Patriotism: Dixie Chicks to Rush

This last month has brought a whirlwind of political activity. Bipartisanship as concept has taken a beating. But once again the news of the day has caused us to redefine what we call “Patriotism”. Let’s first go back a few years. In 2003, one of the hottest music groups on the planet regardless of genre the Dixie Chicks, made the following statement while traveling abroad, “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas”. The result was magnificent. They were black listed, ridiculed, called un-American, and label “un-patriotic”. Many pointed to freedom of speech, while others said such comments were wrong. How do the recent events compare to these words?

It was January 25, 2009 and the newly minted President Obama began a serious of daily meetings with the American people and press. Though President Obama inherited one of the worst economic periods in world history, he has made swift and decisive moves since coming into office. In light of these efforts, what was the response by Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk show host? “I hope he fails”, said Limbaugh. I hope he fails? Is not expressing that you hope the new president fails the same as hoping your country fails? In order for a president to fail so must the well being of the country in which he or she presides over. Whether this failing be economic, socially, or morally it is a failing that would have a negative impact on the masses. Where are those who criticized the Dixie Chicks? Where are those who burned albums, canceled shows, and refused to play their music on the radio? I smell hypocrisy.

Questions:

1. Is Rush Limbaugh Patriotic?

2. Why do you think Bi-partisanship is not working?

3. What do you think about the Dixie Chicks now?

Rick Warren, LGBT, and Obama: A walk in the middle

This blog has taken me weeks to write. The reason why is that this topic treads on deep and divisive waters. This topic is one where I depart from my spiritual upbringing and defer to my constitutional upbringing. Being that as it may I must say that my spiritual teachings have taught me not support gay marriages. However, constitutionally I believe civil unions are just and should be defined and regulated by the individual states. Accepting people for what they are instead of what they do is a lesson that many should learn. Either way most of us believe that “all have fallen short” however, the bible is clear in its views on homosexuality. The bible is also clear about other sins that we typically overlook. Either way this is not a biblical blog.

The center of concern at hand is that the LGBT community is outraged by the selection of Rick Warren to give the prayer of invocation at the Presidential Inauguration. The groups feel betrayed by Obama, because Obama‘s pledged support for many of their causes. Warren has always been very critical of the LGBT communities. But is that not his job as a minister of the gospel? I think the problem I have is that some point to the fact that if someone was this outspoken against African-Americans, that African-Americans would be have been up in arms protesting their selection to pray at the inauguration. Is it a sin to be black? Let me answer that. For centuries there was a widely misunderstood text in Genesis that purported that Noah cursed his son Ham. Ham is known as the father of those of African decent. But a closer look at the bible shows that Noah actually cursed Canaan (Genesis 9:25) and as we know the Canaanites were wiped out. So using this text to justify black servitude was wrong, misquoted, misguided and sinister to say the least. There is no mistaking the bible's feelings toward the lifestyles presented in the LGBT communities. The argument that they do have constitutionally granted rights is correct and I encourage them to continue argue with their local states for those rights and recognition. We as americans should assist them in that arguement. I do believe that everyone in this country regardless of sexual orientation should be afforded the same civil rights. I also support a separation of church and state. A better argument would be that there should be no invocation prayer rather than an argument on the philosophies of the deliverer of the prayer.

The selection of Rick Warren is Obama’s attempt to walk in the middle and to bring both sides of the aisle in. It is brilliant. During the dual interview with McCain and Obama it was clear that the crowd was pro McCain and anti Obama. Let’s put this in perspective it is the equivalent of McCain winning the election and asking Al Sharpton to offer the prayer of invocation. That would never happen. So people should look at the gesture for what it is an effort to bring both sides together, unify the country and show both sides that there is some common ground.

What do you think?