick Warren speak was a step back, but really Obama was taking a step forward.
Having Rick Warren speak was Obama bringing "everyone to the table." This is key in order to make the right decision for the country. Looking at something with an open mind and seeing it from multiple angles is one of Obama's strongest qualities and is one of many reasons why he is going to be one of the strongest presidents of our time. Although he might not agree fully with Rick Warren's views about gay marriages, he puts that aside and shows that he has other similar views. As a leader of our country, Obama has to listen to other people's views and represent how those people feel if he wants to be respected and trusted. By having Warren speak shows just that. This shows the country that we all have different views, but we need to come together to make our country even stronger. It is already apparent that he is making change with his signing of his first piece of legislation today.
Today my mom called me to tell me how proud and happy she is that Barrack Obama is our president. Growing up with a single mom, I always saw the struggles she had to deal with in the work area. One of the issues she had to deal with was unequal pay compared to her male colleagues. I was so happy for her when I heard the news that President Obama signed the equal-pay legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama wants to make the economy work by sending, "a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody." With this new legislation, he is upholding one of the main values in the United States, that all are created equally. Being a woman and thinking about my own future and the future of my children, I am proud and elated that this bill has been passed. This bill is just the beginning of more changes to come to our country.
Obama definitely seems to have done his job at bringing everyone to the table so far. He left the important republican positions in office, and tried his best to convince republicans to join his stimulus package. The problem may arise in that even though he is serious, the rest of Washington, which has been using that rhetoric for decades, isn’t serious. This will cause problems in the pushing of his policies through congress. It will take an actual cooperation between all of the members of congress to fully realize Obama’s dream of unity instead of division.
As far as bringing opposing members to the “table,” it takes a great and intelligent orator to connect to his or her opposition on any level. It is really difficult to find the common ground on such polarizing issues as gay marriage, but that is the only way that people will actually listen to each other. Also, it is an interesting fact that Obama doesn’t even officially believe in gay marriage. He believes in civil unions, and full rights, but has a similar take as Warren on official “marriage” being between a man and a woman. Personally, I believe that it’s a load of crap, that people should get married if they want to get married (a lot more than the sanctity of marriage has been challenged and changed since the bible was written) but I respect Obama’s ability to separate his religious views from rational thought. This is why he can bring people together. He uses rational thought and reasoning, and does it in a beautifully orchestrated way. He has a belief on the sanctity of marriage, but doesn’t use that as an excuse to deny people basic rights, and is wholly against discrimination of those people.
I believe that he can bring some unity to the white house. Although his stimulus package was drawn exactly along partisan lines, he did everything in his power to bring republicans in on the debate. I feel that he will continue to do this, as he moves through his extensive agenda. I’m not quite sure why republicans were eager to bail out massive corporations, who needed money to cover up mistakes, but are against giving money to education, the environment, and the middle class. Obama has actually cut programs (Guantanamo and the war on Iraq) that will save us billions of dollars. Anyway, I hope that Obama continues to strive towards unity, even while his Washington friends stick to their old ways. He was the president of hope and change, and it seems like he is trying his best to follow through on his word. It will be interesting to see if congress eventually begins to listen to his advice, and come together as one America.
Growing up I was heavily influenced by religion, more specifically Catholicism. This strict religion became a burden on my shoulders - Making me feel guilty if I missed one mass or forgetting to prayer one night. I felt as thought it was based off traditions more than anything. It seemed very close-minded and unwelcoming of anyone who wasn’t of the religion. My Episcopalian mother was not even allowed to have communion because she was not catholic. So this just shows you how there are many people who will refuse to “share the table” with others. Religion has faded away in my life. Even stepping into a church now makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
So the actions made by Rick Warren were very off putting to me. He appeared very close-minded, much like those bound to my ex-religion. It was to my surprise and to a lot of others that Rick Warren played a major role at the inauguration of Obama. But it would be very hypocritical of me to be against it. I am not against Warren leading the opening prayer, just surprised. But I guess I should not be - Because it’s Obama.
Everything he has said and done has been very genuine. He sticks to his guns, no matter what. Obama wants to bring everyone to the table. Not matter who you are what you believe in, Obama wants to unite the country and bring stability back to the economy. And I agree. We need to all work together to reach this goal. In the past I would have said that it seems pretty much out of reach. But being that Obama, a president very different from all the rest, is our leader I would say that I trust this man. By inviting Rick Warren to his inauguration, he is sticking to his word. Just because Obama does not share his views with Warren does not mean Warren is wrong. (Or right I should add.) I thought it was very smart of Obama to invite Warren. I saw it to be good public relations. And a good step forward toward the goal of bringing everyone to the table. I think that even if Warren was not invited to the inauguration to deliver the opening prayer, we could still work toward this goal. But it was a good way to show the nation he is up to the challenge.
It was only his first day in office and Obama is already proving to be a unifier. (Unlike past presidents who could not even accomplish this goal in four years or even eight.) He is a man of his word and I am proud that he is my president.
Barack Obama, just like all the presidents before him, will promise us things that he will not actually accomplish. He has promised too much for it to be possible for everything to get passed that he promised while campaigning. However, I do have high hopes for him to do what he promised, especially in regards to helping college students, which he spoke about when he visited Penn State last spring. But I am trying to not be too naïve to assume he will accomplish everything. He has already passed a few laws that I am very happy with especially the law he just passed today that forces companies to pay workers equal rights. As a junior, looking to the future and thinking about being able to find a job, this law will affect me personally in a positive way.
Personally, I do not agree with what Rick Warren. I also believe that President Obama does not fully agree with everything Rick Warren preaches. I feel that President Obama was simply trying to, as Sam put it, ‘bring everyone to the table’ and hear him out, along with give others the opportunity to hear what Rick Warren preaches. Not to sound hard, but I believe Obama was trying to relate to more people to gain their votes. I believe this because of his agenda, which was posted on the White House website. He plans to oppose a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as well as support full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples. The second would include giving LGBT couples rights and benefits only given to those who are married, such as the right to have equal health insurance, property rights, and most importantly the right to assist their partner in the hospital. He also plans to repeal the Don’t ask Don’t tell act and expand adoption rights to gay couples.
When Sam posed the question, “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 was taken a back. This question hit home for me. I was raised in a strict catholic household. I was forced to attend a catholic grade school until college. I was taught to believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, but as I grew up I began to disagree with these beliefs. This also meant I began to disagree with what my entire family believes morally. To say there is tension at the dinner table over breaks and on holidays is an understatement. We simply do not mention anything that can turn into a debate anymore simply because it always turns out bad. To put it simply, I have shared the table with both ideals and it is not an easy task, I wish President Obama the best of luck trying to please everyone.
My first thought when reading the beginning of this article is the LGBT community should expect whatever minister delivered the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration to not be a LGBT supporter. Why would it be such a slap in the face? It is no surprise that the religious community is against gay marriage or believe to be LGBT is morally wrong.
However, I agree that Americans today believe in this utopia style family system. Many Americans believe we are indeed moral and have an ideal structure. But, Dr. Richards is right. In the past, America in fact had very immoral (to current standards) practices. The idea of a ten year old getting married today is absurd and illegal. Yet, it was commonly seen throughout our nation for decades. This, once again, reinforces what I believe is country thats morals are slowly declining. With time, every country grows and must realize change is in order. LGBT people are citizens as well as human beings. They deserve every right that straight couples are entitled to. It is possible to be gay and religious and they should be allowed to join in marriage as well. For those who are religious, ask yourself, if God really did not want people to be gay, would he not have stopped them from being gay in the first place?
As a volunteer and avid Hilary Clinton supporter, you can imagine I was not pleased when Obama defeated her for the Democratic Presidential Nominee. However, I united behind my party and hoped for the best. Obama has done a great job in his first week. Many politicians do not bring “everyone to the table” and I feel Obama has had a great start in doing so. I can understand people were not pleased with Warren, personally, doing the prayer. But, Obama showed he will give everyone a say and let them at least give their opinions and concerns. He is bringing a new diversity to the White House and Washington D.C. Not only has he brought a President of color but he is uniting our country in a way we could only dream of before. Will it succeed? Will it change the minds of many racist or sexist Americans? Who knows. Probably not in the case of the very stubborn ones. But, either way, America is showing it can indeed unite and this will show we can also unite against all our many enemies. Bush was not a uniter, although I personally feel he was given a lot more grief than necessary as he is not a horrible person, just not a phenomenal President. Clinton, while he did wonders economically, was not a great uniter although he tried. The remainder of them, I agree with Dr. Richards, either did not care or were all talk and no action. Obama may talk a lot of talk. On some issues, I think it may just be talk. However, on uniting the country through races, sex, and different ideologies, I believe he will take action and make progress.
Michael Patchen
Second Journal
I think that there is no such thing as gay rights, or black rights, or immigrant rights – there are human rights. Any attempt to make a distinction between two types of humans’ rights can be fundamentally motivated by nothing but hate and fear. I can understand where the opposition is coming from, that marriage is sacred, but no matter how I look at it, I just cant see that as a legitimate reason to ban gay marriage. Everyone is granted the right to their own opinion, but they are not granted the right to force that opinion on others. That is America.
Another funny thing is that with all of this talk about the sanctity of marriage, and how it is this ancient and awesome concept - no one seems to point out that we live in a country with a 50% divorce rate. Let’s face it, Americans do not care about the sanctity of marriage.
Every generation in American history, there seems to be one struggle for a certain right, be it slavery of voting rights or black rights, that is such a big deal. But it always seems that the next generation looks back at this struggle like its ludicrous. We actually live in a country that at one point engaged in the deadliest war in its history because half of the population wanted to preserve slavery. It is absolutely absurd, and I hope that gay marriage turns out to be this generations struggle.
In all honesty, I am surprised that gay marriage is even on the political scene. I don’t argue about with my friends, or go on the internet and comment on peoples blogs and shit I think that’s stupid. With all of the horrors and hate and war and violence and poverty and disease and everything going on in the world, the biggest argument in America is whether or not two guys can get married. Its so crazy, that I refuse to devote any more time to it. If someone wants to get political and argue, fine. But for christs sake, make it something meaningful. Talk about how to end the actual bad things happening in the world.
Its more than just gay marriage that bothers me, its pretty much the whole political arena in America today. Gay marriage, taxes, stem cell research, abortion, its all crazy. I can’t figure out how these things became the defining arguments of my time. Take abortion for example. No one seems to have figured out that there are two legitimate sides to this argument. Both have very valid point. Personally, I have no opinion, but I think abortion should be legal strictly because that way, no ones rights are infringed on. If we outlaw abortion, then we outlaw pro choice. If we legalize abortion, we aren’t outlawing pro life. But enough about that, talking about it is a waste of my time.
My point is that im sick of hearing about all of these stupid things. Whether or not im going to vote for Barack Obama was not, and will never be, at all related to his views on gay marriage, or abortion, or anything retarded like that.
I guess that I agree with most people in my age group on the topic of homosexual marriage. I believe we all have the right to be happy and to legally marry the person we love. I wholeheartedly believe that gay marriages should be recognized and that those individuals should be treated as any other married couple. And, I do defend my moral opinions to others. I feel that my beliefs are rational, fair, and open-minded. I do find it difficult to take the viewpoint of someone like Rick Warren. But would I be on the opposite of the argument if I had been brought up by a religious family who believed in the strictest interpretation of the bible? It is difficult for me to think of my open-minded, liberal ideas being turned upside down. I could be someone who believes that gay marriages compromise my religious or moral views. The blog definitely makes a good point about it being easier to fire grenades at our enemies. I probably think the way that I do because my parents always stressed thinking outside the box, fairness, and following what I believed, regardless of what others believe. This is one of my problems with religious groups stressing that marriage is between a man and a woman, so this couldn’t possibly condone gay marriage. I think that religion may hinder people from forming their own opinions.
And, this issue brings me to question the issue of government and religion, and how this fits into “Obama’s table”. As a generally liberal-minded person, I can defend my own opinions by saying that we should support same-sex marriage because any argument on this issue based on a religious front is null and void in a country where church and state are divided. However, does that notion compromise the beliefs of others and compromise our individual right to choose and practice any religion of our choosing? Where does the divide begin and end? If we deny same-sex marriage, we deny a specific group to “pursue happiness”. I’m not wavering from my original opinion of support for same-sex marriage. I feel that we can’t deny anyone the right to marry in mutual love, regardless of the gender of the individuals. I’ve just never thought of how the other side sees the issue. But, for me, the bottom line still stands. You have the right to practice a religion that believes in some things and not in others. But, to allow the beliefs of one group to stop the rights and beliefs of another group would be a contradictory to this country’s founding principle of freedom of beliefs. If we disallow same-sex marriage, we compromise one group’s right for the beliefs of another’s, which isn’t fair.
At the beginning of the 2009 Presidential Campaign, I was not a supporter of Barrack Obama. I actually strongly opposed most of his running platforms and though that his lack of political experience may be detrimental to our country. But as the campaign season began to heat up and Election Day came closer and closer, I began to have a change of heart. I started to think that Barack Obama may truly mean everything which he says and that he honestly does want to diminish the gaps of society; not only between political parties but between races and socioeconomic classes. I ended up cast my vote for Barrack Obama because I believed he would make an attempted to unite all Americans. Obama displayed this intention of unity even before taken office, when invited both Rick Warren and Bishop Gene Robinson to his inauguration.
“… 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.” If these thousands of supporters really were offended by this move by President Obama, then they were obviously missing the message of “Change” which Barack Obama so often harped on. If these supporters were able to get their way, and Warren was unable to attend, then the day would have been filled by the normal liberal personas in attendance and nothing would have actual “Changed”. I think Barack Obama’s best move in this decision was that he didn’t just send out an invitation to any Bible-toting, gay marriage- bashing, and conservative preacher; but rather he invited Warren, who from what I gather from the interview in the blog seems like a true understanding human being. He doesn’t come off as an opponent or a threat to the gay community, he even supports them having equal rights, but he does disagree with the LBGT on its wish to be able to marry. But as the blog post states, Warren comes from California, where 52% of voters were against gay marriage. The fact that this issue was able to brought up and voted upon no matter what the outcome is democracy at its finest, and even though the LBGT was on the losing side of this vote hopefully they appreciate the fact that they live in country where democracy is truly practiced.
If Barack Obama continues this trend of pushing unlikely groups together and attempting to mend a relationship between all groups of the United State, I believe our country will better off. If we are able to get rid of intra-country rivalries between groups and act as one singular nation, we would be a role model for the rest of the world.
More times than not we will all be faced with people that we do not agree with in certain situations. It does not mean that one side is wrong and the other right, rather than just two different ways of viewing one situation. Any more we are coming to live in a world filled with new possibilities, ideas, and people becoming more open minded. Especially in today's world people have become a lot more open about the idea of gay marriage. I find it common among people who consider themselves "homophobic" have just not been exposed to someone who is a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT) as much as others. I am not gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered but I do have a ton of friends that are from doing theater (being in theater you will find that are a dime a dozen). If you are not exposed to something, like say meeting a gay person or even a black person, you are more likely to be apprehensive if put right in front of you. I feel that people who are opposed to gay marriage focus too much on the definition of marriage rather what a marriage really is. A marriage is a commitment made by two people to spend the rest of their lives together and to be there for the other person through the good, bad, and ugly times. In the post Rick Warren says, ". . . For 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion . . . as a man and a woman." I feel this statement is absurd. It insinuates that being gay is something that just emerged as the new fad like a new pair of boots or a handbag which it is not. In fact, we can see throughout history with people like Alexander the Great, Virginia Woolf, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Andy Warhol, and even today with people like Ellen DeGeneres that being gay is nothing new in fact it has been around for a long time just not as heavily publicized like how it is today. I feel it is important for President Obama to bring everyone to (what he calls) "the table". It does not matter whether we agree or disagree with certain issues considered to be controversial but rather to listen to each other and gain perspective of the issue. Whether it is gay marriage, abortion, education, or the war, America is the home of the free and the brave, where EVERYONE, not just a select group of people, have a voice to change the world. I might not necessarily agree with the ideals of Mr. Warren on gay marriage or a whole slew of issues but he has just as much say to give his opinion as I do mine. However, I would hope that he would value my opinion as well as opinions like mine as I would his. My only hope for the next four years and beyond is the when brought to the table we can listen to each other's thoughts and ideals, learn to mutually accept each other's opinions, thus growing as a nation.
I agree with a comment that was previously posted. I was also shocked to see Rick Warren statement that he believes in equal rights for everyone. Both comments and statements Warren made during the presidential campaign lead me to believe that he did not believe in equal rights. I know of many people who were “on the fence” about who to vote for in the election and once they heard about Warren’s comments and found out Obama’s relationship with him, were turned off and chose to vote for McCain. I feel Obama’s choice to not associate himself with Warren later in the campaign was a good choice for him and allowed him to gain some voters back.
I also feel Obama is doing a great job at trying to “bring everyone to the table”. It is important to get everyones’ view, however a person also needs to be able to stand up for what they believe in. I believe Obama is confident enough in what he believes in be able to debate his opinion with others. Some people I feel do not have this quality.
I voted for Obama in the presidential election, since I agreed with what he represented. Both of my parents however voted for McCain. I truly believe Obama will try to achieve what he promised on the campaign trail. From news reports now it seems Obama had been busy trying to get his ideas through congress. I feel if Obama says he is going to do something that he will try his best to. However Obama was just elected so we will have to wait and see if he does follow through on his campaign promises.
My personal opinion on gay marriage is mixed. In previous years I have believe gay marriage should not exist, however I am opposed to a civil union or the equivalent or marriage, just without the title. I believe the tax breaks and other advantages people get from being married to one another should also be available to gays. I think my opinions come from being raised Catholic. In more recent years though I feel my opinions have shifted. I am no longer completely again gay marriage. I still have my mixed feelings that marriage should be between a man and women. I believe getting married is such a big deal that it in no ways compares to a civil union. I believe everyone should have a chance to plan their special day, which is why I have such mixed feelings about gay marriage. I feel the older I became and the more our culture changes I feel I will become more accepting of the idea.
I believe to make any judgment on whether Obama is bringing “everyone to the table” cannot be answered until a bit later in his presidency.
In terms of bringing everyone to the table, I hope that Obama follows through. I personally, am heterosexual, but I have been a supporter of homosexuals for quite some time. Equal rights means equal rights, not equal opinions or beliefs about certain issues like same sex marriage. I had a discussion with the Willard Preacher the other day about this very topic. I asked him why he made such provocative statements about homosexuals going to hell, and he said that it simply isn’t of the natural order. Homosexuality has been going on within the human race on a consensual plane since the ancient times if not further back, and there are homosexual animals. To say that it is not of the natural order is simply not correct. People want to say that it isn’t natural but it has been a reality for a very long time, and I believe it is time for people to face that.
For those of us who are Christian, we are taught that homosexuality is a sin. I told the Willard Preacher that I believe that this is certainly a deep seeded root for homophobia. I am a Christian myself, but I do not believe that Jesus condemns homosexuals. In fact, I can imagine Jesus crying for those who are persecuted for who they want to love. The idea of Jesus condemning them just does not make sense to me. The Willard Preacher showed me a Bible passage that spoke badly of the lifestyle and further explained that it is only today’s society that is beginning to accept it (and that I was corrupt from being brought up in this society). For all Christians reading my blog, consider this: yes, we are a product of our times, but the Bible may very well be a product of its times as well. If we were to stick to what is written in the Bible, we could stone our children for being disobedient. We would be punished for the traditional Hebrew laws of Kosher eating habits. We would, like the blog noted, be able to have sex at age ten because that was the legal age of marriage. These are all things that we disagree with morally. To oppose the Willard Preacher’s arguments, it seems that in many contexts, the Bible was a product of its culture (as hinted at with my previous examples), and they too, were uncomfortable with homosexuality- perhaps because they didn’t understand it, or perhaps because the need to populate and reproduce clashed with homosexual needs and lack of attraction to the opposite sex. To elaborate further on why I believe that Jesus does not condemn homosexuals, I will refer to what I’ve been taught since I was born: God is love. The second greatest law next to Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, is to love your neighbor as yourself. Love. I was also taught within my religion that the combination of sacrament of marriage and sex is the greatest imitation and reflection of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: three beings in one connected by the being of the Holy Spirit which is love. That is marriage and sex in the eyes of the Church as I was taught: two people bonded by love (a third person: the Holy Spirit), and united as one, just as the Trinity is three persons in one. I ask Christians to consider why love between two men, or between two women should be any different, if it is a reflection of the Trinity. After all, how could love be sinful? Again, God is love. True love, as homosexuals are certainly as capable of as heterosexuals are, is beautiful. As heterosexuality can be abused by having sex with too many people, so too can homosexuality be abused by not having sex with someone you truly love. And how can it seem like homosexuals are not abusing the meaning of sex and love if we do not give them the opportunity to consecrate their love in the form of marriage?
I know that this class is not a religious class and that not everyone is Christian, but I do believe that the underlying Christian/Jewish and maybe Islam values are a big reason why our society has such a problem with homosexuality, so to address that might address our social attitudes as well. It was considered preposterous for women to vote or have any say. A lot of that was backed with Biblical verses that showed the man as the one who should be in power (God being referred to as he or him, Jesus being a man, priests only allowed to be men, etc.). Obviously, most of us do not hold that same value today, even though it was backed by the Bible. I believe that this new Civil Rights Movement for homosexuals is just like that of blacks, women, etc. And I hope that Obama can stick to his word and “bring everyone to the table.”
In terms of bringing everyone to the table, I hope that Obama follows through. I personally, am heterosexual, but I have been a supporter of homosexuals for quite some time. Equal rights means equal rights, not equal opinions or beliefs about certain issues like same sex marriage. I had a discussion with the Willard Preacher the other day about this very topic. I asked him why he made such provocative statements about homosexuals going to hell, and he said that it simply isn’t of the natural order. Homosexuality has been going on within the human race on a consensual plane since the ancient times if not further back, and there are homosexual animals. To say that it is not of the natural order is simply not correct. People want to say that it isn’t natural but it has been a reality for a very long time, and I believe it is time for people to face that.
For those of us who are Christian, we are taught that homosexuality is a sin. I told the Willard Preacher that I believe that this is certainly a deep seeded root for homophobia. I am a Christian myself, but I do not believe that Jesus condemns homosexuals. In fact, I can imagine Jesus crying for those who are persecuted for who they want to love. The idea of Jesus condemning them just does not make sense to me. The Willard Preacher showed me a Bible passage that spoke badly of the lifestyle and further explained that it is only today’s society that is beginning to accept it (and that I was corrupt from being brought up in this society). For all Christians reading my blog, consider this: yes, we are a product of our times, but the Bible may very well be a product of its times as well. If we were to stick to what is written in the Bible, we could stone our children for being disobedient. We would be punished for the traditional Hebrew laws of Kosher eating habits. We would, like the blog noted, be able to have sex at age ten because that was the legal age of marriage. These are all things that we disagree with morally. To oppose the Willard Preacher’s arguments, it seems that in many contexts, the Bible was a product of its culture (as hinted at with my previous examples), and they too, were uncomfortable with homosexuality- perhaps because they didn’t understand it, or perhaps because the need to populate and reproduce clashed with homosexual needs and lack of attraction to the opposite sex. To elaborate further on why I believe that Jesus does not condemn homosexuals, I will refer to what I’ve been taught since I was born: God is love. The second greatest law next to Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, is to love your neighbor as yourself. Love. I was also taught within my religion that the combination of sacrament of marriage and sex is the greatest imitation and reflection of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: three beings in one connected by the being of the Holy Spirit which is love. That is marriage and sex in the eyes of the Church as I was taught: two people bonded by love (a third person: the Holy Spirit), and united as one, just as the Trinity is three persons in one. I ask Christians to consider why love between two men, or between two women should be any different, if it is a reflection of the Trinity. After all, how could love be sinful? Again, God is love. True love, as homosexuals are certainly as capable of as heterosexuals are, is beautiful. As heterosexuality can be abused by having sex with too many people, so too can homosexuality be abused by not having sex with someone you truly love. And how can it seem like homosexuals are not abusing the meaning of sex and love if we do not give them the opportunity to consecrate their love in the form of marriage?
I know that this class is not a religious class and that not everyone is Christian, but I do believe that the underlying Christian/Jewish and maybe Islam values are a big reason why our society has such a problem with homosexuality, so to address that might address our social attitudes as well. It was considered preposterous for women to vote or have any say. A lot of that was backed with Biblical verses that showed the man as the one who should be in power (God being referred to as he or him, Jesus being a man, priests only allowed to be men, etc.). Obviously, most of us do not hold that same value today, even though it was backed by the Bible. I believe that this new Civil Rights Movement for homosexuals is just like that of blacks, women, etc. And I hope that Obama can stick to his word and “bring everyone to the table.”
The line between religion and politics is one that can be extremely tricky when crossed. I can understand both Rick Warren and Barack Obama’s actions. Rick Warren is a religious leader and follows the doctrine of the Bible. It does not come to any surprise that he is not in favor of straying away from the Christian methodology of marriage. However, I found his interview with Steven Waldman in December 2008 to be somewhat tricky. It seemed like he was initially playing the “safe card” by not completely saying “no” when asked the question “Do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships”. His response gave hope to the idea that he was in support for complete equality regardless of lifestyle. However, towards the end of the interview, he admits that he believes that marriage should not be between gay couples. Knowing that he is a minister, it does not surprise me that he believes this way. In actuality, he shares common ground with Obama by taking a political approach on addressing this issue.
Barack Obama has been and will continue to face situations in which he will most likely take a diplomatic approach. Prior to the election, Obama tried to reach out to all demographics of the United States. As a Christian man, he has shown himself brotherly to both the religious crowd and others, like the LGBT community. As a Christian, I believe that not only is Obama’s behavior diplomatic, but it reflects the Christian moral of showing love to everyone. Many people, especially of the older generation, have difficulty not letting their spiritual morals interfere with the way that they treat people who they consider immoral and of sin. I have definitely seen some Christians struggle with being around and interacting with homosexuals. I think this is wrong and can be contradictory. While I understand that some Christians disagree with this type of living, I do not think it is fair to treat them unkindly or with any less respect.
I think Barack Obama can bring a positive change by showing Christians that despite disagreeing with their lifestyle, homosexuals deserve to have fair and equal treatment. I think this can be shown through his actions of trying to bring unity and positivity to the United States. While it is clear that this can not happen overnight, I believe that any small steps taken towards making a better America will be beneficiary in the long run. Like mentioned in the blog, past presidents have not come through with their goals of making a unified nation. I think Obama possesses good leadership and democratic qualities that make this possible. However, he is only human and cannot change the beliefs and feelings of strongly rooted and opinionated people like Rick Warren.
This past Christmas, I shared a table with a group of diverse people; my family. This was a group of people that I had spent many a holiday with. But it never had been so clear how different we truly were. Though my personal beliefs lean towards the liberal side, I was raised by a conservative father, a moderate mother, with the majority of my extended family also being staunch republicans. As it often does when we all share a meal together, the talk quickly turned to that of politics and the economy. It was hard to imagine and listen as the very people that had on many an occasion held a conversation basely on their hatred for Hillary Clinton, talk about their hope that the new president is all that many hope he will be. They talked about how the recent economic downturn had wiped a large percentage of their investments away, the likelihood that layoffs would happen in their company and that retirement was now postponed for indefinitely for several more years. As much as they wanted to stick to their common conservative beliefs, they couldn’t deny that their parties, the very people attempting to cure our issues by throwing billions of dollars at it, are the very ones who caused it in the first place. As I sat, shocked and amazed, it hit me. If a group of people, with as stead-fast beliefs as they do, can suddenly see the world in a different perspective, maybe the idea of “bringing everyone to the table” could work.
If we think of the world, and all of its different opinions, view points, beliefs, its dynamics are not far from those of a family. We are all human, have things in common, have things uncommon but in the end we must live with each other on the same planet. Just like a family. We all come together, with our different opinions, view points, beliefs and share a house, share a meal, share a life. We don’t choose our family, and we don’t choose to live in such a diverse world but we have to figure out a way to compromise and live as peacefully as possible.
I applaud Obama for legitimately trying to bring people with apposing opinions to the forefront. We need someone that can acknowledge though we may have our own opinions; others have their own as well. It is important to recognize that fact and try our best to fix our nation’s problems with input and help from all sides. Hopefully by bringing as many people, with as many viewpoints and beliefs to share their opinion to the table, we will be able to create a more perfect union.
I typically like to wait until Thursday evening to post my journal because not only do I procrastinate, but I find it really interesting to see what my peers say. I find myself having similar beliefs and worry that I will be redundant with my blog, but at the same time, I find what they say to be quite amusing before my Thursday night festivities. I keep reading people saying that we as human beings need to “accept” people for who they are and “accept” their beliefs and way of life. No we do not. Nobody has to “accept” anything if they don’t want to. If you right click on the word “accept” and scroll down to synonyms, it says words like believe, agree to, consent, and understand. Rick Warren is entitled to think, believe, or say whatever he wants. Warren does not have to “accept” anything. If he doesn’t want to accept, believe, consent, or understand a gay partnership as a marriage, then who are we to say he is wrong, and we are right? I don’t think Rick Warren, along with many others in our country, will ever understand, accept, or believe a gay relationship as a marriage. That is just how he is, and for a guy so publically vocal about his viewpoints, I’m sure it will take a lot more than a bunch of 18 to 23 year old Penn State students telling a middle aged man he is “behind the times. “ The only thing that people can ask of Warren is not to “accept” but to tolerate. Now, if you do the synonym thing again with the word tolerate, you do see the word “accept” there, but there are also harsher words like “stomach,” “bear,” “endure,” and “put up with.” To “stomach” something is completely different than “accepting” it. This is a really bad analogy, but I am going to use it anyway. I can “stomach” chocolate pudding, but I will never “accept” the texture. You see, if I would “accept” chocolate pudding, it would be me saying that I don’t mind it and actually kind of enjoy it (which I don’t). But, if I say I can “stomach” chocolate pudding, it’s a way of me saying, I don’t really like it, but I will eat it just because I have to. The same goes with Rick Warren and his beliefs on gay marriage. Warren needs to “stomach” or tolerate gay marriage. He doesn’t have to like it when he swallows, but if he would just swallow (in a non sexual way for those dirty minds out there) the fact that they do exist, then that is all anyone could really ask. The way that I take Warren’s beliefs is that the man wants “equal rights” for all, but he doesn’t want to call a gay marriage an acutall “marriage.” Oh well. It is only one word, and if that is the worst Warren can do or say, then let the prune keep thinking it. Sticks and stones may brake your bones but words can never hurt you.
Do I think that Obama has brought people to the table? Sure I do. They say to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Not saying that Warren is Obama’s enemy per say, but he is making a wise political and career move to surround himself with people who aren’t his carbon copy. I think that it will help boost his image to those who wouldn’t necessarily pay attention to him. I also hope he learns something valuable from sitting as this table. Or, I hope that he at least gains even more toleration than he already has.
I am a very stubborn person, and while I like to say that I am open-minded, ultimately, my views probably won’t change due to one course I took in my college career. I find it hilarious to read people who pronounce themselves as “has been “ Catholics- the people who were born and raised Catholic by their caregivers, but then saw an epiphany as they grew up and realized that maybe Catholicism wasn’t the right spiritual path for them. Hands down, I bet any money that those people (including myself) will be the first people to marry in a Catholic church and send our kids to CCD every Tuesday.
One post said that we need to actually talk about the bad things in the world. Thank-you to whoever said that. I feel that we will continue to go around in circles, and quite frankly, its not that I don’t care, I just have bigger and more important things going on in my own personal life (like my mother and father being laid off) to worry about. Sam Richards says that we are all going to die. One of the most powerful things I learned was in high school English. Death is an equalizer. One day, we all will be dead, and then, in whatever world you chose to believe you end up in, we will all be equal.
So, Warren made the comment about how marriage has been something for a man and a woman for over 5,000 years. Then, the refuting response to that was about how ten-year-old girls where married off to men as late as the late 19th century; Christians wouldn’t want this and it raises moral concern. Being a Christian myself, I can agree that it doesn’t seem quite right for girls to be married off that young. Who’s to say that the people arranging the marriages for these young girls were truly Christians, or that the ones getting married in these situations were truly Christians? (On a side note, there is no way for anyone to truly judge whether someone is alive in their faith or pretending or nonexistent; it’s also not fair to judge them.) However, it is fair enough to assume that everyone who got married was not alive in Christianity (though marriage is a Christian concept). So, maybe those people didn’t know any better. (And let’s face it, our society today has it’s own set of various issues to deal with.)
And on the contrary, if those people were Christians, maybe they screwed up. Christians mess up too. We actually aren’t any better than anyone else, regardless of whether they believe in God or not. The difference is that we believe in God’s saving grace – the endless forgiveness. So, Christians are supposed to freely recognize their mistakes, leave the mistakes and shame behind, and learn from these mistakes. So, whether or not it’s even fair to associate this historical piece of information with Christianity, the sins and wrongdoings are being recognized and “brought to table”.
Past is past though, and I believe that “marriage” should be for a man and woman while civil unions or domestic partnerships (with benefits) should be whoever else. Some may make the statement that the others are being robbed of the term “marriage” or the spiritual aspect of it. In that case, any kind of relationship, whether romantic/friendship or heterosexual/homosexual, can be spiritual if you want and make it to be.
Onto a more overall subject of the article, I like how Obama is bringing everyone to the table (and will hopefully continue to). I feel like this is relevant to a main concept that I’ve (alone with others I’m sure) noticed appearing in my college classes. People are trying to get people to look at things in different ways and from all perspectives. Not only are college students learning this, but so are young elementary school children. As an education major, the new focus of teaching is letting kids that sometimes there is more than one way to do something or to look at something. This is extremely important in our country since many classrooms are now mixed with many different cultures, ethnicities, and backgrounds. Good for Obama for exemplifying the concept of open-mindedness.
I support Obama’s decision to select Warren to conduct the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration because it illustrates his promise to unite our country. Obama’s tactic reflects his positive attitude and understanding of human nature. By choosing Warren, he may have run the risk of alienating some of his supporters who fail to understand the greater power of including the opposing bigoted population by choosing a figure that meets their approval. His actions recognize our commonality, members of one democratic nation where all are represented. By following this tactic, Obama is creating a sense of cooperation by recognizing people rather than rejecting them because of their viewpoints. A person must first be accepted the way they are before they can open their eyes to new ideas.
In his recent push to launch the “Stimulus Package” President Obama is making an effort to include and listen to every viewpoint. His recent meeting with Republican representatives in Congress was more than a gesture. It was an effort to bring his ideas to the table while at the same time providing a forum for them to express their concerns and alternative plan. Just because someone has a difference of opinion Obama does not reject him or her but is making the effort to include them in his decision making process. He is calling them to push their partisanship aside to reach a common goal: to recover in a terrible economic crisis and heal the nation by bringing people from different political, racial, and religious backgrounds together.
I can however understand why many of President Obama’s supporters and campaigners who do fall into the LGBT category would be upset or offended by Obama’s choice in asking Warren to give the prayer. Yet they have to understand his quest for unity and acceptance as a nation. No one being will ever suit the beliefs of everyone in this nation. What this nation needs to realize is how bringing all viewpoints and opinions to the table can actually benefit us as a whole. If President Obama was not striving to create such a united nation but rather making all his decisions based on his own special interests where no other voice could be heard then I would say we would be back in the Bush regime and pretty nervous for the future. Including all beliefs from all ends of the table creates a more positive outlook and real democracy.
In a democracy you have to have congruence. Even if you look at all sides of a story, you must have a steering philosophy for your own idea. There isn’t always going to be an agreement, that’s merely impossible. Everyday we are surrounded by people from all ends of the table. Just because we may “stridently disagree” with their opinions and beliefs does not mean we have to shut them out from our existence too. Listening to all viewpoints and beliefs in my opinion makes one even more well rounded as a person, regardless of what you stand for individually.
The value in What “Bringing Everyone to the Table” Really Means reaffirmed my strong belief and high hopes for President Obama. What has he shown us throughout his entire campaign and just a little over a week in Office? He’s continually shown the want, need and effort to see the other side of things. One of the most impressive decisions made by President Obama that really opened my eyes was choosing a republican as a member of his cabinet. I will admit whole-heartedly that I am not an avid follower of politics. However, this decision provided great insight and perspective to me. After hearing about President Obama doing this, I started to be convinced that maybe this man really would be what he says he’s all about. So, why did he choose a republican as a member of his cabinet, anyway? When asked this question, President Obama said, “…Simply because he was the best man for the job.” The fact that he was a republican didn’t stop Obama from selecting him as a member of his cabinet, and quite honestly, it didn’t seem to matter at all. What matters, and what we need to really respect and pay him credit for, is the fact that President Obama is about getting things done the best way he possibly can. As Americans, we shouldn’t be able to do much other than support him because this is exactly what we need—things to get done the best way they possibly can. This decision, alone, showed perspective. How good of a leader can you really be when you’re only considering one side of things? Since the essence of politics is power, how much power can you really have when you’re not open to all that is around you? President Obama considers the other side. President Obama is open to what is around him. In my opinion, that is what will set him apart from leaders in the past and help him succeed to become an exemplary part of history for leaders in the future. I strongly agree that anyone can pretend to involve the other side in decision-making and pretend to listen to their ideas, and I am proud that our leader has repeatedly shown efforts to put all pretending aside. To me, President Obama’s decision to bring everyone to the table by involving others that may disagree or endorse opposing views is our ticket to power, strength, and hopefully again, stability. Our country is made up of differences that all unite to be one America. So, doesn’t it just make sense that a good leader would include all of these differences at the table we all share? Maybe for the first time in a long time our leader will prove how good he really is by doing just that.
Of the years that I have been able to vote and/or know anything about politics, up until this election, I never held any interest in really knowing anything. In large part to my realization of how essential this election was to my future and from the reaction I had to Barack Obama’s and his views, I was able to gain an interest in the political arena. I have supported Obama from the beginning, because I felt that he had a sincerity about him that is usually lacking in most politicians. He has promised a lot, but I believe that he won’t break these promises. In past years, specifically with Bush being president, I never felt like I was being told the full truth and I am almost felt embarrassed at times to recognize Bush as our leader. It was almost like there were so many problems at hand but nothing was being done to solve these problems. It seemed as if nothing was put into clear words as to what was going on and what needed to be done. Today however is a new day in America. We have a president that has clearly pointed out what are the issues at hand and his specific plans on how to tackle these problems. There are so many issues from race, politics, economic, international affairs, etc., they need to be addressed and I truly believe they will be. Obama’s presidential victory alone proved to me that he has already crossed so many barriers within American society. The very fact that we have a man of color for our president still is shocking for me at times. I feel that if anything that has to have been the most difficult obstacle to have tackled and therefore, I think that Obama will only continue to be successful in accomplishing his goals and reaching his promises for the United States. While this is not something that will occur overnight, I have the faith that Obama is really going to make things happen in America. As mentioned, past presidents, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc., all claimed they would build alliances but they each fell short of doing so. For the first time, I feel confident that our president is being truthful with the American people and the world for that matter in that everything he says he has ever intention of following through with. I think that Obama’s idea of “bring everyone to the table” finally allows for a process to happen in which all sides of a situation are being recognized and essentially, in my personal view, this allows for the best solution. In past years, it seemed as if presidents were often very close minded about decisions that were made and rarely acknowledged other opinions. I feel Obama truly wants to view the other side of an argument, in effort to make the best decision for his country. Within weeks of his inauguration I already feel that Obama is beginning to take action in ways that Bush didn’t do in almost all of his years as President. I feel proud to recognize the President of America, and I believe that Barack Obama will most definitely live up to his promises and actually mean what he says.
Most of my problem with Warren's comments lie not in the fact that he has a strong, opposing opinion, but rather his identification of marriage as a "5000 year old" sacred practice. Like Sam, I have to wince a little bit at this because of how it has been abused across the world in the past; it has not always been the quintessential union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman, certainly. Even though personally I dislike Warren for many of his tastes and beliefs, we share the same stance on LGBT marriage. If I were to be honest with myself, I would have to say that this is mostly because I think of, and feel as though marriage is a religious practice/ritual and not a civil one. That is to say, originally it was more typically a religious practice than civil. Although it has become a sort of religious and civil mutation of its original form through the course of history as a result of the other things that Sam mentioned, it was/is still an institution of religion.
With that being said, I feel as though if you want to change something to be more inclusive for the LGBT community (in this case marriage) you should do it on a civil level rather than a religious one. If LGBT couples are not getting the recognition and benefits that they have a right to because of law, then the institution that needs to be changed is the civil one, not the practice of marriage itself. This is hard for me to say in more ways than one as well, because I am in support of LGBT marriage; however, on the same token, I dont feel like it is appropriate to deny those who hold marriage as a religious institution their right to keep marriage sacred and singular in definition. I feel like the issues here are the faults of the laws surrounding the practice, and the need for another kind of union that functions much the same way that marriage does than it is that marriage is a flawed institution that needs to be amended to include same sex marriage etc.
Ultimately, I am happy that Obama is making a genuine attempt to unite the country on every level, rather than making an ineffective stab at unity. I am proud for the first time to be a part of something more diverse than the party in power, and I hope this can continue.
I think it that one characteristic of Obama that I admire is that he is able to appeal to the variety of social groups that make up the United States. This includes people of different races, genders, sexualities and classes. Having Rick Warren preach at the inauguration demonstrates Obama’s humility and strength, which are great qualities of a leader. I know that this may have upset many of Obama’s LGBT voters, but in my opinion this appointment illustrates Obama’s unwillingness to exclude any groups. As a supporter of gay marriage, I feel that everyone deserves the right of marriage. But the fact is everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. I believe Obama is going to surround himself with people that hold contrasting ideals and varied demographics. This blog impressed me because it ignored the issue of Obama and color and finally focused on the real issues. We are always going to have people that have different views than us, and I feel like we all have to get to where Obama is leading us. Through example he is able to inspire the country to accept and appreciate the differences between us that make each of us individuals. We need to allow everyone to come to the table and develop a willingness to experience unfamiliar views. Last night I was talking to a person in my dorm room about my equal rights poster that I got at the gay rights rally and my friend proceeded to rant “I don’t talk to gay people and I am not friends with them ever” I sat for a moment and allowed my defenses to build. I felt enraged and hurt and wanted to change his opinion. Then I stopped and responded with “that’s fine”. I realized it was not worth it he had his opinion and I had mine, but it was still possible for us to meet on common ground. I think Obama is showing us that we all need to live together and realize we are never all going to think the same thing at the same time. It is more important that we are able grow and learn from each other’s differences. Obama has created the forum for people to speak out and share their uniqueness. This is just another thing I can add to my list of why I like him so much. I have gay, straight and homophobic friends. I hope that we can eventually come together and accept each other’s views and individuality. The fact that Obama has people around him who share such vastly different views is what makes him so engaging. He is the change and I hope that people are able to come together and expand this positive growth for our country.
I remember the first time I ever saw Obama was on Opera a couple years back. My sister -in-law and I were watching Opera interviewing Barack Obama and I remember her turning to me and saying, “I would vote for him if he ran for President.” Since then, my love and respect for his has continuously grown. He carries an aura of trust and assurance which easily wins my confidence every time I hear him speak. Obama bringing Rick Warren “to the table” is a perfect example of why America has so quickly fallen in love with the new President. Asking someone whose views differ greatly from your own to aid in making various decisions takes a great deal of nerves. You’re not only setting yourself up for a big challenge, but you are also risking the possibility of not having things go your way. When someone is extremely passionate about something, their views can be very one-sided. They can be blind sighted to the opposing argument; sometimes it takes an adversary to put things in a new perspective and to perhaps change their mind. Reading what Warren said, the first things that come to mind is: extreme. Not only does his view differ from Barack Obama, it is completely in the opposite side of the spectrum. Despite the polar opposite points of view, Obama stuck to his word. Part of being a democracy is representing the people. Yes, Warren’s view is a very close minded view, but it’s probably shocking how many of our fellow Americans agree with this perspective. I absolutely agree in that I give props to him for actually doing what he said he was going to do- a thing that is rarely seen in politics these days. It would be interesting to see if the views of those that did not support Obama have changed after his being in office. I talk to my dad, who was a McCain supporter, about how he feels about Obama and he basically said that he really respects him. After seeing him in office these past eight days in office, my dad has more good things to say about Obama every day. He is still not at the point where he absolutely trusts him, but slowly he is getting there. It is incredible how quickly Obama has built a trust in many Americans. This Rick Warren issue is just the start to this country that he is going to rebuild. Had Obama handled the Rick Warren situation in that manor, it would be very unlike him. Me saying this shows the expectations that have built up due to his unbelievable way with people and his great personality. This is a brilliant characteristic, but also puts a lot of pressure on Obama’s shoulders. Sure, any president would have a great deal of pressure on them, especially considering the state of our country, but due to Obama’s trust, the pressure is at an ultimate high and the trust he has gained can break as quickly as it was formed.
I have to admit I am not a big fan of Obama for many reasons. However, I think it takes an intelligent man to recognize that it is important to bring everyone to the table, even those he disagrees with. By allowing all different viewpoints at the table I feel as though for the first time in history progress can be made.
Although, I do not like that many Americans are looking at Obama for all the answers, because I do not think that one man has all the answers. I believe for change to occur Americans have to want change to occur and all Obama can do is orchestrate and be a role model for Americans. However, in no way does change rely solely on one man like many American make it out to be.
I do not no know if their will ever be a collective belief about controversial issue, even if change were to occur, there are just too many people in society with way to many view points. Regarding the issue of gay/lesbian rights, I personally have two different viewpoints and I am really not sure if I ever will be completely sold on one idea. The two are so extremely different.
I think the issue of same sex marriage is obviously one that many Americans either totally agree or disagree on. Those people are probably not going to change their minds very easily as well. Therefore, Rick Warren is a significant person for the campaign against gay marriage and its surroundings. His beliefs are traditional to the sense that he does not even allow them to evolve according to the changing times. He keeps on discussing how four hundred years ago, gay marriage was not meant to happen, and all of these other situations as well. Personally, times change, people change, and the world changes; subsequently, people opinions about things should adapt and change as well.
This gentleman, Rick Warren, is a Christian I believe and that probably influences what he thinks as well since his religion itself does not support gay marriage according to their scriptures. Even more is that guy is just not open to any new ideas or suggests, or at least that is what it looks like to me.
What Barack Obama is doing with the situation is absolutely amazing and should get a lot of praise. As said Dr. Richards numerous past presidents have tried to do the same thing and have failed horribly. The reason why President Obama is so persistent on doing this is since he realizes that with this big of an issue there really is not any other way to forward on it. By President Obama and Rick Warren getting together and discussing their beliefs and views are what will drive this country to come together and a consensus on this issue. Without this country seeing through an illustration by the President of people of different views can talk together, no American will be willing to come to a compromise.
President Obama is looking at this issue through the eyes of a different individual, who represents a big amount of this country. When someone does this they are able to understand why others believe a certain way on different things. President Obama is pro gay marriage, and basically does not understand why others believe what they believe, or at least wants to know more on the subject matter. Nevertheless, this does not mean that he will change his mind on the issue, but at least he will know and understand the opposing side’s view.
This new system that President Obama has implemented on this issue should be done on all of policies. I think that will lead to a more united America where people will feel comforted that their opinions are actually heard and actually considered to some extent. Obama can definitely do this very easily, which allow for more people to respect him and gain him popularity as he has just been inaugurated.
Although I don’t know much about this minister, from what I’ve read, he comes off as a hypocrite when he speaks about his views on lesbian and gay marriage. At the beginning of the interview, he states he “supports full equal rights for everybody in America” and says “I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles”. However, later in the interview, he goes on to say “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000 year old definition of marriage” and that “for 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion… as a man and a woman.” To me, these two parts of the interview completely contradict one another, making his opinion on the subject somewhat confusing.
I also disagree with his statement “for 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion… as a man and a woman” after reading about how young girls were married off to much older men.
On another note, although President Obama is more so for gay marriage, the fact that he listens to Rick Warren’s views and opinions on the issue shows that maybe he will finally be the president who listens to and take into consideration every side of an issue, not only his. This is very promising for our country, seeing as we have had many one-sided Presidents in the past who strictly stick to their own opinions on each issue. Hopefully President Obama has finally realized that despite one’s own opinion, others can change and persuade one to think something new and different. Everyone should always be open to other’s views because sometimes they can open up a whole new world of ideas for someone.
I know I’ve had many personal experiences where I have had opinions on issues I wasn’t very informed about, and listened to other more informed people’s opinions. Often times my views have changed and I have begun to think completely different things. For example, one night last semester, my roommates and I were all talking about our views on abortion. One of my roommates is completely against it, while the other one is totally for it, and I am more so pro choice than anything. It was very interesting to sit there and have a conversation with people who had completely different views than me, and to hear their reasoning for why they feel the way they do. It definitely opened up my eyes to their ideas and the very different ways people can think when it comes to such controversial issues. I think President Obama is doing a great job at setting an example of how to be open-minded for the rest of the country, and hopefully more people will adopt this way of thinking.
For most of my twenty years on this earth, the majority of people I have encountered have an extremely difficult time empathizing with people with opposing views. It is very hard to understand why others have their specific beliefs and moral code and why they are just so different from yours. I know that many of my moral codes have been forged and influenced by friends and families. For me, however, my family and friends had very differing beliefs, especially when it came to politics; my family is a very conservative Indian family and my friends are eccentric liberals (at least the ones I grew up with). My parents’ rants were quickly ignored when I entered my teenage years and I swiftly took my friend’s beliefs and moral codes. I began to chant the liberal ways alongside my gay and hipster best friends. I truly believed in everything the Democratic Party stood for and took every one of their stances as my own. I was the atheist, pro choice, and believer of universal health care liberal android.
When I came to college, this blind faith faltered. I became best friends with a girl who labeled herself as a conservative and developed a crush on a Christian boy who believed in waiting until marriage to have sex. I began to learn that it is possible to have your own views, but you should always consider others opinions, because some of their arguments may come as a surprise. With months of training, I have learned not to physically cringe when people make homophobic or anti universal health care comments. There are some opposing beliefs, such as pro life and pro choice that I have even started to waiver upon. As long as people with different views do not force it down my throat constantly, I will respect that person no matter how much I disagree with them. This, of course, is easier said than done.
I believe that Barack Obama has the capabilities of disagreeing with other people’s opinions and still respect them. This superior skill, especially in such high level politics, will be essential to bring this extremely divided country together. I do agree that Warren may not have been the best message to send to the majority of people who voted for him and that disagree with Warren. It was, however, a very appropriate message to send to the conservatives who did not vote Obama and those that were very wary of his next four years in office. I feel like it sent the hope that Obama is not going to be another politically affiliated leader but will listen and take in both parties point of views in tackling the upcoming problems. I truly believe that Obama will the first president in a long time that has the capabilities to bring both parties together.
Let me first start by saying that I am one hundred percent an Obama supporter. However, we have to remember that people get excited for new presidents and think they will change what the last president fucked up. I think Obama is absolutely capable of changing the United States and make an impact on the entire world. He relates with so many people because he is a normal person. He has a family, he is a minority but at the same time white, he has what it takes to make a difference.
I completely agree with your points about Warren. There were little kids getting married and having children at such a young age. Would he be pissed off whenever they made the new law that you have to be 17 (or whatever the age is) to marry another person? I think people need to think with an open mind and what will be good for other people. This world needs change and needs to stop being so selfish. Why would it matter to Warren if gay people get married? I surely do not care. It does not affect me. It makes other people happy and feel accepted so why not?
I don’t think it’s fair to say that none of the last presidents stuck to their word to being a “uniter”. I think it is a bit harder than that. It’s trying to change views of so many people and become hated by so many people or doing so. I’m sure they have tried to do things. Clinton created NAFTA trying to make fair trade. That is uniting people in a way. I think what you are trying to say is culturally uniting people and bringing everyone on board in 2009 and getting the old farts to open up their minds and bring them to present day life. I think Obama is going to make a huge impact, but I’m hesitant to guess how much will get done in four years or even eight years if he gets re-elected. I’m curious to see though, and my faith is in him to stick to his “change” motto.
Even though some LBGT people might have been offended by Obama allowing Warren to speak, I think Obama is trying to send a message. He accepts everybody’s views and wants to work together. It’s kind of like the other day in lecture when Sam was talking about God as a She instead of a He. Then, that girl freaked out about it not realizing Sam’s point. It’s crazy to see how oblivious people are sometimes, but hey, that’s life I guess. Obama is going to do the right thing. Or at least try to do the right thing until some idiots give him a reason to stop. We will see, and I’m excited to be an American nowadays.
Coming from the perspective of someone who has been to evangelical churches, who has watched a far amount of cornerstone (the local Christian tv station) and seen the provocative movie Jesus camp, Inviting rick warrant to speak was a good idea. The power of the evangelical vote is hard to imagine. They are the reason the George Bush got elected two times. I think it is very wise that Obama had the political tenacity to allow him to say a prayer there.
I think Obama’s administration is finally understanding that there is a huge portion of America’s voters that are gun wielding religious nuts that believe that the rapture is going to happen within their life times. The ironic thing is that a lot of the people that needed democrat supported government programs, voted for bush because they were holding true to there “Christian values” and 2nd amendment values. I see Obama finally taking charge of this by having a NRA members do commercials for him and Rick Warren pray at his inaugural address.
Coming from the perspective of a staunch atheist that thinks all kinds of marriage should be allowed in a secular state, letting rick warren speak at the inauguration was a good idea. It was a good idea only if Obama’s administration is actually a proponent of gay marriage. It may be a sly political move that creates trust with the evangelicals while at the same time goes against their agenda but what isn’t a back handed maneuver in the cesspool that is politics.
This country was not founded by religious nut causes, Jesus or Rick Sanatorium. While this country has always had those crack pots, the founding fathers were almost all deists, if not atheists. They tried to make a country despite religious faith not because of it. “Under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1951 for Christ sake. Even if Pat Robertson would have fit in with the founding fathers and Christianity is deeply rooted in our government, our government was founded on genocide and slavery as well.
I do not understand how a relationship between two members of the same sex can be a threat to America. If you oppose homosexuality, then don’t do it and don’t allow it in your church but to not allow it in our government in another matter entirely. I think that Christians should spend their time being concerned about real issues like poverty, war and their stewardship of nature, rather than wasting their time on something that is none of their business.
All eyes are on Obama now. One misstep, and he will surely be bashed without hesitation. And probably judged not only on his individual self, but as part of the black community. But the fact that he is part of the black community (which really means any other community besides the white male community) gives me hope that he will in fact do a much better job than his predecessors in uniting the nation. And this includes the most racist cracker, homophobes, oppressors of women, immigrants from any background, and many more. It is becoming more clear to me in my own life that I have to include people and things in my awareness that I don’t like or agree with. My yoga books keep telling me that anything I refuse in another, I essentially refuse within myself. You can chill out in your own little happy bubble, holding only happy thoughts in mind and surrounding yourself with nothing but things that you enjoy, but that doesn’t get rid of all the shit in the world and does not really equal peace. Peace is when you can be surrounded by all the chaos and stupid stuff and seemingly hateful people in the world, but still hold your own in an effort to unite and make sense of everything. It’s like standing in the middle of a crazy marketplace with all these annoying people screaming, but standing still, breathing the fresh air and being grateful for everything that is and holding a quiet mind.
A woman looks in the mirror and sees a woman. A black man looks in the mirror and sees a black man. A heterosexual white man looks in the mirror and sees a human. They see nothing but human, no different from anyone else. Because of the way our nation has grown up, they do not see themselves as different. But a black man sees himself as black, as different from the dominant being in America. And this gives him a step up from the rest in his plan to unite all the views in our nation. In other words, because he has been discriminated against in some degree in our nation, he will naturally be better at caring about the people who are discriminated against. So we can’t say that Bush and the presidents before him did a bad job; they did the best they could with what they have. But Obama has something different, and that’s where the change we need will come from. I say kudos to him for including these contradictory man at his table, and proving a lot of people wrong. When I first saw Obama give a speech this past spring, I got a intense feeling that we as a nation need him. And I have a lot of faith that he will change the path of former presidents in bringing us to a more united nation.
It is important to interact with people that have views that differ from your own. That way you can find out everyone’s thoughts, and make informed decisions of your own. When I heard that Rev. Warren was doing the opening prayer I was somewhat upset. As a member of the LGBTA community I was disappointed by the choice because while it is important to know people’s stance on issues it sent a very strong signal to the community that while we supported him in the election he can now stray away from his goals. I know that was not the plan, but that was the way that it seemed.
As for the views of Rev. Warren, the term “sanctity of marriage” comes to mind after reading this blog entry. The term is thrown around a lot when people talk about gay marriage. The first thing that I have to say you cannot say marriage is sacred when fifty percent of them end in divorce. You cannot say that marriage is sacred when Elizabeth Taylor is getting married something like eight times. And other stars get married and divorced like it’s their job. Marriage is not sacred. It may have been, but now the words until death do us part should be said with your fingers crossed. Why stop people from entering an institution the is broken and flawed?
The constitution says that all men are created equal. If some people are not allowed to marry the people that they love this does not seem like equality. I want to fall in love and get married some day. I want to settle down, have kids. But that is not a right that I have in forty-eight states in this union. I don’t see the equality.
I do not see how it is anyone else’s business who gets married. IT DOES NOT EFFECT YOU! People should let others go about their lives in the manor that that want. I will probably get negative response for making this connection, but fifty years ago (and in some parts of the county today) people looked down upon mixed race marriages. And then people came to their senses and now it is not really a big deal at all. It took time but the struggles that the black community went through were worth it, and now it is our time to struggle. There is a long road ahead of us, but when all is said and done I am sure we will find that is worth it.
As time goes on people will change their minds, things will change and the world will be more equal. But I really just hope I live to see it.
Many who voted for Barack Obama did so hoping that he would truly bring about what he stood for in his slogan: “Change.” Although I did not vote for Obama, I recognize what exactly he is trying to do. And in this, I give him my respect. Foremost, he got elected as the first black president of the United States of America. While I am not black, I still understand the significance of what that means. Essentially, what Obama is trying to do is bring a new light to this great country. For many of his followers to be upset with him simply because of the man he chose to give the opening prayer to his inauguration. Clearly, Rick Warren is a very different person than Barack Obama and I think that is the whole point. Yes, Obama broke one of the largest lasting color barriers of the nation, but it is not just about color. I think what he is trying to show is that people of different backgrounds, believes, and positions can get along. This bigger picture is, in fact, the betterment of America. Sadly, a person can never please everyone. There will always be differences and disagreements between people. In this present time, equal rights are spreading like wildfire. People of all colors and sexes are finally standing eye to eye in this country. However, I do not think sexual orientation has the right to try and separate itself as a “type” of person. Those who had to work hard to earn their rights in this world are the ones who were of different ethnicities, colors, sexes, etc. However, I do not support gay marriage and find no basis behind their demand for rights. As a person, a homosexual has all the rights as anyone else. The ones that had to fight for rights were the ones who were born with a predisposition. They had no choice but to be an immigrant, a different color, or the choice between being a man or a woman. These people had to fight for their rights as a human being because genetics that they had absolutely no control over. A gay person, on the other hand, chooses to lead such a life. They were not born any different than any other person of their origin, color, or sex, but sometime in their life each decided he or she wants to live that certain lifestyle. I do not bye any means have problems with gay people, but I find it ridiculous because they knew the rules of marriage and all those factors when they decided to be gay. Technically, they could go straight any day they desired. However, those people born with a predisposition could not just change the next day. A black person cannot just decide to wake up tomorrow as a white man—with the exception of Michael Jackson. For those angered by Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give his opening prayer, they should understand the true basis behind his choice. In addition to each homosexual person recognizing that their disposition is a chosen one, they should see that Obama is trying to make a statement in showing that different people can work together no matter their physical makeup or positions.
I had to do a little extra research on this blog post because prior to reading it, I had never heard of Rick Warren, the anti-gay minister. During the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, Warren hosted a Civil Forum on the Presidency at his church with John McCain and Barack Obama, in which Obama had many differing views and slight trouble answering Warren’s questions. A small controversy began when President-elect Obama asked Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration last Tuesday, January 20, 2009.
Is there a problem with Obama asking someone with differing views to speak at his inauguration, one of the most important days of his presidential career? Well, I read through some of the previous posts and I must agree with Sasha H. -- There is rarely a time when you meet someone and actually share all the same views. Yes, Obama gained a large amount of votes from the LGBTs, but just by allowing Warren to speak does not mean that he agrees with Warren’s views. It shows that Obama is open to listen to everyone and that he is now the President of the entire United State, regardless if all opinions are shared.
People just seem to make an uproar about every little thing. I am not trying to praise Obama or bash him, but by following the news after his election, he seems to be following his promises and listening to everyone’s side. He never said anything like “Here is Rick Warren, my new right hand man”. If he did, then there would be viable reason to begin a controversy.
People around the world are chaotic that we have the first “black” president, and now that he is doing things a little differently citizens do not know how to react. I am definitely not saying that I agree with either Obama or Warren’s views completely, but Obama is “bringing things to the table” that many people have never fathomed. Everyone needs to be open-minded, and I am not criticizing anyone because I think I even need to be more open-minded myself. Obama seems to be trying very hard to bring everyone together to be more tolerant of others, but of course, there will always be some who are stubborn and will never be convinced to budge out of their previous mindset.
Growing up in a home where my parents are products of the suburban1960s, I was absorbent of opinions of close-minded people especially towards blacks and gays. I think today is a time where there is much change and I am part of a generation who is forming it’s own opinion on others. The fact that Obama is now president makes me proud to realize I can get along with others no matter their sex, race, or sexual orientation and not feel oppressed by all of society’s judgments.
I think people spend the majority of their time with people who do not always agree with them, and it is always good to get the other side of the story, something you might have not eve thought of. I think Obama is really trying to get the views of all people in one place at one time, which is good, because then we will always have every sides view on the situation. Having every side’s views on things could really be a good thing because then one person never really feels left out of the equation. Maybe with bringing everyone to the table we can finally have discussions not arguments about things, and then maybe stuff will get done in the white house. We can no longer ignore the differences in this American culture, we like to boast being a melting pot for races and ethnic backgrounds, but we do not like to be a melting pot of different ideas in congress.
The next question would be do we really listen to that other side when making decisions. Of course we don’t listen, why should we? I believe that people usually do not listen to the other side of the story, we just keep with the idea that we have because it is the best in our mind. People are set in their beliefs and if they were to hear that they might be wrong well then all hell would break loose where ever they are. I believe that if Obama is going to bring everyone to the table then he might have to hire a mediator or just become one as a full time job because it will become one, which would be like another full time job for him. People don’t like change that is why so many presidents before him have operated the way that they do, they don’t rock the boat, and they didn’t change their ideals. If Obama is going to do this he is going to have to keep to his promise all 4 years if he would want a chance at another election.
In my home as a child I was not closed off and reserved to certain views I was allowed to go and take a look at new things. I think my parents really did me a favor by just opening up the world to me, showing me everyone’s view points and asking me my opinions on certain situations. I could only hope that sooner or later that all parents will be like that and allow their kids to be open minded to everything thing, and listen to all sides of the table. This is a very important step for this country and I hope it works out well.
To say that Obama means what he says is a very bold statement. Obama has said a LOT of things. Now, if you want to get nit-picky, we can go as far as to assume that there are 57 states because Obama said so, correct? He has flip-flopped his opinion on everything from special interest groups to the decriminalization of marijuana. So then, Dr. Richards, how do we know what to take as truth? Does he or does he not want to crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants (‘undocumented citizens,’ for all you PC people)? Because in the past four years his opinion on that has changed as well.
I have from the beginning and still firmly stand behind my belief that Obama says whatever he has to say to get people to like him. ‘ I’ll lower your taxes and create jobs and spread the wealth, yada yada yada….’ Funny, now it’s changed to ‘I will create or save jobs.’ Create OR save? Pardone moi? Those are two VERY different concepts, commander. Now, on to the issue at hand. Same-sex marriage. Obama has very publicly stated that he does not support gay marriage. In an interview with MTV, he was quoted as saying ”I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/20081101/story.jhtml) If this is true, then why is it so outrageous that he would have an anti-gay preacher speak at his inauguration? This all goes back to my belief that many people didn’t do their homework. They hopped on the “CHANGE” bandwagon, chanting the mantra all the way to the voting booths on November 4th, with no real grasp on the man whom they wanted to lead them into the next four years. I am personally glad this whole election season is over and Obama is finally in office, because now I can sit back, relax, wait patiently, and when the time comes, I can so eloquently shout from the rooftops what I’ve thought all along: WE TOLD YOU SO!! Barack Obama is far out of his league as president. He should’ve taken a few years and gotten more acquainted with the political system before jumping into presidency. I mean honestly people, how can you say that a man who was just a few years ago a community organizer, then a junior senator with a less-than-stellar voting record (having abstained from voting at least 130 times while in office, some of those times being the only Senator to not vote yea or nay) has enough experience to be leading an entire country? He can’t even make up his mind about the legalization of marijuana. Well actually, he can—it just depends on which crowd he’s addressing.
As I first read this blog I was very angry that Obama would allow a man with such narrow views come to the inauguration to deliver the opening prayer. I believe that sexuality is completely biologically based and that no one “chooses” to be gay. The mere fact that individuals must deal with such social strain when they reveal to their friends and family their sexuality says to me that no one would purposefully be gay in our society. Warren compared gay marriage to children and adults or incestuous couples which I find to be completely offensive. These examples are not natural and can be prevented. A human being’s sexuality is not preventable. The minister’s statements contradict Obama’s values and what he has been fighting for.
After reading the rest of this blog, however, I have a new respect for Obama. He has allowed someone he does not agree with (but whom holds the view of many Americans) come “to the table” and share their views. Most of us surround ourselves with people who think like us, dress like us, share similar values, and are going similar places in life. I think it can be extremely beneficial to be around people with mindsets different than our own, and to respect and understand their beliefs. It is interesting to think, but maybe the very liberal people are nearly as close minded as the conservative people. Many liberals angrily criticize conservatives of being old-fashioned and ignorant, but by doing so are they not going against the basic liberal train of thought of being accepting of others?
I personally have a very difficult time with this and, as many, find myself becoming overwhelmingly disturbed when someone next to me is narrow-minded. Debating with them is virtually impossible and will get you nowhere as they are completely set in their ways. I kind of feel like taking their shoulders and shaking them until they understand how ignorant they are being. These people, however, must be respected just as any other human being should be respected. There are reasons for why they think the way they do, such as their religion, culture, family, or town they grew up in. Where the line gets fuzzy, however, is when they begin to treat others with disrespect because of their own beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their own values, but acts of hatred toward others because of these values are morally wrong. This is completely intolerable, although I am not sure what can be done to alleviate this.
Despite my disagreement with the minister, I am very excited that Obama has already begun to keep his promise. Too many politicians make false promises to get elected and then fall far short of the expectations they gave us.
I found myself quite interested in Sam’s blog “What ‘Bringing Everyone to the Table’ Really Means.” As someone who has no personal investment in GLBT rights, I have a hard time deciding which side of the issue I am on. I am a Catholic who believes in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and although I strongly agree that those in a gay marriage should be given legal rights like any other marriage, I find myself against calling it a holy union. Although Sam is correct in saying that in the past the human race has made quite the mockery out of marriage’s holiness, but as a human race, haven’t we made a mockery of most everything? Just because our ancestors have done wrong doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands at the entire thing. However, I also do not agree with Rick Warren where he compares gay marriage to sibling or underage marriage. I do not think that gay marriage is sick or completely wrong. Although I do not agree with gay marriage as a holy union, I feel that I would have a different opinion if it affected my life. If I had a close friend or family member who was an LGBT individual, I’m sure that I would feel differently. As much as I try to put myself in that person’s shoes, regardless of whether I know then or not, I cannot fully understand their position because I’ve never experienced their frustrations. Which brings me to Sam’s point of his blog, Obama has already begun trying to see things from all point of views. His critics look at his invitation to Rick Warren to give the opening prayer at the inauguration with a wary eye. However, I think Barack Obama’s intention was to show his country that he was true to his word from the start. By inviting someone who he publically disagreed with, he is showing that he will look at things from both sides of the argument. As someone who doesn’t agree with all of Obama’s stances on political matters, it is a comfort to know that he does value the opposite point of view- which happens to be mine. I have high hopes for Barack Obama’s presidency. In response to Bethany’s P’s blog I do not agree with her stance that Rick Warren is contradicting himself when he says that he believes in equal rights for everyone but he doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Although I am far less extreme in my view of this, I have similar feelings. I do not believe in gay marriage as a holy union; however I do believe that those involved in a gay marriage should have all legal rights of any civil union.
Growing up in a conservative, small town, most adults in the area would agree with Warren's views, and therefore this is what I've been told is right. However, my friends and I seem to keep an unusually open mind to all views.
I am on Obama's side of this argument, and while controversial, I commend him for "bringing all sides to the table." This is something that our government seems to have failed at in the past. Hearing all sides to an argument is key to being a strong leader.
The LGBT community did work very hard campaigning for Obama's election, but do all of his voters necessarily share their views? Most likely there are a few that do not. I believe that the LGBT community needs to follow Obama's lead and bring their side to the table as well. However, so do the conservatives.
A lot of people I know are not aware that I have a gay uncle, while he may not be as close to us as the rest of our family, we accept him whole-heartedly and have gotten to know his "roommate" John. I believe his is scared to come out to us because of our conservative views, but we all know the obvious truth. I just hope that someday they can get married in an accepting society.
As far as ten year old’s marrying men two to three times their age, many years ago, this is undoubtedly a law that would not be accepted in today’s society. However, this just goes to show how our views as a society change with time. We are more and more accepting of certain things now, and less of others. This seems to be the time for another change in the marriage laws. Why not let gays enjoy the unity of marriage?
While being religious, I tend to go against some teachings because I always just accept people for who they are. So what if they’re gay and want to get married? Just leave them alone and let them be happy. We all have different beliefs and do not need to force ours on other people. To make important decisions we need to all be able to be accepting. I just wish everyone could have an open mind. My friends and I do not treat a homophobic and a gay any differently. By having Warren speak at the inauguration, Obama has gotten more of my trust by seeming to keep an open mind and accepting others beliefs.
Both having an obviously strong influence, Warren and Obama coming together could and should inspire others like them to do the same. Our country needs change and equality. The inauguration was the highlight of this time of change in our country. People of every race and belief came together for this event. It was a great celebration of a time our in our country that has been long overdue.
Before responding to what “bringing everyone to the table” really means, it is necessary to make two points. First, Rick Warren is an idiot. Any minister making tens of millions of dollars off of the tithing of his super mega church members clearly has a mission other than spreading the word of God. Second, you can’t claim to support equality and equal legal rights to all while simultaneously defining marriage as an institution solely between a man and a woman (especially if you are only backing it up with the “5,000 year old tradition” bs). It is very difficult for me to understand why a Christian would ever make this claim. The quote that “Christians” use to justify this claim comes from Leviticus, which we must remember is part of the old Testament, specifically from the stipulations of the Abrahamic covenant between ONLY God and the Hebrew people, meaning it applied to no one else. These were God’s “chosen” people. In the new Testament Jesus does not only undo the strict codes of the Lex Talionis (which was based on the principle of equal and direct retribution, eg. “an eye for an eye”) permanently breaks the Abrahamic covenant, saying that the strict laws laid out by God a millennium earlier do not apply when following Jesus. You don’t have to read the original text, it says it clearly enough in English.
Whether Obama and his administration actually support marriage of the same sex is probably irrelevant. Though, I do believe that he is making a very positive impact by at least bringing the issue to the table and addressing it. This was clearly passed over by previous administrations. What is perpetuating the stereotype of this issue is the simple fact of calling it “gay” marriage. When we make this particular distinction, we are further separating the lgbt community and making it clear that they are different. If we call it just marriage, we are including this segment of the population and soon there will not even be a distinction in the eyes of the next generation. How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we disagree, and then attempt to see the world from their eyes? Not often and Obama is surely on the right path to making some necessary changes. I would expect no less from someone who can relate to societal oppression. To ignore the severe injustices inflicted onto the lgbt community, such as the issue of marriage between individuals of the same sex, would be a direct contradiction to what Obama campaigned for: not just the presidency but CHANGE and change in the right direction.
Everyone has their own opinions about controversial topics and we all sometimes “say too much” or say the “wrong thing”. Many times when people say they want to “bring everyone to the table” and hear both sides of a story, they really don’t. In their minds they still have an idea of what they think is right. Everyone does it, which is why arguments happen so often. It takes a very strong-willed and open minded person to actually consider the opposing side. It happens pretty much all the time. Especially when talking about religion and politics, there are always arguments and extreme radicals on every side. They are two topics that I was taught to “not talk about with my peers”. There will always be a person who doesn’t agree with our views which causes multiple problems. Mainly this is because sticking to our beliefs and arguing our opinions is so much easier. It is hard for many people to admit they are wrong when they believe so strongly in something. I feel it is important for people to have opposing views, even if some are radical.
Even I have been guilty of not arguing back when I do not agree with someone else’s opinion. During this election, there were many “touchy” subjects that came up over and over and over. The roommate of one of my good friends backed up Obama and every single one of his views. If you were to ever say he was wrong, you would not hear the end of it. I, personally, did not vote for Obama. However, I never said anything bad about Obama and never tried to get people to vote for the same person I did. This kid could never talk to me without putting me down for not “voting for change”. Even though this is not a situation where the argument is relating to ethics, it still relates to someone who is so close-minded to other people’s views and opinions.
Hopefully, Obama can help bring our country together and make the nation see both sides of situations. We are a country with freedom of speech, press, and religion, but we should not abuse this right. I think it’s great that Obama did not reply to Warren’s comments, no matter how opposed he was to them. He showed his ability to put aside an instigating comment and proved at inauguration that he was capable of forgiving and letting go. Since he is such a diverse man, I think there is a chance that he will help to try to unify everyone, regardless of race, sexuality, or any differences. I think now that inauguration is done all we can do is put aside our views for a while and wait to see what changes our new president has in store for us.
Allowing to view and appreciate the opinion of your opponent, enemy, or anyone of contrast belief for that matter is extremely difficult for anyone. In all aspects of life; sports, family, relationships, friendships, and politics, the alternative view point is usually turned away.
The most successful people, at their respective professions, are the people that will listen, learn, and respond to the opposing viewpoints. These people are willing to here all sides and angles of the situation, and are always looking to improve and become better and what they, never feeling as though they are better than anyone (even if they might be).
In sports, Michael Jordan was arguably the greatest basketball player of all time. However, Jordan's road to greatest was not the smoothest of rides, but he overcame the bumpy road. One of his biggest challenges as a NBA player came while Jordan was dominating the sport. He was leading the league in scoring, year after year, making multiple all-star teams. However, Jordan had yet to win a championship, the most important thing in sports. Critics, coaches, and other players (i.e., the opposing view point) preached to Michael that he should focus on sharing the ball a little more often. They proposed that Jordan take a few less shots per game and try to get his teammates involved more. Michael listened, and went on to win six NBA championships, earning himself one of the greatest legacies in the history of sports. Jordan was willing to change. He listened and learned from the alternative perspectives, those who felt as Jordan's perspective on the game was not the best at the time.
Rick Warren's comment was simply his opinion, nothing more and nothing less. He was not gay bashing or dehumanizing anyone. As a matter of fact, many people agree with Warren's comments that marriage has been defined by culture many years ago, and feel as though marriage should not be altered at all. Obama, on the other hand, is pro same-sex marriage. Obama knew that the opinions of Rick Warren would in fact go against his own belief, but Obama did not back down. He accepted the challenge and allowed Warren to give the opinion of him and his people. This shows that Obama is willing to learn and listen. Obama is not stubborn, and is willing to make changes if necessary. Obama wants to understand the counter viewpoints, which will allow him to address the opposing side directly. Obama is confident that his opinions and views will remain most powerful, and no matter what, his country will stand behind him as a whole. This shows signs of greatness from our President. If Obama continues to embrace the alternative perspective, and learn and respond effectively, Obama could be on his way to becoming one of the most successful presidents ever.
The end of this post has really got me questioning my own ability to acknowledge opinions that strongly oppose my own. There are so many times in my life where I hold on to my beliefs and only discuss them with those who share similar views. As terrible as it may sound, I know it’s only because I avoid confrontation at all costs. When it comes to President Barack Obama, a man I share many ideals with , relate to and admire greatly, I am proud to know that he is wise enough to do the opposite. I find it is reassuring and empowering to know that our new president does not share that flawed quality with me.
I have never had the opportunity to sit across the table from someone who strongly disagrees with my point of view. Not only would I be scared to death but I would not be able to form an effective argument because of my immense stage fright. In stark contrast stands our new president, a man who has proven how calm and articulate he can remain in front of the largest audiences. To have a president that invites those who having opposing ideals to the White House, or in this case the inauguration, to discuss these controversial issues is truly refreshing.
However in this case, it’s a man that does not support my stance on gay marriage. I fully support gay marriage. It boggles my mind that people are willing to give same sex couples the benefits of a married couple but deny them the titles of husband and wife (or husband and husband, wife and wife.. I’m not sure how that works). In my opinion, denying same sex couples the right to get married is absurd. In many cases, those who are against gay marriage tie their religious beliefs into their arguments, and in my opinion that should not influence a political decision.
When it comes down to it though, all sides of the argument of gay marriage will be present to discuss the issue. I do believe that in order to make an educated, effective and fair decision, every single party should be present. Having the darkest and lightest ends of the spectrum brings a wider variety of topics and concerns to the table. So later on down the road when other important issues will be discussed, and legislation will be passed by Obama, all arguments will be considered. I can’t remember the last time (in my lifetime) that this was the case in politics.
Straying from the topic of gay marriage, I greatly anticipate seeing how other controversial issues will be handled by our new president. Hopefully he will continue to be as accessible to those who feel strongly about certain topics, and able to take well informed action.
Though Obama is a democrat, I feel that he will in fact listen to the views of republicans and the other parties as he makes decisions for our country. With the help of George W. Bush, he was able to inspire a lot of republicans to vote for him and they should be adequately represented. As per his performance in the election, if there was a man to unite everyone, it is Obama. A significant criticism that I have heard about him is that he is all talk and people have labeled him as the best president ever though he has only been in office a little over one week. Since it is so early in his term to put any labels on him, I feel he definitely started in the right direction. By having Warren speak at the inauguration, it shows that Obama truly wants a united America. Many Obama supporters are full on liberal to the extreme and having a man with these views speak on what some people consider the most important day in American history probably did not jive well with them. However, this was a brilliant move. The democrats and other voters who elected Obama are juiced because their guy is in office. People on the “other” side, those with views similar to Warren, also feel a little more comfortable that their needs will be taken care of. Making this selection for a speaker also says a lot about our President’s character. As per the blog entry, Warren posed some fierce questions that stumped Obama. For starters, this showed that Obama is human and does not have the answers to everything, but it showed something far more relevant and important. For many people, if there is someone who challenges you, it is easier to just ignore them and leave them out. Thankfully, for America’s sake, Obama is not a cop-out. Rather than ignoring the skirmish with Warren, he embraced the battle. Some people may feel that this was just a stunt to put the other parties at ease; as soon as the initial hype dies down, Obama will just stick to the democratic agenda. I would disagree with this notion; Obama has already put so much work into uniting people that I cannot see him throwing these values out the window. Also, keeping others close might just restore faith in American politics. For far too long, Americans have divided themselves using their political differences. This is exactly why other countries view us in negative light. If there is a heated election, only one candidate can win. For those not happy with the outcome, it is upsetting to hear them hope the new president fails. They are still on team America, and it is just disgusting to have them root against their own team. There is so much we can learn from President Obama. Let’s just hope he can hold up his end of the bargain.
President Obama’s selection of Rick Warren for the invocation at the inauguration last week shows he is truly for engaging in a different kind of politics. In the past, so many of the our Presidents could be termed “old school.” People from the “old school” choose to stand by those who support views similar to their own. President Obama on the other hand represents the younger generation that is more open to new ideas and experience. This shows President Obama’s willingness to engage in meaningful conversation and events with those who are drastically different from him.
Politics was never intended to be one sided. Our country was founded on freedom allowing us all to believe in whatever we wish to believe in. We are all supposed to be able to live together as one in the United States despite our obvious differences. President Obama is actually taking a stance for all us to stop alienating ourselves and talk, work, and live together with all of the diverse people in the United States. President Obama understands that interacting with those who have different viewpoints is not a big deal. As young adults, I feel we can all attest to that. Growing up, we all engaged in meaningful conversations with people who had different political, religious, or sexual views than ourselves. For many of us, our parents or immediate family members have different political views than we do. For example, many of my relatives are extremely conservative while I consider myself to be quite liberal. Despite our differences, we can sit down to the dinner table during holidays and actually enjoy a meal. I am not offended by their viewpoints and do not hold that against them in terms of our personal relationships.
I think it is about time we stop making reasons to group ourselves and actually integrate. For years, we’ve been taught to embrace our differences. Now is it not time to interact and do business with people who are different than us? Won’t this make us more cultured and more knowledgeable? I certainly think so, and clearly President Obama feels the same. President Obama felt Rick Warren could give the best invocation despite his differing views than President Obama. His conservative views did not affect his ability to deliver his invocation. It is important to be open to all viewpoints in order to not let us live sheltered lives. We can work and interacting with people of opposing viewpoints by leaving our views at the door in order to do the job to the best of our ability. Each and every day, Democrats and Republicans work together in Congress despite their obvious differences in order to better our country. Now, it doesn’t mean there are conflicts, but it’s feasible to work together and be civil. President Obama’s actions are challenging us to interact with people much different than us because in the end, we will learn a great deal. I applaud President Obama and hope he continues this new era of politics.
Rick Warren and Barack Obama both strike me as being the “consummate politician” in that they can agree to disagree. As stated in the interview, Warren does not want to appear too controversial and state that he believes that certain people should not be afforded the same unalienable rights as everyone else and seems to hide behind the “traditional” view of marriage as being between a man and woman. These beliefs certainly would be considered as unacceptable among a more liberal crowd, and seem to be based on some faulty historical information, as pointed out in the blog. Additionally, I take exception to Warren’s assertion that every culture for the past 5,000 years has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This is simply untrue. Many cultures still practice various forms of polygamy and it is even preferred in some societies as ideal based on the resources that are available and an emphasis on the family as the most basic institution. My point here is that if these people are perfectly happy and successful with this form of marriage, why should we deny anybody here in America that right when it comes to marriage? The LBGT community just wants the same happiness (or unhappiness as the case may be concerning marriage) that the rest of us receive and is promised to us by the Bill of Rights. And, quite frankly, the heterosexual community has done quite a bit to damage to “traditional” image of marriage (i.e. Brittany Spears’ 55-hour marriage).
But, those differences in opinion between myself and Rick Warren and his supporters aside, I think it’s great that we’re slowly beginning to engage in a more productive dialogue about differing beliefs in this country. This is why I see nothing wrong with President Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren speak at his inauguration. At the very least, he is promoting more communication about these issues so that we may be able to reach some sort of amicable decision where everyone can leave the table happy. In my opinion, this should be in the form of equal marriage rights for the LBGT community. Obviously, there are going to be some people who disagree with this standpoint and I’m eager to see if we can reach a happy medium. I think the most important thing here though is communication between groups about our disagreements so that we are able to make some progress. People have to be willing to set aside their biases and prejudices for a moment and at least be able to discuss these issues with other human beings in a civil and constructive manner. And I think once we reach that point, we’ll be making some serious progress toward making everyone a lot happier.
Too often we shut people off if what they think varies in any way from what we deem acceptable. We ignore them because it’s easy to ignore opinions that are different from our own. Unfortunately, ignoring people does not make them change their mind. And it does not make them think like you. To truly have an impact on the way a person thinks you must talk to them. Barack Obama did just that when he invited conservative minister Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. While they may be polar opposites on some issues, their messages are surprisingly similar on others. It is these similarities, this common ground, which brought them together and enables them to engage in healthy debates about their differences. While I may detest much of what Rick Warren preaches, I do appreciate the courtesy he extended to Obama when he invited him to speak at his church. Despite their drastically different ideologies, both men seem dedicated to working together. They both should be lauded for their commitment to engage in discussion with people who hold different viewpoints.
While Barack Obama may have run as the democratic candidate, now that he is in the White House he represents all of the people in the United States. It is important that unlike previous presidents he acknowledges that some of those people did not vote for him and hold different views than he does. I appreciate that Obama has included people from different political parties at important events because I don’t think it is done as merely a symbol. It’s not just an empty gesture when he entrusts an ultra conservative minister to deliver the inaugural prayer for a liberal president. It is a sign that he is willing to work together with anyone who is going to try to make the country a better place. Obama knows that it is important to listen to what others say. He knows what it is like to hold an opinion that is contrary to the majority. It doesn’t make you passive, the opposite it creates a fire inside. It makes people determined. It was that very determination that put Obama in the White House. Millions of citizens, democrats and republicans were tired of having their opinions ignored by the person who they had elected. To truly succeed as president, Obama must continue to straddle the line between accomplishing what he set out to do and being open to alternative goals. For those who believe that Rick Warren’s inclusion in the inauguration was a slap in the face, I would tell them to take a deep breath. Obama is not suddenly changing his stance on gay rights. He is not pandering to conservatives. He is doing what the president should do. Listening to all the people. That is how you truly affect change.
I know a lot of people were upset when President Obama picked Rick Warren to do the prayer at this year’s inauguration. There was quite the uproar over whether because Obama choose this man for the inauguration meant that his views were in line with Rick Warren’s. Though I am sure this isn’t true, let me take you back to the first minister in Obama’s life that caused plenty of controversy.
If you recall, Barack Obama’s pastor who married him and his wife and also baptized his children, started quite a stir when his extremely anti-white remarks during a couple of his sermons. Jeremiah Wright, who has said anti- American things such as “God Damn America,” offers a very different opinion than Rick Warren. In a lot of ways, I feel that Obama is trying to even the playing field by presenting both sides of the story. He truly is bringing everyone to the table. Can you imagine if Obama’s pastor would have done the prayer? White Americans across the country would have questioned his integrity and feelings about the country he lives in. As a PR major, I hope that President Obama is planning on sitting down and talking about the issue of LGBT people in America and listening to all sides of the story, and hopefully merge opinions. But, as a PR major I also know that a lot of times things like having Rick Warren do the prayer at the inauguration, could just be a way to attempt to bring people together.
Enough skepticism though, I feel like this really is a time about bringing people together and putting all different views on the table. Conservatives and liberals alike have come together to discuss some of the many issues that are plaguing are country. I think that by putting Rick Warren at the inauguration, it brought to light, that he isn’t this terrible person who is bashing people’s rights. It was nice to see from that article that he wants equal rights, but he doesn’t want it to be called ‘marriage.’
I personally believe that I try to come to the table as much as possible in fact, I am sometime forced to. As an outspoken conservative girl, in a town and university with lots of liberal ideals, I face people in classes and when just hanging out that disagree with my ideals. Now, I’m not over the top and I am pretty moderate when it comes to issues like abortion and gay marriages and such, but on the economy and health care, I’ve very conservative. So for the entire fall semester, I spent my time attempting to have solid conversations with people on the differences in our opinions. But as Sam said, it is really hard to attempt to see things from someone else’s world. So that is my goal, to not just sit at the table, but attempt to put myself in that person’s shoes. Hopefully, in these next four years we will have a nation who is willing to sit at a table, communicate and understand.
I honestly didn’t see why Obama would have Warren at the ceremony until I got to the end of this post. I would have never looked at it that way. Maybe Obama really is trying to bring every perspective into the mix. I am surprised by this; every other office holder only does things to keep their image and ratings high. The only thing I am wondering is if Obama lost a lot of support because of this? I understand that he is trying to stress the idea of bringing everyone to the table, but I feel as though this move may have caused him to lose some serious points with the gay community. I do no understand why he would have someone who compared gay marriage and unions to the marriage of siblings. I am surprised someone even feels comfortable saying that. But having members of the gay community watch this man partake in the ceremony is an interesting move. I guess that there are many people who have very similar views that haven’t expressed them out loud; however, I feel as though when he said this in an interview, he should have lost the ability to take part in the Inauguration ceremonies. Obama is a brave man; maybe he is not worried about destroying his ratings with the LGBT community because he has other plans in the works?
Thinking about Warren’s comments really bothers me; how can someone compare two COMPLETELTY different things? However, the more I think about it, it really is a shared feeling among a lot of people. What makes it different here is that he said these things out loud and he is a well-recognized person. To me, everyone should have the ability to marry whomever he or she wants. Every person should be entitled to happiness. Who are we to judge? In fact, who ever said that marriage HAD to be between a man and a woman? Isn’t the whole purpose of marriage to proclaim your love for one person and vow to spend the rest of your life with them? Why can we not accept the fact that people are happy? Why do we have to judge who makes them happy? Is it not your life, so how are you affected by someone marrying someone of the same gender? That’s just it we’re not. So why can we not accept the fact that people are, have always been and always will be different from us? I have family members who are gay and to me, they should have the right to whatever makes them happy. To say that gay unions are equal to siblings getting married is just plain ignorant. I believe that gay marriages should be legal; every person should have the ability to have a normal marriage in the place they wish.
I found this article interesting because of all the controversy that was in the news recently with Obama picking Rick Warren to say the prayer at the inauguration. I think a lot of people might look at Obama as “selling out” or something along those lines, but I think it speaks to his character that he’s truly making an effort to involve people with varied perspectives. In my opinion, it’s not so much about agreeing with the other side, but more trying to see where they’re coming from that matters most. Obviously Warren and his followers strongly believe that marriage is a religious bond between man and woman and should not be redefined or altered. What I think is important, is to look at the fact that Warren said he supports equal rights for all Americans; not affected by lifestyle. He doesn’t mind if LGBT get the same insurance and tax breaks that married couples do, and he doesn’t mind if they get the hospital privileges that only husbands and wives get. I’m sure that there are a number of Conservatives who don’t even feel that the LGBT community deserves those rights. It seems like it’d be hard to convince a very religious person that LGBT should have the right to marriage, the same way it seems like it’d be hard to convince a LGBT person that they don’t have the right to marriage.
What I think is important is that Obama picked someone, perhaps one of his biggest “opponents” on that particular subject, to help swear him into office. One could look at it as Obama trying to appease the Republicans, but I am personally glad that I have a President who can hold out his hand to someone with whom he disagrees. For the last eight years that type of attitude has been nonexistent in the White House. If you happen to be part of the LGBT community and were offended by Obama’s actions, perhaps the bright side lies in the fact that now your fight for equality has been brought to the forefront of American politics and the media. In 10 or 15 years, our generation, the same one that took over the polls to ensure that Obama get elected, will be controlling the polls. And I have a strong feeling that our generation will have legislation passed to give equal rights to the LGBT community. Sam made a really interesting point when he said that our kids will one day ask what the problem was “back then” with society and the LGBT fight for equal rights…the same way we say that to our parents and grandparents regarding the civil rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s. Whether you support what Obama did in asking Warren to speak or not, getting people to seriously talk about the issue with members from the other side is a big step forward in resolving this debate.
When it comes to lesbian or gay marriage I say screw it, let it happen. I used to think that marriage was only for a man and a woman who shared a special bond and when this "definition" or "moral acceptance" was originated, it was when gays and lesbians were not accepted. Now they are accepted and people who don't want them to be able to be married are the ones who still have not accepted their life choice. It does not affect anyone else if a couple gets married and they are LGBT so why worry about it and let them be happy together.
By hiring Warren and it being called a slap to the LGBT community- those people aren't picking their battles. We are going thru larger issues than just focusing on LGBT marriage. We just had history made by electing a black man as the president. If you think that is a slap in the face to the LGBT community you need to take a step back and realize that we just made a HUGE change in history and we probably will be making a lot more of them including taking care of the LGBT people so patience please. Not everyone is going to be happy with how things play out it just happens to not work out for you at this time.
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 see this happen very seldom. Many people in my recent experiences are stubborn in their own ways and won't take the time to see the world thru other peoples shoes. They take their view on life and when other people try to influence them, they zone out and say "whatever" or "sure I got it" but they really are just waiting for the person to stop talking because they just don't care. I am a believer in taking a step back and seeing things thru other peoples situations. I feel it's almost necessary in order to form an opinion because sometimes you have not been in their situation to experience what it REALLY feels like. But by imagining it for a second, you will have a much better perspective and you could learn from it.
By saying Bush was not a uniter, I think you are just another Bush hater. Bush didn't have to be a uniter, 911 did it enough. I have never seen our country so brought together before. Bush had so much on his plate that he took a free ride on that one and focused on the other main issues. Not saying he did well with them, but he tried.
I would just like to point out that Rick Warren absolutely contradicts himself. He states, "I support full equal rights for everybody in America," and yet does not support same sex marriage. Do gays just not fall under the category "everybody" in his book? How can he claim to support equal rights for EVERYONE and at the same time oppose gay marriage? I very strongly oppose his views. I do NOT believe that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. The fact that same sex marriage is still illegal demonstrates perfectly that church and state are in fact not separate, though they are claimed to be. But that is beside the point. The point is that Obama is a much bigger person than I am because he can look past the views of Rick Warren, with which "he disagrees most vehemently," and have him deliver the opening prayer at the inauguration, knowing that many of his supporters do not accept Warren’s beliefs. I personally have trouble coming to the same “table” as someone whose views differ greatly from mine and attempting to see their side of the argument. For example, a few months ago my friend was telling me a story. Something had happened, and she had let her friends take advantage of her kindness. As she was walking home, crying, she thought about God, and how disappointed She must be in her. I am VERY atheist, and it took everything in me to not burst out laughing at the ridiculous (to me) comment. I realize it is terrible to take only my beliefs into consideration and completely disregard hers. Recently, I have been trying to improve this stubbornness I have in my views. I mean, I know there isn’t a God and there is no afterlife, but I do realize that many people strongly believe that there is. So strongly, that it becomes fact to them. So I am trying to stop and think about what it must be like to have such faith and trying hard to see things from their perspective. I strongly support gay marriage, but I can somewhat understand why others would be opposed to it. It is very easy to simply reject others’ views if they differ from yours. It takes a lot to fully understand another prospective and show respect for it. America is a blend of such a wide variety of peoples and with that comes a wide variety of belief systems, morals, and political views. It is great that Obama takes this into account and can “bring everyone to the table.” Though previous presidents have failed to unite this nation, Obama has the great potential to do so.
The appearance of Rick Warren at President Barack Obama’s inauguration, though not a surprise due to the very persistent news coverage, seemed to me to be more impressive and complex than controversial. To follow the ideas of Sam’s closing statements, I can’t help but think of my adversaries and my feelings on them. Would I have the strength to choose someone who disagreed so strongly from my own beliefs to represent what most people believe is turning point for America on several levels? Unlikely. With the world watching, Obama made the choice to stand up, accept his adversary, and move forward with the decision.
One of the most interesting things about Obama’s choice was not only did he disagree with Obama on an issue; he disagreed with Obama on a very controversial issue, and that discord is well known and publicized. Knowing that information, does that mean that Obama was trying to send a message that he is willing to listen to other ideas, or is it that he will “let the rain roll off his back,” meaning he can take the criticism and not respond overly negatively to it. I would argue that Obama’s choice was a mixture of both these perspectives. I think that Obama, as Sam stated, showed the world that he was not Bush, Clinton, or any other former presidents who claimed they were willing to listen to other ideas. The fact that he brought this guy to his inauguration and let him say the prayer sent a very strong message about keeping his word.
On the other hand, I would also argue that Obama’s decision sent a message about strength. Would I want someone who went against my beliefs to be present at such an important ceremony? I don’t think I would have the personal strength. I believe Warren’s presence also gave off a message of “I hear you, I see you, but I will stick to my word.” In a global world where America is not everyone’s favorite word, a president who will stand his ground while acknowledging his adversaries seems to be the perfect beginning to a solution.
Because this decision clearly went beyond the issue of gay rights, I personally do not believe the LGBT community should be offended or outraged. In fact, I believe that Obama’s decision supported their cause, with recognizing the opposing viewpoint without bowing to it. Not to mention I also believe that talking and discussion about these controversial topics is one of the best routes for change. After all, there’s over 300 people reading and responding to this blog alone. That means more and more gears are turning in people’s heads and that we have the best case scenario for change. Gobama.
As loosely stated by Dr. Richard’s, bring everyone to the table is an often failed campaign promise made by most politicians. Creating a bipartisanship is also a promise that is often left unfulfilled by the end of most presidencies. Often so, the agenda of one individual or their respective party is deemed the importance of a presidency. President Obama’s display was a prime example of his pragmatism. His diplomacy and pragmatism shows the depths of his being. But contrary to popular belief, President Obama is not the saving grace of this country. He is still human and subjected to the mistakes every human being could make.
Rick Warren’s somewhat conservative views towards the LGBT community issues are the opposite side of the table. Warren’s views don’t coincide with the people who elected President Obama. But since this is a fact then he should be shunned by the President himself? As stated by Dr. Richards, the people of California turned down Proposition Eight, which allowed the legal union of lesbian and gay couples. Fifty-two percent of the people of California residents said no to proposition eight. This means that his views, although conservative are the majority of the views of the residents of California. Since this truth exists he cannot be persecuted by people of the opposing view who believe he maybe morally wrong for saying that. According to my interpretation of the interview Warren’s views aren’t completely insane. He just doesn’t want to change the original concept of what has been defined as a marriage. Which I personally believe is a primitive thought. But although he has these beliefs, he states that most of these things are ok for others to do. From what was presented in this interview, it seems like he has much issue with the concept of marriage and what defines it as such. Since marriage, for the most part is done in a religious setting, he bases his beliefs on what his religion and what many religions have done for centuries. Homosexuality has long been taboo in the religious communities. Since Warren believes in equal rights for all he should also bring that thought into the concept of same sex marriage.
Furthermore, Dr. Richard’s stated a fact about the past and young girls marrying significantly older men. I am personally not agreeing with the marriage of ten year old girls to men two and three times their age, but I wanted to address a possible reason why this existed. Here’s some food for thought, historically speaking, the lifespan of people at that time was considerably shorter than present times. Women were, and still are, limited by their biological clocks. There is a time in a woman’s life where they lose the ability to reproduce. It is possible that females were married off at a younger age to maximize their ability to procreate in their shorter lifespan.
President Obama has much riding on these next four years. There are many who are waiting for him to fail. Unlike previous politicians his presidency his is under a highly magnified microscope. Every action is being followed. His potential to succeed as a “uniter” is very high because of that fact. President Obama must bring everyone to the table in order to properly become the uniter that he will be. In retrospect, he is already a uniter because he has brought together many people from many different backgrounds in his historic election.
I was brought up in a Catholic conservative family and attended Catholic school for 13 years. I was always brought up to believe that marriage was to be between a man and a woman. As I have grown up and become more educated, some of my views have changed. I do believe that gay couples should be able to marry and have the same rights as men and women who marry. Not granting them these rights is almost like treating them as if they were not human. As was said in the blog, we have changed as Christians over the years. Hopefully someday the Catholic Church will recognize same sex marriages and couples will be granted the same rights and privileges.
That being said, I do not think Rick Warren should be criticized for the comments that he made about gay marriage. He is, after all, a Christian pastor. His first priority is to look after the needs of his parishioners, most of which frown upon the idea of gay marriage. Many of his parishioners probably also did not want Obama to be elected, which would explain why he was so hard on him with his questions. I would expect nothing less from someone in Rick Warren’s position. How would he look if he took Barack Obama’s side on certain issues? He would completely go against everything he stood for.
I know people are mad by Barack’s choice of Rick Warren, but Obama’s main running point was based on “change”. He wanted to come in and change so much. So why not start by trying to unify both sides? If LGBT people want acceptance of their views and have people be understanding to them, they will have to also understand the other side. Not everyone is going to agree with what they think, however as long as everyone tolerates each other things will be a lot better. Barack cannot start his presidency by alienating people who have different views than him. He needs the full support of the country if we are going to have all this “change” that he talked about.
I understand that he preached these ideas and everyone thinks that there is going to be an automatic change now that Barack Obama is in office. I hope people realize that they are going to need to be patient and give him a chance to get settled. He is not going to just be able to come in and turn around everything that has been set in stone for hundreds of years. I just hope that people do not become frustrated with him when things do not change all of a sudden. Who even knows if we are going to see gay marriage laws changed during Obama’s presidency? He is not the only one that will make that decision. I guess only time will tell.
I am a full supporter of gay rights including gay marriage; therefore, I completely disagree with Warren’s statement that allowing for gay marriage is the equivalent to allowing an older man to marry a child or a brother and sister getting married. It seems like a contradiction that Obama would allow for Warren to speak at his inauguration when he takes such an opposite stance on the subject as Obama does. But I agree that just because they do not believe in the same thing does not mean that he should not be allowed to speak on his behalf, just as the KKK was allowed to march peacefully decades ago. Warren again contradicts himself when he says he supports equal rights for all but that gays do not have the right to get married or even have civil unions. Everyone has the right to get married whether they want to get married to someone of the same or different sex it is still their right to get married. People have worked very hard in America to make sure church and state are separate but that seems to be another issue similar to the abolition of slavery that is not completely resolved. We still have yet to have a President who is of any religion other than one that is part of Christianity. The fact that millions of people want to deny gays their right to be married because that has been the tradition of the past five thousand years sounds a little absurd. I can understand why people would be against gay marriage if that is what they truly believe because of their religious background, but for other people to use the excuse that is traditionally the law does not make any sense. There are so many laws that we would not have agreed with one hundred years ago and so we make changes. Politian’s are constantly trying to make this nation a better place, if we never changed old laws we would not have gone very far.
I do believe that Obama was the presidential candidate most likely to push for gay rights and legalization of same sex marriages; however it is going to take the support of many anti-gay rights Politian’s to make it happen. Republicans are proving to be extremely difficult to persuade in the house and senate but if nobody were to budge nothing would ever get done, i.e. the Clinton administration. This is one of our greatest struggles that America is fighting for today just like voting rights were decades ago. We will definitely have to band together and it is not going to be easy but I have hope that Obama will be the person to do it.
I have to admit, it took awhile for what Dr. Richards said in his blog to sink in for me. Initially, when I found out that Rick Warren would be delivering the opening prayer at President Obama’s inauguration, I was disappointed. It felt like we were already taking one big step back, right after this enormous step forward. Choosing someone who is against so many things that President Obama and his party stand for does in fact seem insensitive to those who have worked so hard on his campaign, namely, the LGBT community. They committed themselves to his presidency largely because he promised them more rights and better treatment than the previous administration. For Rick Warren, who is vehemently against homosexuality, to be asked to deliver the inaugural prayer, seems like a traitorous move.
Once I read Dr. Richards entire post, I could see what he meant about trying to bring everyone to the table. I guess it is difficult for me to understand, because if I were president, I would simply include those who were in support of me and what I stood for. I made up my mind about homosexuality and same-sex marriage a long time ago. To me, it is unfathomable to think that people still try to squash the rights that the LGBT community deserves as much as everyone else. By excluding people like Rich Warren, it seems that as a country we would be making a statement that America’s views have changed. It is a good thing that our president is more mature than I am. The impact of including Rick Warren and people like him, who do not share all the same ideals as President Obama and many of the rest of us, is so important to our country. Without even realizing it, our first instinct is to divide ourselves into teams; from there we work to promote our team while at the same time trying to undermine and defeat the other teams. It is a scary idea, but I am really grateful that our new president is taking steps away from this mentality. Working with the other side, rather than against it, will only serve to unite this country and help it to progress. I have so much distaste for George W. Bush and his administration, and some of it is due to what seemed to be a petty and almost spiteful refusal to consider any perspectives but their own. I can see now that by leaving out people like Rick Warren, President Obama would be setting the same exact precedent. It was a very brave and risky move to choose someone who so many of his supporters dislike.
The concept of “bringing everyone to the table” sounds great, but it is so much easier said than done. Those of us who were applauding it are the same ones who were disappointed with the decision to include Rick Warren in the inauguration. While we certainly do not have to agree with his ideas, it is time that we start bringing the opposition into our discussions. I am proud that we have a president who is forward-thinking enough to begin this trend, and I hope that it continues.
I think that at all times people are surrounded by people who sometimes don’t agree with certain issues. Of course when you are the President the spot light it going to be on you, rather than the average American. But people are faced with this problem every day, weather it is at a job, at school, or even at home within your personal relationships. I think that Mr. Obama does mean it when he says he is going to bring “everyone to the table” but it is easier said than done. And he better be ready for the criticism that he will get along with that. I feel as though Having Rick Warren at the inauguration made a statement. If he isn’t well liked in the LGBT community and the LBGT community has worked hard with the democratic campaign then maybe it wasn’t the wisest choice to have at the ignaruation but it was a smart move to make a point. Not everyone is going to like each other but there has to be a way for everyone to get alone at the same ‘table.’ Gay marriage is a topic that President Obama is going to have to face and hopefully he will make smart decisions . Mr. Warren had made comments in the interview posted on the blog that were inapproiate towards some but that is his view. It isn’t the same view of President Obama. Soon enough we will find out, in more detail, President Obama’s view on homosexuality. Its 2009, the traditional image of family isn’t going to be an excuse anymore. There are plenty of broken homes, single parents, grand parents raising toddlers, and now gay parents. People should only worry about how the child/children are going to grow up. It doesn’t matter who is raising the child as long as they are in a safe, stable, and loving household. And guess what, a gay couple might do a hell of a better job then perhaps a single parent or even a heterosexual couple. Maybe the country isn’t ready for gay marriage but weather you like it or not, its in the near future. Just like a 10 year old was able to get married in the 19th century. Things are different. We have a Afican American in the white house. Times are changing and people need to get a grip. Gay marriage isn’t hurting anyone. If anything, it is hurting the gay couples who love each other so much and they cant share their love with each other in a holy matrimony. We, as a country, need to find a common ground with this topic. The longer it waits, the harder its going to become.
I am a Christian - a bible believing, God adoring Christian. This information - although it may have caused people upon reading it to be wary of my beliefs on the topic of gay marriage and sharing a table with those who disagree - is necessary to know upon reading my response. I hold, and will continue to hold throughout my entire life, very strong relationships with members of the LGBT community. I have definitely had my fair share of discussions on this particular topic. I guess you could say that I have “shared my table” with these loved ones consistently throughout my life, however, I continue to hold onto my beliefs on the subject. What are these beliefs? Of course, in accordance with the scripture that I have dedicated my life to following, I am bound by my Creator to refrain from engaging in an intimate relationship with a member of the same sex. Something that these scriptures more frequently remind me, and what some people tend to forget, is that I am bound to love all people and to value their lives and their needs above my own. I will never criticize or look down upon a member of the gay community just because they share different beliefs than I do. If I were “homophobic,” to use a word that Sam uses, then I would hold a hatred or a dislike for people who do not share my beliefs – in that case, I should also dislike anyone who shares a different religion than I do, anyone who shares different political opinions than I do, etc. etc. Christians, if they follow and adhere to the teachings of scripture, do not think that gay marriage is acceptable to God. To ask a minister, or any Christian, to believe otherwise is to ask him to abandon his belief system - something that I am confident that most members of the LGBT community would never abandon. It makes me sad to see that in his blog entry Sam referred to people who do not share our opinions as our “enemies,” (although I am positive that he did not mean it in a literal sense) and I cringe to think that we can sometimes get sucked in to thinking that we are enemies with a person or a group of people on the pretext of a disagreement in opinion.
Just because I think that the act of being gay is not what pleases my God, does not mean that I am a homophobic or that I do not believe in equal rights for people who disagree.
Now that my beliefs have been briefly summarized, I can address the issue at hand. Frankly, in my opinion, to regard Rick Warren’s invitation as a slap in the face to the gay community is absurd. Barack Obama receives enough criticism already; do we really need to add this irrelevant detail to the long list? This minister was there to unite us all in a moment of joyous unity and prayer, not to discuss his political or religious opinions. Consider this: If any of the musicians invited to perform at the inauguration were atheists, would it have been acceptable for the Christians of this country who supported Obama to be furious and offended? Rick Warren eats meat. Should the vegetarians and animal rights activists of the world be up in arms, demanding an explanation from our president? I think that it is a sad, sad thing when people take such an important moment in history and taint it with criticism and accusations. Also, I do not honestly believe that Obama invited Warren to deliver a prayer with the intention of mixing it up by throwing in a homophobic minister. I just think that he, rightfully, overlooked the detail, as it was irrelevant in comparison with the magnitude of the task at hand. To criticize Rick Warren for holding these beliefs is a very different and separate concept than criticizing Barack Obama for inviting him to deliver a prayer.
The word unity is defined as the state of being one. In the case of a nation, that means all people, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation possessing equal rights and equal say in the way we govern ourselves. When President Obama was elected, he swore to unite our country, upholding to the aforementioned characteristics. And what better place to start than his own inauguration?
Rick Warren’s political and religious views may not be the same with President Obama’s, or his followers, but his presence at President Obama’s inauguration seems to be on par with what Obama promised. He seems to make an honest effort to hear out people of different opinions, and let them get their message across to all who are willing to listen. But because of Rick Warren’s opposition in certain views with Barack Obama, it makes Obama supporters question why Obama chose this man to speak at his inauguration.
Naturally, the first reaction of Obama supporters is anger and indignation. It almost sounds like this man speaking on behalf of Barack Obama and his supporters is a mockery because he does not stand on the same side as Obama in all political and cultural views. It’s nothing short of hypocrisy, in the supporters’ eyes, to ask this man to speak on behalf of so many who claim to want the things Obama has promised.
But upon thinking deeper into the reasoning behind this decision, it’s clear that the hypocrisy in this situation is from the angry supporters, not Obama himself. The supporters claim to want equal treatment of all peoples of this nation- It is, after all, the melting pot of so many cultures and lifestyles and beliefs that makes America so unique. But when the promises of equal treatment are put into action, Obama’s supporters reject them, and why? Because they require the involvement of people who don’t believe as they believe.
How does this attitude show support for our new President? Obama was elected because he inspired the American people to believe that he would unite all peoples of our nation, and that all perspectives would be considered. Obama’s supporters showing their disdain for Rick Warren’s presence at the inauguration is nothing short of hypocrisy.
It’s important to consider all opinions in order to form a well-informed opinion of your own, and thus make decisions that benefit the most people. Obama hasn’t been in office for a month, and already he seems to have a legitimate desire to surround himself with people from different cultures and belief systems, all in the effort to make national decisions that ultimately benefit the American people. This is particularly profound because he seems to genuinely want everybody to have a say in the running of this country, and so he creates opportunities for different people to speak their minds.
I think if there’s a lesson in Rick Warren’s presence at President Obama’s inauguration it’s that before you judge someone, put yourself in their shoes. Listen to what they have to say. You might be inspired to change your opinion, but if not, be respectful of theirs.
Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish a Palestinian doctor who although he lives in Gaza, was educated in Israel speaks Hebrew and works in an Israeli hospital is a very unique man. He is a man that has devoted his life to peace and raised his children to believe in this same peace. After his home had been targeted by the Israeli military, three of his daughters and niece were killed. Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish is obviously devastated with the loss of his children and is in a state of complete questioning. To see Dr. Abuelaish emotions it is very connecting to how devastating the situation is within the violence of war. It makes me as an American really question that this is happening and how terrible it is that it occurred. I think that if the enemies in this situation witnessed the results of their actions that it would affect them in a very unusual way. Ignorance or unawareness to a particular situation is probably one of the biggest problems that our nation and other nation states face. Why are we unaware of all the injustice and suffering in the world? If it is the violence of war, the aids epidemic in Africa, or the need for clean water as well in Africa, or the conflicts in Rowanda in which children are being kidnapped from their homes and forced to kill their parents and participate in war, or hunger etc. These are only a few of the injustices around the world. Which when educated about them may make you question why is this occurring? Why are we as a nation not doing anything about it? Is there a solution to all the violence and injustice in the World? I think that this blindness, is a very large catalyst to why nothing is being done. Beyond this blindness we need to have a compassion for those that are affected by these situations, as a people no matter our economic or social situation within the U.S. we take for granted resources and freedoms many people do not have. If we were able to put ourselves in their situation, I know that there would be more of an effort to help stop their injustice. No matter if it is war between nations, sexual slavery, general slavery, hunger etc. I think that it takes witnessing these situations before someone can be emotionally connected and truly consider why these injustices occur and how can we fix them. Besides this aspect within the war I think the idea of not seeing the people involved is a terrible way in which killing and violence is carried out. In an area of conflict those involved only see enemies and their own people, they do not understand that they may being killing some ones: mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle, or loved one. Within in war those involved get focused on their task and block out all these other aspects, that the people you kill are not targets they are human. Many Americans do not also understand what is happening in Iraq because it is so far from us and our lives, unless those have love ones involved with this conflict. The larger question and issue is one of morals, what is right and wrong? As Americans what are we doing to change this situation within war or other injustice?
As a college student, whose future greatly depends on solving this current crisis, I really hope Obama means with what he proposes as a “time for change.” I’m hoping that the change he creates leads us out of this mess and into a better situation for everyone. With that being said, ever since I had any kind of political view, my main thought was basically “why can’t we all just get along?”
There are all sorts of different people in this country and world, and not everyone is going to get along, but I’d like to think that we all are working towards the same goal. That goal would hopefully be to be happy, take care of our families, and live at peace with one another. As simple as some views may seem to some people, others may have a completely different view, which is why we need to see where everyone else is coming from instead of jumping to conclusions.
Obama “bringing everyone to the table” is what this country needs. Not everyone is going to agree, but in order to create change and keep moving forward we need to work in unity. One problem that I have with our current political system is that we separate ourselves. To me it seems as if anytime a Republican comes up with an idea everyone who is not a Republican needs to disagree, no matter if it’s a good idea, and anytime a Democrat comes up with an idea, regardless of whether it is good or not, everyone who’s not a Democrat is against it. At such an important time in our world today, there is not much time for bickering simply because of different parties, but instead we all need to work together towards a common goal.
President Obama continuing a civil relationship with Rick Warren after he somewhat through him under the bus during the campaign which shows a good example to everyone watching. We are all not always going to agree, and we all have our own agendas and an idea of what is right. It does not do any good to shun those with whom we don’t agree because that does not lead us to understanding more. If we can begin to listen and learn from those with different perspectives hopefully we can begin to find ways to work together. Obama leading the way in bringing everyone to the table will hopefully open up communication between parties who would not usually converse; thus bridging the gap between the two. If we’re going to make more strides in the right direction we must make an attempt to share a table with those we disagree and see the world from their eyes.
I am one of many who believe that Warren’s presence at the inauguration was unwelcome. Obama could have easily asked one of thousands people of faith to come in place of Warren. There are many people whose presence at the inauguration I could have gone without (George Bush, both of them, for example) but they were necessary attributes to the ceremony, Warren added nothing.
I applaud Obama for bringing everyone to the table, not just people who agree with him. Bush surrounded himself with people who just believed with him and that got our country nowhere. In order to make the most informed decisions, you have to see all points of view. This being said, the people Obama should allow to be “at the table” have to have something to “bring to the table”. I do not believe that Warren brings anything to the table.
So far Obama has seemed to stick to his word and try to mend the large gap in Washington, whether or not he willl be successful is another question. It sickens me the way democrats and republicans act around each other. They are all in Washington for the same reason and should ultimately have the same goal: to make America a better place. Unfortunately this seems to get lost along the way from their home states to Washington.
America is hated by so many around the world and this is a hue problem. In order to get the rest of the world to hate us we must first unite and stop hating each other. We are looked at as the most powerful country in the world and if we can’t be powerful enough to unite ourselves, how do we expect to make a difference around the world. Our government has a responsibility to every citizen of the United States and to every citizen of the world. Life is too short for all this petty fighting.
Life is too short to restrict anyone, and by inviting Warren Obama, perhaps unknowingly, restricted t he advancement in the LGBT community. This is horrible after all the support that they offered him during the campaign. I personally believe that the LGBT is a big one purely because the government is limiting the happiness of other. Whether they start recognizing gay marriages or civil unions, whatever they land on, it needs to come sooner rather than later. It will happen one day and in the mean time we are just acting horribly to our fellow citizens, denying them the pursuit of happiness.
I wish Obama the best luck in the world. He does not have an easy task ahead of him. He has, what I believe to be, the hardest job in the world. We need to stand together behind him.
After reading the blog for today I really started thinking about the topic of how often do we look at the world from other people’s perspective. How important is it to take into consideration the beliefs and views of people from all races, colors, classes, and religions when governing our country. After all that is what America is supposed to be based on. America defines itself as a melting pot willing to give any one a chance. For as long as I can remember this country has been very uniformed in its government, ideals, and norms. From the time this country was started there has been a white president with certain perspectives and views of the world, and how the country should be governed. For years the people of our country have been forced to live in a world governed by elderly white men who usually share relatively the same thought process and privileged outlook on life. Not very often did our past government take suggestions or even acknowledge different groups like homosexuals and African Americans. As I mentioned above our government has been very uniformed in their ideals. I believe that President Obama is a much needed change for our country and a huge breath of fresh air. I think that President Obama will make this country a better place because he seems very capable of making decisions for the good of the country while listening to everyone’s opinions and putting them to work.
After contemplating this idea of how frequently do we look at the world from someone else’s perspective, I thought about my own life. I thought about my beliefs and ideals. After thinking about some of these things I realized that very few times have I looked at the world or even tried to understand the world from another person, or group’s perspective. I consider myself a very open person who is extremely open to other cultures and people. However very rarely do I think about their outlook on life, or their opinions of me. Maybe it was because I have never been put into a situation where I have had to really think about how something can affect someone else. Personally I come from a very diverse city, so for as long as I can remember I was exposed to other races, religions, and cultures. It is interesting for me to be at Penn State and encounter people who come from towns with very few or no black people, Asians, or Latinos. I noticed that some of these peoples views on life in general and people of other backgrounds are very different from my own.
What I am trying to say is that this great country that we live in was primarily built around different people of different backgrounds coming together and getting along to function as a healthy society. As Dr. Richards mentioned in his lecture, for the most part America does do a really good job of living together and working together and functioning as a working and healthy society. And finally with a president who wants to bring a change and accept everyone I believe our country is really taking a big step forward and heading in the right direction.
I was born and raised Catholic and, from as early as I can remember, was taught about the sanctity of marriage. As I got older I started looking past the Catholic church's views and deciding for myself what was ideal. Today, I have no problem with gay marriage, civil unions, etc. I have always been a fan of Obama and his call for change in our country. "Bringing everyone to the table" is a wonderful call for change.
Now I don't know much about Rick Warren and why it was a big deal he spoke at the Inauguration until I read this blog today. Judging from his comments in the interview from the blog, he seems to be contradicting himself a little bit. It seems a bit weird to not have a problem with civil unions or partnerships but not support gay marriage. But alas, I'm glad Obama still stuck to his guns and decided to have him minister the Inauguration.
I think having Warren still speak at the Inauguration shows just how he is "sharing the table with the very people whom we so stridently disagree" with. Warren is not the only person in America who believes what he believes in. His viewpoint is just the voice for many others who share his view in same sex marriages. Its good to see even though Obama realizes he may have angered a lot of people by letting Warren speak, he let him speak regardless. It shows that Obama is willing to "bring everyone to the table".
As for the lesson from all of this, it's hard for me to see this from the viewpoint of someone who is gay. I have never grown up knowing someone who is gay or ever had a gay friend. The closest I ever came to knowing a gay person was a gay co-worker. But I still believe that people should have the right to do as they please, whether it be gay marriage of a civil union. It's hard for me however to wonder how I would feel about Obama for letting Warren speak at the Inauguration. I do not think I would be too upset however. If you were able to see the big picture, and how Obama is bringing change and unity, I think you would be able to see what Obama is trying to do.
To conclude, I do think Obama will be in time a great uniter. I feel his views will be a greater uniter for our country. I believe in his ideals and call for change. I just hope that my faith in him is not because of what we just went through for the past 8 years.
Unfortunately, more often than not, we do not “share a table” with those we disagree with or have different view from. I say unfortunately because this should not be the case. In the instance of Warren and Obama, many people, especially Obama supporters, were curious as to why Obama would have the minister speak at his inauguration. The views of these two respected people could not be more opposite. Considering Obama has a huge LGBT population supporting him, so many people were appalled and offended by Warren’s views. Of course I can agree with Sam, as well as many others, as to why people would be offended by Warren’s views. Unlike Warren, I very much support gay marriage because I believe everyone should have equal opportunity. However, the world would be a very boring place if we were not open and accepting to the opinions that differ from our own. “Bringing everyone to the table” means bringing other people’s cultures, opinions, ideas, etc. out in the open. Take this year’s election for instance. If we were not open to new ideas and ways of thinking, Obama probably would not have been elected our 44th president. We have never had a black man in the White House before. Now, because of the fact that people were open to new views and changes, Obama has become our president. Also, it is because Obama agrees we should “Bring everyone to the table” that we have elected him to successfully lead our nation. After reading many other blog responses, I too completely agree that it is truly an admirable quality that Obama is so accepting of other people and there ideas, even those ideas that do not coincide with his own. He is trying to unite countries and help make this world a better place. The only way to do so is to listen to others and be heard. After all, he would not be respected if he did not accept other opinions and ideas. I honestly was unaware that the relationship between Obama and Warren was so strained prior to the inauguration. However, now that I am aware of this, I respect Obama even more than I had already. This just further emphasizes why in fact I voted for Obama to begin with. It is extremely important for us to take something meaningful away from their relationship. We must learn to be more accepting of other people and their views. I believe myself to be a very open and accepting person. If I am not in agreement with someone else, I will still listen to them and be open to change. This, in my opinion, is a very important quality to have, especially for a politician. Obama has proven on numerous occasions that he possesses this quality. I truly believe that people can really learn a lot from him and his views and I have confidence that he will lead our country in the right direction.
During the biggest day in Obama’s life one would have thought that only those whom loved and supported him would be around on his election day. When Rick Warren came onto stage on January 20th I, along with many others, was surprised. I knew of their differences of opinions from following Obama throughout the election process. “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?” Obama did this exact feat on the day of his election. This makes me even more proud to call him my president.
There are those who can do this; put aside their differences and try to have a conversation without getting heated. They listen intently, and have well thought out responses. I envy these people. I find that some people will claim to be open minded and be able to see other views, but they prove themselves wrong easily. Words that are not thought through come flying out, and within minuets it is a screaming match that ends in someone storming off to pout. I have fourteen roommates and things like this happen daily. There are times where one of them not only doesn’t want to change their view, but they won’t even give a contradictory thought a chance.
On January 20th, Obama showed everyone that he was the real deal. He did not simply “lob derision grenades in the direction of his enemies.” He invited the person who has opposite views. His campaign has been so successful; he brought a group of people together who haven’t gotten along because of skin color for years.
Warren’s comments are his and that is all. Obama did not say the things he said, and he has shown that his views will not change just based of what Warren has to say. Inviting him to give the opening prayer (which was very good) taught America a very good lesson that many of us need to practice, forgiveness. Obama is one of the most watched people right now and there are hundreds just waiting for him to trip up. I feel like he really proved a point to all those doubting him that day.
Obama’s entire campaign was “change”. America has been promised from president after president that they will help change us for the better. As was stated, not many of them have. Simply by running of office Obama caused change. Now that he is the first black president of the United States of America hopefully he will be able to bring us our long sought out change. America needs to have the common goal of fixing of failing economy, and with Obama leading the way I think this goal will be achieved.
“How often do we share a table with the very people whom we so stridently disagree—and then attempt to see the world from their eyes?” I believe we do this everyday. There is something that can be said for having an “open mind” about things. I believe the ability to hear other people’s opinions are key to the idea of America. You may not agree with what they have to say, but it’s easy to just dismiss it or criticize it. Obama has talked about this new America he wants to create. An America that is free of party politics, and issues of race. In this time of economic woes, this unity may be the only thing that can get us through this difficult time. For the first time in my life, I am legitimately scared about the future and what it has in store for this country. Will Obama be able to turn this economy around? Will the unemployment rate continue to increase? Will we finally be able to pull troops out of Iraq? Will we finally be able to find a better source for energy than oil? Notice how in a lot of these questions I used the word “we”. We meaning “us”, America, are all in this together. Whether you’re gay, straight, democratic, republican, Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim, if you’re American, than you’re in this with us. It is time for us to put aside our petty differences and have open minds about how to change our future. Right now our future does not look so bright. Where will this country be in 10 years, or 5 years, or even 1 year? It is amazing that we are asking this question with such unease. Right now it doesn’t matter who is right, or is wrong, or is reform, or who is liberal, or who is conservative. Right now what matters most is that we figure out a way to solve all these different issues. I voted for Obama in this past election, but if McCain had won, I would still feel this way. As an American I am not searching for this profound savior. I am looking for someone, anyone who can help turn this country around. Step 1 in this change is uniting the country. We’re all sitting at this “table” called America together. One thing we can do is not just relying on the elected officials in Washington to save us. We can make a difference in our towns and lives without having to have congress approve this bill or this stimulus. If we want our children, our grand children and our great grand children to live in this ideal America Obama has promised, we must all lend a helping hand in not immediately disagreeing with those ideas that aren’t our own. Together we can bring change to America, and together is the only way this change will come!
I like it. This is great. This is just what we need. In management class yesterday we talked about the theory of “synergy.” The idea that when you bring people together to achieve a common goal you get more out of the process than if the same number of people worked on the problem alone. The slogan for the theory is “1 + 1 = 3.” An example would be three people coming together to solve a problem with two ideas each, but after discussing the possibilities, walk out of the meeting with more than a dozen ideas, because each person adds their input to the other ideas and comes up with new ideas based on what they learned from the others. This undoubtedly leads to the best possible answer for the problem. This is exactly what our president is trying to accomplish. Obama continues to impress by coming through with what he has promised. You’re not going to win people over and open their minds to new ideas by shunning them. We need more and more of this. This is like reaching across the isle. Even though those who accept marriage between both sexes may feel they have the more open minded view, allowing this minister to be a part of the ceremony only proves that we are truly open minded. Supporters of gay marriage need to hold open conversations about the subject, and let all listen, and get involved. That is how you win over supporters. You can not talk to people, you have to talk with them. As professor Richards stated in class same sex marriage will eventually be a normal part of our society, just as segregation faded out so will this hatred towards the LGBT community. One day our children will ask us why people even debated the issue at all. The way to speed up this process is to hear out both sides and talk out issues to solve the problem. It will only continue to be an issue if the two sides do not discuss it and figure out a way to work out the issues. I truly hope Obama will continue to act in this manner and hear out everyone. Not just LGBT supporters and enemies, but Democrats and Republicans and people of all religious beliefs and races. By building these alliances, at home and abroad, Obama can paint a new picture for Americans and foreigners abroad and actually get people to listen to what he has to offer. By practicing what he preaches Obama will continue to build relationships and create the change we have all heard so much about. I just hope he keeps up what he has started in his first incredible week and a half.
Robert Henry
It is always easier to have conversations with people that share the same viewpoints as you do. It’s a simple fact of life. Majority of the population would prefer to agree with someone rather than start a fight, particularly about politics and religion. It is a conversation that is usually avoided at the dinner table and everywhere else for that matter.
When I am faced with conversations with opposing viewpoints, I typically find that I stay quiet and removed from the conversation but listen intently. I often hear new perspectives and learn new information this way which benefits me in making my decisions. Some of my friends and family have opposing viewpoints and those rare times that politics is brought up often ends with anger and resentment. My family in particular is interesting because my Grandma is Republican and wanted to make sure that I voted for McCain whereas my other Grandma was adamant about me voting for Obama because this country needed change. Although I tried to hear both grandmas’ arguments and tried to remain calm and collected during the discussions, it was hard to do. It is easier to block out what people of different viewpoints are saying and only listen to those who you agree with.
However, the politicians that run our country are supposed to represent the people. They are supposed to listen and be open to what others say and believe; often times they do not. Politicians have their own agendas and often do not take into consideration what the public wants or thinks.
President Obama may very well be first of the recent presidents that will ask people with all viewpoints to come to the “table” and discuss what is best for the American people. It would be an interesting change of pace for Washington to do this and may or may not help President Obama get re-elected for a second term. The people who elected President Obama expect him to stay true to the promises and reform that he discussed during his presidential campaign.
As far as Rick Warren’s ideas and beliefs, President Obama acknowledges the differing opinions but still invited Warren to deliver the opening prayers for the Inauguration. This was widely criticized because it came off as anti-LGBT. On the other hand, this gesture shows that the start of Obama’s presidency is in line with his belief in having everyone come to the table. I personally believe that this was an interesting choice to make but not a bad one. It shows Obama’s dedication to the American people and his interest in doing what the majority of the population wants.
These next four years under President Obama will be interesting because of the changes that we are expecting. People see hope and change through Barack Obama and he has a significant amount of pressure on himself to accomplish a lot of different things during his presidency. With the world economy the way it is, Obama has his work cut out for him; I just hope that the country will give him ample time to flip our economy and create jobs and better healthcare. These are not things that can be changed overnight and the American people need to stand by Barack Obama while he’s attempting to change the American way.
I can relate extremely well to where President Obama is coming from here. I (unfortunately) am a president of a fraternity. Our fraternity is founded on democracy which can leads to instances of disagreements. Should we spend our money on this? Is a party this weekend a good idea? Should we follow IFC laws? All of these, amazingly including the last one come up at any number of our weekly chapter meetings. Now there are several things to consider when such events occur. It is my job to make sure as many of the rules are followed as possible. It is also my job to “listen” to everyone. As Sam said, it is easy enough to just discredit the person who makes the argument that we should hand out ecstasy at the door of one of our parties rather than attacking the argument itself. To be a truly good leader though and to hold the respect of your constituents you need to take the time to take in everyone’s opinion. A lot of times it makes people happy just to know their voice has been heard. In that particular case, I let the floor open up for discussion and let everyone talk about it. After several minutes of debate it was ruled an incredibly bad idea, and I wasn’t forced to step in and stop it myself.
Another way that this comes into play in just the fraternity house politics, you could say there are two parties in our house. I’m not going to discuss the difference of the two parties but will however say that my executive board possesses four vice presidents and two members from each of the parties fills those spots. So even at the executive level we have two very different sides looking for two very different things out of the fraternity. My mindset is along the ways of one of the parties however I still choose to listen to the other party. I could say, “you, you, and you, don’t come to chapter. We’re going to be voting on something and I don’t want your input on it.” That however, is a very quick way to lose popularity. Instead they are given full voting rights and equal treatment just like every member. There are times when I even make decisions and concede to them sometimes just to keep things equal.
To somewhat summarize my ideas, when someone takes a position of leadership, much like Obama, there are times where you need to transcend your ideas and cater to a group you don’t necessarily agree with. These small victories keep those groups motivated and keep them working towards the common goal. Once they become disenfranchised though, your country, organization, or even family, will surely fall apart.
There are very few, if not zero humans on this Earth that agree on everything. Even when narrowed down to political and social issues, there are still very few people who can agree on the same things. So Obama and Warren do not agree on gay rights. This should not mean that Warren is automatically disqualified from the pool of inauguration speakers. When he stood at the podium to give the inaugural prayer, gay rights was not on the agenda. He was not picked to comment on his gay marriage views but rather to bless the administration of Obama, his family as well as the nation. With all the haters out there and the mean things said about Warren, it is quite a wonder that he even chose to give the prayer. I mean don’t you think it must have been hard for him to stand up there in front of all his haters and practically bless them and the nation in which they live?
Obama picked Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer. Why does that have to make him a Christian conservative right winger?
Many people who are against gay marriage say that it is not necessarily that they do not like LGBT’s but rather that they do not like the idea of gay marriage. I totally understand LGBT’s annoyance with this statement and their retort, which is often along the lines of not liking black people because of their skin tone because being gay is something that cannot be changed just as is skin color (not including bleaching). But I mean seriously? There will be haters regardless of who you are, what you say or what you do. And we live in America I mean as gross as this is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That does not always mean that the opinion is right or ethical but is an option that is allowed nonetheless. Despite the song with the lyrics “Why can’t we be friends, why can’t we be friends?” I really don’t think it’s possible for us to all be friends. In fact, (and this is very pessimistic) but I do not envision a world without hate, ever. But it’s not like with all of the people in the world it’s possible to be everyone’s friend anyway, right?
Perhaps both sides of the Obama/Warren issue need to really think about the President that was just elected. He was voted into office on motto of change, and change he did. LGBT’s- do you really stand for Obama’s campaign when you cannot appreciate one of the first changes he made? I mean what he did inviting Rick Warren into his private circle was incredible! That would be like Bush asking a gay man or a transgendered person to speak at his inauguration, which he did not do. No president elect to my knowledge, has ever asked someone with such opposing views to bless his presidency. And maybe Obama and Warren don’t agree on all aspects, but it is true that they may have a general respect for one another. Some of my closest friends have completely different views and opinions than me, but that doesn’t mean that I still don’t respect them or appreciate them.
In terms of “gay” marriage, I feel that all citizens, not just of the United States, but of the world, have equal rights to marry whomever they like. It is not for us to decide who marries and who does not, but when it came to politics, based upon the teachings of the “Holy Bible,” it immediately became ousted, as those in charge of the church, etc., had decided to make the most minor actions as “frowned upon.” To put it a little easier, POLITICS is where the train stopped for a “cow on the tracks.” Why must people in such positions be so humiliated or afraid to approach such issues? The trust that the American People have had in the government and local politicians, had been low just due to their “leaders’” insecurities and fears of the inevitable.
My next point here also comes to the fact that I disagree with many concepts determined by religion and the definitions within. Perhaps many of my views have come from reading the very popular Da Vinci Code where the “truth” about the Church and the Vatican creating a conspiracy against the teachings of the Bible, and also perhaps from my hatred of going to church as a child. But now, as I have grown older and my individual views have been declared from some sort of merit, I feel that it is all bull. Alright, so maybe gay marriage is not your cup of tea, and even personally, thoughts may cross your mind that “eww, that’s kinda gross,” but when you think about, if you have ever met someone that is gay, you realize that they are people too. I feel awkward saying “they” but only in terms of this argument. No matter what I had ever previously thought about such a partnership between the same gender, or even One that is “programmed” that way, I have gotten over that. People are people and their private lives are no one’s business but their own.
Screw Politics and screw past administrations, give San Francisco the credit; let a new trend begin. I don’t give a shit anymore, and quite frankly I’m tired of it. Part of my irritation has lead to my acceptance, because the more you hear about something so sensitive, and the more media coverage it gets, then the more you want it to end and be over with. But don’t read me wrong, that has only been my irritation with the media and their repetition of the “Same Shit, Different Day,” but I have been on the other side, the side that is for the allowance of equal rights. Get over it already, so we can move on to other things. Obama is in Office now, I believe in what he is able to do; it is only up to him to get it done.
From what I understand, it has become commonplace for a politician to state that they want to “reach across the aisle,” and that they will listen to any opinion even if it differs from their own. I think the reason for this is because the majority of people in this country consider themselves to be moderates. Therefore, when we enter a voting a booth, we want to know that we are voting for someone who would be willing to listen to both side of argument and make the right decision, as opposed to simply voting along party lines. However, such statements often turn out to be only empty campaign promises that are soon forgotten once the official has been elected. As Dr. Richards stated, a countless number of presidents in our recent past have made promises to reach across the aisle to do what was best for our country but were not serious when it actually came down to it. To be honest, this was one of my fears with Barack Obama being elected as president. I feared that this was just another politician who knew the right things to say but when the time actually came to work with others, that he would be like all the rest. It seemed too simple that a politician could really just be genuine and actually want to do what was best for our country, even if that meant going against what he thought the right decision was. Luckily, it would appear that my mistrust may have been misplaced. Although we are only a short time into President Obama’s first term as president, he has already made many decisions that show he is willing to bring in people with opposing opinions. By having Rick Warren deliver the opening prayer at his Presidential Inauguration, President Obama showed that he was willing to work with people of opposing view points. Not only that, he also showed that just because we may disagree with someone on certain issues, it does not mean that we will disagree with them across the board. Just because President Obama might not share the same view as Rick Warren on the issue of gay marriage, it does not mean that they cannot discuss that issue as well as others or that they could not learn from one another. It would have been easy for President Obama to simply break his campaign promise about trying to reach across the aisle as soon as he stepped into office. Most people would have been surprised, or even have really minded as long as he took our country into a better direction than it currently is going. However, he did not take the easy way out. Obama has pledged to do what is best for this country, and nine times out of ten that means at least listening to the opposing viewpoint of your own. Hopefully, he will continue to do so and this can lead to real changes in the current political system of this country.
Well first off, I do think that Barack Obama inviting Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration was certainly not one of his better ideas but I guess he had his reasons. I’m sure he wanted to prove some kind of a point by inviting Warren even though he made Obama look like somewhat of fool during his visit to Warren’s church. That is just the type of guy Obama is though, so I guess I can’t say I was all too surprised by his invitation but I still don’t think he was smart for doing it. I completely understand why Obama wants to keep Warren by his side throughout his presidency as a voice for the “other side” but that doesn’t mean he has to also invite him to be part of the most important ceremony there is with all the world watching. A lot of Obama’s supporters voted for him and love him because of his democratic beliefs on gay marriage. So to me it just seemed like a little bit of a slap in the face to all those people to have this man be part of the ceremony who is so obviously opposed to gay marriage.
On a different note, Warren’s “5,000 years” comment in his interview was definitely something worth shedding some light on. I’ve taken a couple women’s studies classes and a sociology class on family here and have learned a lot about marriage and how it has changed so much throughout the past centuries. Yes, people typically have always seen marriage as relationship between a man and a woman. However, many centuries ago, men and women used to marry without even being in love. Sometimes they would be forced to marry by their parents or marry only for financial reasons. I think it is worse to have a marriage not based on love than to have a marriage between two people of the same sex but who actually love one another. Our views of what marriage is and should be, have come a long, long way and have not always been so normal and perfect for the past 5,000 years.
I really respect Obama though for wanting to include Rick Warren at his “table”. I think his motto about “change” is really just beginning. Just like any good argument, you always have to see the other side of it in order to prove your point. That is exactly what Obama is doing and what every president before him should have done but failed to do. Obama is a brave and courageous man and I strongly believe that he will be able to turn this world around with the help of his colleagues who see the world as he sees it and from the ones who do not see it as he does. If everyone only ever saw their perspective on issues and never from the eyes of others, this world would never work. Getting opinions and thoughts from a variety of different people, not people exactly like you, is what broadens are ways of thinking and makes us even wiser.
After reading the blog about Rick Warren and Barack Obama I am beginning to become one of Obama’s supporters that do not accept a number of his views. It is evident that Warren does not agree with civil unions or domestic partnerships or whatever you want to call it. When asked if he supports it, he simply avoids answering the question and keeps repeating the fact that he fully supports equal rights. But by supporting equals rights does that mean he agrees with the views of all of those involved in the LGBT community? Does that that mean he thinks they should be able to marry whomever they choose and should have the equal rights of everyone who get to freely choose who they will marry?
Warren clearly slapped everybody in the LGBT community in the face with his responses to the questions he was presented with. Warren talks about other couples he does not approve getting married such as brothers and sisters and older men and younger girls. But, I feel he does this to take the attention off of his belief that gays should not marry each other. I do, however, agree with Warren saying that everyone should have equal rights. Since everyone should have equal rights I think men should be allowed to marry women and men and women should be allowed to marry men and women. If people have equal rights then Warren should not object to civil unions or domestic partnerships.
As mentioned in the blog, 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.” A lot of people may not think that same sex marriage is moral or cultural but times are changing and some things are just going to happen. The LGBT community has been fighting for many years to be accepted in this great country, but still they are not being accepted. Many people, just like Warren, believe in equal rights, so I feel that LGBT people should be allowed to marry one another and not be persecuted for it.
Yes, times are changing. Blacks thought that they would never be equals in our country, but look at our country today. We have a black president, we have many well-known black professional athletes, we have many well-known black actors and actresses and so on. African Americans have fought for years and are finally being treated equally. I feel with time, people in our nation will begin to treat the LGBT community better and make them feel more comfortable in our nation. Yes, I do believe it will take a while for this to happen, but with time and perseverance I feel like the LGBT will be able to be accepted in more states throughout our country.
It is has been said that many heads are better than one. A single viewpoint or sole idea is the same thing without the other viewpoints being heard. In the past, this country has highly limited itself to one side. Whatever political party is voted into office, regardless of whether it is democrats or republicans, only represents the interests, concerns and viewpoints of its people. The other side of the spectrum is ignored for the most part, and ideas are limited. It is very evident from the past administration of President Bush that he did not surround himself with a cabinet and people of diverse viewpoints and political backgrounds. Instead, he limited himself to an administration in which he would find support of his policies. Looking back on his success or rather lack thereof, one can see that this tactic is obviously not very efficient and what is best for the United States. Bush was not alone in this approach; this has been done by many presidents that have come before him. Yet, today it seems that it is time for the workings of the government and presidency to begin to change and Obama is taking that first step.
Acting on his promise to hear out all perspectives even opposing ones, Obama is changing the course of the executive office. He is not limiting himself to only hearing the viewpoints of his supporters. Instead he is “bringing everyone to the table” or rather truly involving the other side in the decision making process. Unlike previous presidents, he is not just acting like he wants to hear what all citizens want and believe. This was really shown by his interaction with a man’s who viewpoints are controversially different then his, Robert Warren. Warren’s take on same-sex marriage is not what the majority of the people that voted Obama into office believe. Therefore, Obams’s relationship with Warren is not based on similar preferences meaning he really wants his policies to be represented by the entire population.
Although I don’t agree with Warren’s take on same-sex marriage I still support Obama’s efforts to listen to all opposing viewpoints. More specifically, when Warren mentions that the structure of marriage between a man and a woman has been in place for 5000 years, he uses this fact to justify his viewpoint to be the correct one. However, marriage 5000 years ago was not the way it is today. Men had many wives and there were many arranged marriages at very young ages. The whole idea of marriage was seen differently because people got married for different reasons rather than love as many do today. Given this fact marriage is in fact not the way it was 5000 years ago, it has changed just like it can today.
Although I disagree with the opinions and viewpoints of Rick Warren, I believe Obama is in fact doing the right thing by “bringing him to the table”. I think it sets a good example for the entire country that people of strongly opposing views can be in the same room. This country is made up of millions of people who believe in very different things. Most of us can be very stubborn about our views. But issues such as racism and stereotyping will never be resolved unless people from both sides are able to come together. Everyone has to have his or her opinion heard before a change can be made and we can move forward. By inviting Warren to give a prayer at the Presidential Inauguration, our brand new president is attempting to set a precedent for us. Instead of holding a grudge, he is welcoming the preacher with open arms. He is saying that even though the two men disagree on the topic gay marriage, it doesn’t mean they cannot associate with each other. On a smaller scale, everyone has friends who they disagree with on subjects, some subjects more important than others. There is no reason you can’t disagree with someone and still respect them. Both Americans are putting their differences aside and meeting for an important occasion. This is what Obama wants for the entire country. I can sympathize with Obama’s angry supporters, seeing as the man they just voted into office to bring change is now eating dinner with the devil. As far as the 52 percent of Californians against gay marriage, I really don’t know how significant that number is. During the years of segregation, I’m assuming the majority was against giving rights (the rights they deserved) to African Americans. We could look back on this situation twenty years from now and say, “Wow, how could there be such a large percentage against gay marriage”. But for now those people must understand that this is the only way to truly get this country to where they want it to be. If you cannot stand to listen to the views of your enemies, than why should they give your opinion a chance? If you can’t respect another’s opinion, then they will not respect you. Obama sees the big picture and is taking the necessary steps to move this nation forward. He is concerned, not only with breaking the barrier for African-Americans, but also for any group of people not getting the rights they deserve. As the blog stated, Obama is truly the first president to act as a unifier. I can’t wait to see what else he is going to do during his presidential campaign.
In today’s society, I think that “bringing everyone to the table” is really important. President Barack Obama supports this and I think he is making a huge statement by displaying his attitude toward this idea. Showing the United States that he respects all people’s opinions whether they parallel his own or are the complete opposite shows that he is trying to unite everyone and make a change. Some people may have been offended by Obama’s action to invite Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the inauguration because they voted for Obama and believe what he supports, not Warren’s beliefs. But if looking at the big picture would you really want a president that was holding a grudge against someone because a situation from the past? Or a president who was not trying to understand everyone? Obama is doing just that. He is making a change by looking at issues from all perspectives. He is showing his fellow citizens that he respects people’s views regarding of if they are not the same as his own. I understand why thousands of LGBT people and their supporters were offended but in the same respect Rick Warren is not the president, Obama is. In the end, Obama is making the decisions. I think people need Obama to show them that all opinions should be respected. Regardless if you do or do not agree hearing all views of an issue is important in order to actually have stance. Also, I feel like people don’t realize that even if someone believes in something you don’t it is rude to bash that person’s point of view because it is a belief. There is no right or wrong opinion because if you have faith behind it then it doesn’t matter. It is also interesting to note the amount of faith people have in our new president. Of course most people want to be optimistic when we have a new leader and hope for everything to be fixed yadda yadda yadda. And I think Obama does have a lot in store for us and that he will change a lot of things, and for the better. I think it is obviously to say that so many more eyes are on him because of his ideas to change and especially because he is our first black president. But I find it comforting knowing although our president is younger than most he is very intelligent and has big goals. I think this specific incident with Rick Warren just shows how mature Obama is, and how he really is going to change the United States. But now we have to think is Obama going to stick to this notion of bringing everyone to the table, or will he just pretend he is listening to everyone’s opinion? I think that only time will tell and whoever happens to be at the table to judge.
Often times, “bringing everybody to the table” can be a lot more difficult than it sounds. In my opinion – not to sound like a cynic – it’s just human nature. As a species, it’s become a sort of trademark of every wartime or genocide situation we’ve created in recent history: it’s much easier to battle or gain support against a faceless or dehumanized enemy. In politics, it’s analogous to creating slanderous, trash-talking campaign commercials, rather than having a civil, face-to-face debate or discussion. I feel as if people have found it safer for their credibility to point fingers from a distance, rather than risk embarrassment face-to-face.
Unfortunately, this reluctance to sit down “at the same table” just fuels an unproductive cycle that proceeds very slowly towards progress. Compounding the problem is fear. It’s no mystery that it’s natural to fear what’s different, although, more often than not, it’s not that simple. When one is so adamantly rooted in their personal beliefs, fear can prevent them from maintaining an open mind; fear of being proven wrong, fear of God, or perhaps fear of rejection or persecution – social, political or otherwise. Regardless of the source, it’s a very powerful force that can subconsciously keep us from opening our minds to new ideals, beliefs and principles.
In my opinion, Obama and his administration sent a powerful message by inviting Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer. Obama and Warren share opposing views on certain issues, and many of Warren’s beliefs take issue with a significant portion of Obama’s followers. By choosing Warren anyways, President Obama sent the message that he is mature and intelligent enough to defend his point of view, but listen to others with an open mind. This is the type of progressive thinking we need in a leader.
On a more positive note, I think President Obama’s openness is what made him such a remarkable candidate. It takes an incredible amount of maturity to invite your adversaries, opponents or even worst enemies for an open discussion, especially when you know your firm personal beliefs will come under attack. This sort of bravery and maturity on a leader’s behalf instills a great amount of confidence in their followers, and I believe it’s exactly what we need to head towards a reunited America. President Obama’s inauguration speech serves as a perfect example; he addressed not only the American public, but to the world at large, and made it clear that he would consider everyone when making decisions to reshape American and international policy. While we have heard similar, false promises from presidential candidates in the past, I firmly believe that Barack Obama will make good on his promises, and that he has the potential to be one of the most influential political figures the world has and will see in a long time.
I really believe in Obama’s ability to unite the people of the United States because you can sense how much he wants it. He is a minority, working in the most powerful position in the country if not the world. He also knows that tons of voters came out on Election Day to vote for him with the hope of his change and they know he can do it too, that’s why the optimism for the government is probably at the highest it’s been in years. Therefore, since he has fought for his right as a man with black ancestry to make it to the top, and break down so many walls and barriers, he will fight just the same for those who have attributes that they can’t escape from either, gender, color of your skin, sexuality, etc.
The history of the United States shows many times when the public and society have trouble accepting things that are foreign or unknown to the normal. For years, and still sometimes today, being a woman was to be dumber, lesser, than her male counterpart but that myth has obviously been proved to be wrong. And again race was a deciding factor in the life you would lead because some were supposedly better than others, well looks like that theory was incorrect too. So now we have reached the issues on sexuality, and if a marriage between two people of the same gender is allowed. Well I don’t know when the bible became the play book for the United States of America, because it shouldn’t be. The crazy Christian activist groups that are trying to sway the country have no business in the conversation. Does no one remember the whole deal about separation of church and state? If you don’t like gays, lesbians, or transsexuals get over it, they are people with emotions and lives just like straight people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in this country but since when did opinions, and interpretations of the bible become fact? Until it can be proved to me that God doesn’t want “his children” to marry the same gender, and be happy then maybe you’ll have a case but until then just let it go.
So what I expect from Obama, when he brings everyone to the table, is not to make everyone believe in, hope for, or love gay marriage, but I know he will show the public that it is not a godless, horrible act that needs to be suppressed. He will make it so the country and the world accept that it’s not bad to be homosexual, and someday everyone will maybe believe in it, hope for it and love it.
Although it is important that opposing views are represented I do not necessarily know if it was the best idea to have Warren at the Inauguration. Even though his ideas should be “brought to the table” eventually, I do not really think this soon was necessary. Especially since Obama is aware that many of his supporters are minorities and that a man like this would most likely upset them. On the other hand this could also show that Obama is being honest from the start and already making sure that even the opposite beliefs of his own are shown. Even though he may have had pure motives, it may have been hard for minorities to see his reasons for having a man like this speak.
I personally do not agree with Warren’s views on gay marriage. Although I do not hold the same views, I do think that it is a good thing Obama is showing the various types of people out there. Often times we know that each person has different opinions, but it can be easy to forget when we are only hearing the arguments of one side. In order to create more understanding and eventual compromise, all perspectives need to be taken into account.
The scary thing is, there are a great deal of people that actually agree with Warren. In this way Obama is just being real and representing what we are actually dealing with today, instead of trying to pretend we live in an ideal world. If I were him I may not have chosen to start showing such opposing views so early, but at the same time I guess you can never really start too soon.
It is obviously not easy to please everybody, but if Obama can truly work to make sure all are heard I think it would make the general public content to know they are being noticed and not ignored. A great deal of failure in the past seems to come from saying one thing and doing another or simply not giving everybody an equal opportunity. In a country that emphasizes democracy it is important that we do not become too one-sided and I think Obama is already proving to be what we need. Although Warren may not be the first person we would consider to speak at the Inauguration of Barack Obama, maybe it will actually turn out that he was an excellent choice. Warren was able to contrast Obama and therefore each of their views can be seen even more clearly. If Obama always had those with the same views as him speak, we as a people would not be able to notice the changes that we need to make.
I agree wholeheartedly that throughout the past administrations, a lot of radical or controversial ideologies were swept under the rug and ignored, and I commend President Obama for finally bringing everything out to discuss. However, I’m sure somewhere in his four years (or eight years) as President, Barack Obama will have plenty of time to “bring the issues to the table”. There’s no reason for him to make his inauguration controversial as well. It was supposed to be a joyous and historic occasion, and Warren couldn’t have been the only church-affiliated person Obama had close contact with during his campaign. Growing up in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, I remember seeing Obama supporters lined up on the streets of Provincetown, the “gay capital” of the Northeast. The LGBT community was a huge factor in Obama’s election victory, and I would have felt insulted that a man who stood against everything I believed in was invited to speak at the inauguration of a leader who stood FOR everything I believed in. It was not the time or place for Warren to speak.
The inauguration controversy aside, I think it is a huge step for democracy that Barack Obama is willing to talk about issues like this. Like the blog said, if 52% of Californians are against gay marriage, they need to have that majority represented somewhere, instead of just ignored. The structure of the American political system is based on the people, not based on interest from lobbying groups and the personal beliefs of politicians.
However, from a conservative perspective, I would have excited to see Warren speak because I would feel like it was an olive branch to me and the other people who believe what I believe. Obama could have easily just let Democrats flood his inauguration, but by inviting Warren to speak, it’s almost as if Obama is saying, “I want to listen to what you have to say, and I understand that what you want to say is different from what I believe”. He is showing that he understands the various perspectives on the issue, and wants to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard.
I guess I am kind of having mixed feelings about Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren speak at his inauguration. On one hand, I feel it’s a little insulting to the millions in the LGBT community who worked so hard to get him elected, and it might have been a little premature in his presidency to bring the issues to the forefront right away. However, I also feel that it shows that he really believes in “bringing issues to the table”, and it wasn’t just some silly campaign slogan he had. He presented a strong stance on unity and open discussion, and it will be interesting to see what he does at this “table” of his in the future.
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.
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.
I grew up catholic in a small suburban town. I went to church. I got baptized. I received communion. I got confirmed and went to Sunday school. I was basically taught growing up that same sex couples were bad, and same sex marriages were worse. And they were definitely not allowed. I am not saying my family was like that, they were more open minded and accepted everyone. They thought everyone should have the same rights. I wish I could say the same for the rest of my town, but I can’t. The majority of my town is straight and white. So they are very reserved and close minded. Somewhere along the way though, it just did not make sense. I never really realized why same sex marriages were wrong and not allowed. My personal belief is people are born gay. And so it is not their choice as to who they fall in love with. So why should they be punished for something that is out of their control. And by not being allowed to marry they person you love, is punishing them.
I know some people think they should be allowed unions. But I still believe they should still have the same exact rights to get married. And it should be called a marriage. Most people think unions should be allowed so they have the same rights, but I believe full on marriages should be allowed. I also believe generations from now, people are going to look back and wonder why we were so stubborn and closed minded about the matter, just how we look back and wonder why blacks and whites were segregated. Now blacks and whites have the same exact rights. And hopefully someday I can say the same about same sex couples.
But, back to the actual topic, Rick Warren’s view on gay marriage. While I do not agree with his views, I believe as a minister I would not expect anything else. Most likely he will agree with the definition of marriage, it comes along with his job. I do not agree though, all the criticisms President Obama has received and Warren has received about the choice for him to swear in President Obama. I do not agree with the criticism that President Obama received because his supporters did not agree with Warren’s views. That is ridiculous, isn’t the better news topic the fact of our new president, not the ministers views on certain topics? It is not like they elected him president, no he is just a guy part of the inauguration, and it was President Obama’s choice. So they need to get over it and just be happy we have a new president. And we made history when electing him because he is the first black president. Yes, black, I do not care if he is also half white. Years ago it did not matter if you were 1/32 black, you were still black. Why change it now, and use being white against someone?
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.
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.
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”.
Before this election process, I was never interested in politics whatsoever. Whenever someone would even mention anything related to politics or history I would turn my head or try and change the subject. This is partially due to the fact that I did not have the same views as my parents and other adult role models. I felt that because of this, I would be looked down upon. So therefore, I would shut my mouth so that I wouldn’t have to lie about how I truly and honestly felt about each debate. I now regret not speaking my mind or even attempting to get my point across because it has caused me to be shyer and less opinionated in my past. But now things are starting to change, just like the world is today.
Barack Obama, our new half-black president is all about the change. Before the election, people were originally skeptical about whether he would do as he says and actually keep his promises unlike the many previous presidents of our past. I however believe he will succeed in keeping the promises he makes. I mean, just look at all he has already done for our country and how successful he has been. First of all, Obama's campaign set numerous fundraising records, predominantly in the quantity of minor donations. In addition to this, Obama won the election on November 4th with 365 electoral votes in comparison to his opponent John McCain who only had 173 votes. In addition, Obama supports research for HIV/AIDS as he took an HIV test for “Global Summit on AIDS and the Church” even though he had just recently taken one only a few month prior. And after doing so, he encouraged "others in public life to do the same and not be ashamed of it.” Now this brings me to the next issue: gay marriage.
Many people, including Rick Warren feel that homosexuals should not receive the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, one reason being the transition of diseases. And as a back up statement, he compares the laws to those he opposes in our past. Laws like young girls marrying young such as age ten to older men, incest, and multiple marriage partners. Now honestly, I feel these are completely different than same sex marriage. First of all I feel that homosexuality is mainly genetic, so to ban something that seems natural to that person is just wrong. And the other situations could actually harm our population rather than help it. For instance, if everyone just married within their blood, natural selection would not be able to work properly, and could cause more diseases and issues to form. But jut because Warren feels this way should not matter in regards to Obama, even though they have different opinions. Having different views could actually help in a way that both sides can fully be addressed and examined before making a final decision, which is necessary to make the majority of our population happy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Post a Comment