It's not shocking that Obama is inviting Rick Warren to do the invocation. It just seems like a rather obvious move to embrace the "new" religious right. I find it interesting that Warren crafted this new "moderate" personality just as his old allies were going down. Maybe it's moderation. But I can't find much daylight between a dude who equates gay marriage with incest and the old right.
Andrew sees the hallmarks of wedge politics. Possibly. But I don't think this is a play for the homophobe vote, in the way Reagan's Philadelphia deal, or Clinton's Sista Souljah deal were plays for the racist vote. A better--if somewhat obscure--parallel is the move by my alma mater, Howard University in 1989, to put Lee Atwater on the board of trustees. Atwater had just finished with Willie Horton, but the administration was willing to overlook that in hopes of gaining the sort of access Atwater offered. Likewise, I'd bet Obama wants access to evangelicals. Atwater eventually withdrew after Howard's students and faculty basically embarrassed the University. The lesson there is obvious, even if the means and times are different.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I get the politics of this. I do.
But I can't help to feel horrible about this. And a little bit nervous. Obama said (almost) all the right things in the campaign and before when it comes to gay rights. But he might start to making decisions regarding gay rights based on political considerations in which we gays end on the losing side.
I certainly will be watching because history so far has been what has been both with Clinton and the 2006-2008 Dem Congress.
One more thing. I was thinking to take the day off on Jan 20th. I am not anymore. It is not a hysteric reaction, I still like Obama a lot. It is that this takes a lot of the joy out of the whole thing for me.
I just don't get all the evangelical ass-kissing that goes on in politics, and I'm a church-going Christian. (Though my church is not one of which Warren would approve. We think gay folks are just fine as God made them.)
The first thing Obama has done to disappoint me. Had to happen, I suppose.
I read that the inaugural comittee invited him, not Obama.
I've seen others saying that this is a way for Obama to cut the legs out from under the Dobsons and Robertsons of the far right, but I just don't see it.
And don't forget, it's not just the LGBT folks who have reason to be pissed about this selection. Warren has called abortion a Holocaust, thereby equating being pro-choice with being a Nazi.
Look, I know Warren isn't being appointed to a position, and that he won't be making policy, but this pick still aggravates me, mostly because I'm a strong believer in the power of symbolic language, and these symbols just rub me the wrong way.
If he had to pick an evangelical preacher, why not Franklin Graham? Not that he's any more gay-friendly, I'm sure, but at least he doesn't seem to be so much a johnny-come-lately, spotlight-seeking opportunist as Warren does.
Oh, and I would have loved to have seen my favorite priest and ex-archbishop, Ted McCarrick, up there. Newark Diocese represent!
Some old crap, different face. You're right, TNC. There isn't much daylight between Warren and the Old Right. Just a whole lot of smiling, and pretending we all get along juuuuuuust fine.
It would have been nice if Obama had picked someone truly progressive. I'm sure Katherine Jefferts Schori could have cleared her schedule. (Not that I would have been holding my breath for that.)
Lisa, I don't get it, either. Dobson has shown himself to be craven, the Palin pick didn't put McCain over the edge, and the evangelical voters are aging and changing their political alignment without nudging from us. I share your disappointment.
I read that the inaugural comittee invited him, not Obama.
That's a bit too clever, I think. Besides, the talking points they released this morning make it clear that Obama is cool with the choice, even if he didn't make it personally.
It's the invocation for God's sake- a prayer, just a few words to open the ceremony. Beside the Rev Joseph Lowery who is delivering the benediction, is the exact opposite of Warren. Take a bathroom break when the invocation is given, mix another bloody mary or something. Protesting over this is silly.
This invitation also bothers me. The fact that Obama and his team could invite Warren tells me they don't see discrimination against LGBT community as a civil rights issue, or they don't see issues of civil rights as importantly as I would wish them to. This is WAY too political for my liking. I'm with Edwardo. The joy of this day will be compromised for me in a big way. Really, how could Obama do this? This guy has said awful things. He believes awful things. He will continue to work for awful things.
"I read that the inaugural comittee invited him, not Obama."
It's highly unlikely that the committee would make such a big and controversial decision without Obama's approval, though.
It would have been nice if Obama had picked someone truly progressive.
To be fair, Obama does have Lowery giving the benediction. Why we're having an invocation and benediction is another discussion altogether.
This choice pains me too, but I must say I am not surprised at all. I supported Obama because he was a good politician, and this is exactly the kind of painful move that I thought was entailed by his vision of "unity." It's a grandiose vision- period. And it's going to suck symbolically at many points. Get used to this-- he thinks he's going to bring America together. Rick Warren crassly moved left after 2006, he brings with him evangelicals under 40 who could fracture the religious right, he gets the cookie.
I just hope Rev. Lowery goes all good crazy on his ass during the benediction.
Well, two points.
First, I wonder how much of this willingness to talk to Rick Warren et al. is because of the linkages to Christianity in black culture. If you are working black political machinery, you are going to churches. Is it that much of a reach to talk to a WHITE pastor as well as black ones?
Second, I would like to hope that the current iteration of JesusMammonHatesAbortionAndFags will eventually fade. Opposition to sex education at any cost. Opposition to gay marriage and work rights. Trickle down economics. These don't really have anything to do with Christ's message. Anything that erodes the hold of JesusMammonHatesAbortionAndFags on modern Christianity is a good thing to me.
I still half expect to see some Obama support to make the arguement that this is some of that famous Obama jujitsu. Warren is invited, and on day one, Obabma overturns the ban on gays in the military and will ask for a repeal of DOMA.
I really have to wonder if many on the left ever paid much attention to what Obama said or did during the campaign, because they seem to be doing a lot of projecting. He isn't for gay marriage, he made that clear. I understand that his positions are quite different than Warren's, but Obama believes marriage is only between a man and a woman.
It's not shocking that Obama is inviting Rick Warren to do the invocation.
What sort of liberal are you? Even Obama's choice of antiperspirant must presently be analyzed in tones of "is this choice of antiperspirant change we can believe in?"
The flipping point on gay rights is close, but we have a few years to go. Reaching out to the sort of people who go to Saddleback--younger, view the church as a social center and a point of organization on causes like the environment or poverty relief--is a good step toward winning enough people over.
BSG slow clap for Rob at 8:47, and off to see if there's any commentary on what a good pick Lowry is.
I'm not going to pretend this is a big deal to me. After all agreeing to the first forum with Rick Warren was a bigger dealer. I also know that with reverend Wright, Obama would have more scrutiny than he'd like so he'd probably like a particularly main stream preacher to do the invocation. I get all this, but I don't like that Rick Warren is being treated like mainstream. Especially after the success of prop 8 and his very clear advocacy for it I think it legitimizes that.
On the other hand, religious leaders in general are bad on gays rights issues. Any pick that was actually gay rights positive would probably read as an confirming a lot of peoples most paranoid suspicions about the "real Obama".
I don't like it, but Obama needs to have someone do an invocation, that person needs to be a religious leader, and religious leaders for their job believe some silly things that aren't true. There's no winning, just degrees of losing.
It was a different venue, but Lowery did show he'd bring it right in Presidents' faces. "I'm gonna behave" ROFL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3j9ltp1qM8&feature=related
It is that this takes a lot of the joy out of the whole thing for me. -- Eduardo @ 8:14
That's exactly how I feel about it. I get pragmatism, unity, etc., and I don't expect Obama to be as liberal as I am. I don't like his position on marriage equality, for example.
But he didn't have to elevate a bigot to a prominent position in his inauguration. Not sure I'll even watch it now. This sucks.
Off to see if there's any commentary on what a good pick Lowery is.
No, there isn't. From the NYTimes, after a few paragraphs repeating how some liberals don't like Warren. Following Warren's invocation, we have:
Aretha Franklin, in the slot usually reserved for an opera singer. She sang for Clinton, but not at the inauguration.
New work by composer Williams played by Mr. Perlman on violin, Mr. Ma on cello, Gabriela Montero on piano and Anthony McGill on clarinet.
Poetry reading will by Elizabeth Alexander. The fourth poet to read at an inauguration.
Dr. Joseph E. Lowery delivers the benediction.
The ceremony will close with the Sea Chanters of the United States Navy Band singing the National Anthem.
Aretha. Poetry. Ma and Montero together. Lowery, a reverend who has spoken in favor of gay marriage--such reverends are not exactly a dime a dozen, folks. And all I hear about is Warren, Warren, Warren. The navy guys are kind of traditional, but all the rest of these things deserved, say, 10% of the coverage being given to "OMG itz lik Warren OMG."
I don't understand how someone can find this essentially meaningless act of symbolism unsettling but be completely unperturbed by his 20 year relationship with wright. Wright>Warren when it comes to both the crazy and odiousness of opinions.
Well I for one was surprised. I understand reaching out to evangelicals, but the invocation at his inauguration? I don't get it. I hate the idea of seeing his face in the history books, on that stage, at the mic, next to Obama. There were so many ways to go on this one, and Warren is just not what I imagined.
Part of me feels like it's a trump card to compensate for the bad press surrounding Rev. Wright..."Forget about all that shit back then....I've come to my senses folks, See? See? See, I've got this Warren guy at my inauguration." I'm sure that's not it at all, but it feels like he's overcompensating for something. And it feels "gimmicky" if that's the right word, which is so not what Obama's about.
I don't get this. An Evangelical movement that supports civil unions (while expressing private dislike of gays) is a hell of a lot better for the cause of equality than an Evangelical movement that thinks any kind of civil rights will Kill Marriage and Lead to The Apocalypse.
I mean it's not like this is a statement of Obama's policy towards gay people. It's a prayer by a guy who has at least some power in one of the country's most anti-gay political segments, who has taken a much more moderate position than he would really have to. That may not be a "wedge" yet, but it's a crack.
I dunno, the reaction to this pick just really reminds me of the arguments the GOP would make about talking to Iran -- "We can't even start talking until you already agree to everything we want."
A morning note from Brother Neibuhr:
"The respective parties are bound to contest elections as if the future of the nation depended upon their victory. But they must nevertheless have a reserve conviction that this is not true, that the nation will be safe in the keeping of either party."
I don't agree with Warren on abortion policy of marriage policy.
I do agree to share the nation with him, and to pray for our leaders with him.
The President-elect's invitation and Warren's acceptance are what living the one United States commitment means. We all have to stretch to make it work. Choosing someone who makes me fully comfortable would have been a mistake.
@zacksback,
Franklin Graham's reference to Islam as a gutter religion means he is right out.
I find it kind of strange that during the campaign we (well, many of us) contended that Rev. Wright's messages & views were his own, not Obama's, even though Obama was a member of his congregation for years. We all understood (I thought) that a person can sit in a church, listen to the preacher, and still hold their own individual ideas about God and religion's role in the public sphere. By the way, does anyone know the views held by Rev. Wright concerning gay marriage or abortion?
On that note Obama has repeatedly discussed his desire to expand upon Bush's religious outreach. As such, reaching out to Warren should come as no surprise. To me this is not a big concern; Obama told the right (religious or otherwise) he would be their President too and that, I believe, is something he is truly committed too. As opposed to the lip service that is 'compassionate conservatism'.
Just my take on the issue. We'll see how he governs when he actually governs; that is what concerns me more than the inauguration or his early cabinet picks.
Rick Warren is not an impressive man. He's not terribly wise, not terribly versed in the bible, and basically your typical American Christian = sturm und drang und eine kleine liebe.
I think Obama's moderation is disappointing those who called for the blood of the GOP for the last 8 years. But he's better than us. And that's awesome.
He doesn't care if one interest group (LGBT) disapproves of another interest group (Christian bigots). All in all, even as a gay man I don't care either.
Why? Because this administration will be about returning government to the world of the rational. If Obama is successful in turning the ship away from a descent into madness and fiction, gay people will inevitably be helped, because being anti-gay is irrational fundamentally.
So I'm quite sanguine about his stitching together of an American quilt. And I wouldn't be surprised in some time in the next eight years I can get married in most places around the country.
Let's not forget: Obama may not agree with religious marriage for LGBT people, but he is also someone with a former career fighting for social justice. He will be our first president ever with this background.
I actually take it back. While I am not thrilled with Warren's take on some social issues, I have to admire his efforts to de-emphasize them as wedge issues. I disagree with some of his beliefs, but they seem to be sincerely held and he doesn't appear to wield them as a bludgeon. From a progressive perspective, I can't really expect him to jettison his beliefs in toto.
Plus, it's not like Obama referred to him as an "agent of intolerance" and then, say, showed up to speak at his university.
The President-elect's invitation and Warren's acceptance are what living the one United States commitment means. We all have to stretch to make it work. Choosing someone who makes me fully comfortable would have been a mistake.
Great points, it is important to remember that the majority of this country have similar views on gay marriage as Warren does. Obama is going to be President of all the nation on January 20th, not just President of Hyde Park, Berkeley or Manhattan.
This isn't a shock, or even a surprise, but it still makes me unhappy.
We all have to stretch to make it work
Well, I see how I have to stretch, and how my gay friends have to stretch, but how does Rick Warren have to stretch?
Giving an invocation does not equal setting policy, I guess.
Okay, you guys are turning me around:
"Aretha. Poetry. Ma and Montero together. Lowery, a reverend who has spoken in favor of gay marriage--such reverends are not exactly a dime a dozen, folks. And all I hear about is Warren, Warren, Warren. The navy guys are kind of traditional, but all the rest of these things deserved, say, 10% of the coverage being given to "OMG itz lik Warren OMG."
"I mean it's not like this is a statement of Obama's policy towards gay people. It's a prayer by a guy who has at least some power in one of the country's most anti-gay political segments, who has taken a much more moderate position than he would really have to. That may not be a "wedge" yet, but it's a crack."
"Obama told the right (religious or otherwise) he would be their President too and that, I believe, is something he is truly committed too. As opposed to the lip service that is 'compassionate conservatism'."
My knee jerk reaction was off the mark, maybe childish. You guys are much more sensible, and I can't help but agree.
Warren, like Graham, is perhaps intoxicated by his proximity to power, which leads him to excuse Bush on so many things.
Perhaps by publicly co-opting Warren and giving the addict what he craves, Obama is making it much harder for Warren to make a public stand against any pro-gay action taken by Obama.
But it's probably just a symbolic move, which doesn't really do damage either way.
I had the same knee-jerk, Tessa. I was glad to be talked down, too. (I think Sully could benefit from having comments. Maybe he wouldn't come off as so strident. Or so obsessed with body hair.)
I think the symbolism is more important than the politics. Obama demonstrates that he can have a positive, high-profile association with someone with whom he has profound disagreements.
A nice step in the direction of restoring civil discourse.
Thought about this in the shower. Two thoughts; one while shampooing, the other while conditioning:
9 out of 20 people voted for McCain/Palin. Obama is their president too.
If McCain had been elected and made an equivalent gesture, they right would be up in arms, and the left would be praising his equanimity (or coming up with all manner of devious motives.)
I don't really have much to say besides this: This is one of the best comment threads I've come across in a while. It's obviously a very touchy subject and the commenters have raised the level of discourse.
This is why I keep coming back.
What I find frustrating, is that for 8 years, anyone who put forward any social views contrary to the administration was labeled outside the mainstream, San Fran liberal, etc.... Americans were getting essentially spit on by their leadership. Now that the same people that were getting the shaft worked their hearts out to elect someone who represents them, we're rewarded by having to pander to the same individuals who did the spitting. I'm not saying that the right needs to be shut out of the white house, but I just don't understand the reason to pander to someone who states that my pro-choice beliefs are equivalent of being a Nazi sympathiser.
Too many people are looking at how liberals, progressives, whatever, were completely shut out over the last 8 years and thinking, our turn!
Bush was a horrible, terrible, very bad, disastrous president. What I am not looking for is my shot at our own little Democratic version. Warren being there, symbolically at least, says that while the two men disagree strongly on some issues, and have made their positions clear, they feel that they are capable of putting their differences aside to work together on issues where they do share some common ground.
The days of "no soup for you!" for all who don't fall in line lockstep with every single position may be ending. I for one am glad. It's a good thing when more than 50.000001% of the country can find something to like (and to dislike) about their president.
Folks ought to read The Atlantic's long article on Rove from a couple of years back. The big take away is that there's a lot of horse-trading in politics, and you can't even hold power, let alone govern effectively without engaging the opposition. Rove's "Republican lock-step" theory of government failed his country and failed his party too.
And as long as I'm commenting, this whole prayer thing bugs me. I didn't like it in the locker room when I played HS football, I didn't like it at commencement, I don't like it at inaugerations. Fucken thumb in the eye and reminder that those of us with minority beliefs have to keep our guns oiled and our powder dry. That goes for Pastor Saddleback or any of these lefty pastor somebodies you all are tossing around.
It's not about the lefties getting theirs. However, there should be a recognition of the coalition that propelled Obama to victory. The people who volunteered their time and money. The people that pastor Warren has directly insulted and demagogued are a very large part of that coalition. It doesn't mean we have to insult him back or shut people like him out, but he shouldn't have such an elevated status bestowed upon him either.
@PhillyGuy
Look, I know what it's like to live in fear, doubt and hope; and to try and divine from every gust, puff and shift what the weather is going to be like next week. ("He invited Pastor Saddlefuck!!! What does that mean for SSM and DADT?!?")
But hey zoos crisco, if I can swallow watching my president take office in the name of Jesus for 24 fucking years, maybe you all can just chill the fuck out about this Saddlefarce guy, and actually put energy into making sure something happens on SSM, DADT and whatever else are the issues that actually effect you.
And of course, keep your guns oiled and your power dry.
@DoctorJay,
Warren is definitely stretching.
There are Christian conservatives arguing that voting for Obama will send you to hell, and a few arguing that Obama is the antichrist.
Warren is standing up against that whole faction.
He's going to shake up millions of people who like his books and sermons, and some of them are going to deliver wave upon wave of criticism, fussing, boycotts, and other noise.
"It's not about the lefties getting theirs. However, there should be a recognition of the coalition that propelled Obama to victory."
I would argue that it's not even really about Obama. It's about the Democratic party, and what the party supposedly stands for. Of course Obama is the president of the whole country, even the people who didn't vote for him. And of course a lot of independents and Republicans voted for him too. He wouldn't have won otherwise. I understand all that. But he is also, whether he likes it or not, the standard-bearer of the Democratic party now.
That's why I find the argument that lefties or progressives should have known better than to expect certain things from Obama, or to be disappointed in his actions because he was pretty clear about his intentions during the campaign etc etc to be disingenuous. It's impossible to find a candidate who completely mirror our positions on all issues. People vote for the candidate who is the closest to their position and world view. For a progressive of a leftie, who else would you vote for, except for the candidate of the Democratic party? (I'm discounting irrational voters who still think voting for third party candidates will make a difference). It's not about being disappointed with Obama, or demanding things he never promised anyway. It's about holding him, and the Democratic party, to the things and ideals they stand for.
Bush was a horrible, terrible, very bad, disastrous president. What I am not looking for is my shot at our own little Democratic version. Warren being there, symbolically at least, says that while the two men disagree strongly on some issues, and have made their positions clear, they feel that they are capable of putting their differences aside to work together on issues where they do share some common ground
Seriously. As gratifying as it might be in the short term, if the Democrats take the role of adults contra the petulant-teenager of the GOP over the last decade, they're going to be in charge for a long time, and it will be good for the country to boot.
Acting like the natural governing party will sometimes mean being magnanimous.
It's a shame that Dr. Lowery's choice to give the benediction has been lost in all the hyperbole, hyperventilating, and hysteria surrounding Rick Warren's selection. Dr. Lowery supported Obama's candidacy when his other civil rights peers were lining up behind Hillary Clinton. Let us not forget that it was considered almost foolhardy to support a skinny guy from Chicago over the vaunted Clintons.
On a personal note: Thanksgiving is the one holiday where my Mom can count on me to claim my place at the family table. I share that table with some evangelical family members who proudly voted for McCain. Because family ties run deeper than political affiliations, I choose to focus on those things we have in common rather than those things that make me want to choke them into submission. Perhaps we can do that with Warren. (I'll just add that I'm Black so that will give you deeper insight into the struggle I have in fighting that choke impulse!)
Tony C, I'm with you man. I'm not exactly religious, so that's a whole separate topic for a whole separate day. My point isn't that Obama should pander to the base, but he shouldn't validate the fringe that hates him either. So while this Warren dude might come off moderate, he's still on the moderate end of the fringe that will never support his policies. Whatever, I can get over it, assuming it helps O accomplish things once he's in office. He's proven us wrong before.
There shouldn't be an invocation or benediction for a federal event in the first place.
That said, I voted for a guy who wouldn't just be the President for a segment of the population, even if I don't agree with that segment or they think I'm the scum of the Earth or whatever.
Coalition building at this stage of the game is important because the Republican party and conservative movement have been in power for nearly 40 years. That's just not going to change with a flip of a switch.
I wrote a long piece about this on my blog and I hate to toot my own horn but it's not shabby and worth a look.
http://hedonistperspective.typepad.com/hedonist_perspective/2008/12/hedonist-perspective-this-rick-warren-thing.html
Honestly, I'm not happy about this, but I don't see it as the end of the world. But I think the reason this is being cited as such a big deal is that it conforms to the preconceived notions of a certain set of the LGBT community - that Obama does not really take gay rights seriously, will throw them under the bus if needed, and will not fight as hard for them as Clinton would have. I personally think that is bogus, but there were a lot of gay Clinton supporters who will be convinced to the day they die that Clinton would have done more for them (see, e.g., the comments about Prop 8).
In that light, I think it's interesting to ask the rather academic questions of (a) would Clinton also have asked Warren to pray at the inauguration and (b) would the LGBT community have been as upset by it? My guess is that the answer to (a) is yes and (b) is no. Though I could be wrong.
As an atheist, though, what really grinds my gears about this whole thing is that we are letting these crazy preachers onto the public stage to begin with. I didn't like Wright, I don't like Warren. But I don't think I'll see a day when someone who is willing to call out the religious crazies is seen as a credible candidate for president. *sigh*
Business as usual in the White House--evangelical Christianity, which by definition is the most exclusionary form of Christianity. I've never much cottoned to this part of Obama's politics, and I find the selection of Warren for the inagural invitation a slap in the face of all those who are not Christians, those in the lesbian and gay community, and above all, those who believe that a separation between church and state is an absolute gaurantee of the US Constitution. People's religion ought to be a private deal, not something to impose upon Americans who voted for someone who over and over and over promised a kind of inclusion that such a selection diminishes. Obama needs to hear it over and over and over; pandering to know nothing Christianism is unacceptable in 2008 for a President of the United States.
Warren is problematic for liberals on a number of issues beyond gay marriage and abortion. For me, he is straying too far from the church into the realm of politics, with all of the interviews and statements on things like assasination and torture.
I understand why BO would want someone like Warren for bridge-building, but why not Bill Hybels from Chicago, who is also well-known and regarded in the Evangelical crowd, and who generally steers clear from politics and policy? Hybels has the "street cred" for religious folks, but is more reasonable and dare I say liberal than many others, without coming off as a liberal. Though he did give a magnificent sermon several years ago decrying basically all forms of war, including US-led wars, as against God's word.
"Though he did give a magnificent sermon several years ago decrying basically all forms of war, including US-led wars, as against God's word.'
Well, that's a knock againsts him right there.
Obama wouldn't want to risk being associated with reflexive pacifists or surrender-at-all-cost wing of his party. That's a bigger sin in the eyes of serious, pragmatic people.
@gaucho, tessa, Dan, oh heck, everybody...
you guys rock. Because TNC rocks, and attracts you. I've totally changed & deepened my thinking about politics with this thread, and felt warmed as well. Gaucho says:
(I think Sully could benefit from having comments.)
But Sully doesn't have TNC's commenters. The commenting community is built by the blogger. The quality of the comments here doesn't mean Sully or whatever other blogger should have comments. It means TNC is a great professor. Thanks, all.
Embrace the bigoted right-wing evangelicals and lose choicers and gays? Well he'll learn real quick that right-wing evangelicals won't go for him no matter what but that he can lose support that he can't get back.
It's a lose-lose proposition.
And if this is a big tent thing where is Farrahkhan? Where are the leaders of the various racist movements? Seems like reaching out only means to right wing evangelicals and seems like they don't have to reach back.
Please explain to me why Obama "needs" to court the rabid, intellectually-shallow, willfully-ignorant segment of our population that follows a clown like Warren in the first place?
Do these crackpots feel marginalized because their hate-filled rhetoric pisses others off?
These asshats didn't vote for Obama in Novemeber, they're not going to vote for him in 2012 and they're not going to support a single initiative he puts forth that isn't slaved to their miniscule and tightly focused vision of the world.
Who is he appealing to here? People who think the word compromise means surrender of their deeply-held -- no matter how intellectually daft and empty -- beliefs? People who consider it A-OK to use bastardized scripture references to deny civil rights, to deny simple humanity to another?
Why are these people being courted when their aim is destroy the very fabric that holds this nation together -- Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
So why is this hate-monger going to be giving a prayer at a secular event? I don't care what stripe of theist he claims to be, his God and your God and anyone else's God belongs in your church, not at our nation's secular functions.
If not, he would probably been invited to the prayer breakfasts she's involved in.
Because they're Americans. And cutting them out of the debate may have been the M.O. of Republicans, that's not MY M.O.
The Atwater precedent is fantastic - thanks for pointing it out. A perfect example of an effective civil disobedience protest action. The right result and fast too. Will help focus the fury I feel as a longtime Obama supporter at this choice into effective protest.
> In 1989, Howard gained national attention when students rose up in protest against the appointment of then-Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater as a new member of the university's Board of Trustees. Student activists disrupted Howard's 122nd anniversary celebrations, and eventually occupied the university's Administration building.[15] Within days, both Atwater and Howard's President, James E. Cheek, resigned.
I am not in favor of the message Rick Warren sends about exclusivity of the gay community. His 'moderation' is at best a joke. The things he spouts about gay marriage, incest, polygamy, well, all of that is a cop out and an argument full of fallacies. But. . .
I think one of the most dangerous ideas that Warren (and other 'new generation' non-denominational evangelists) is preaching is the inevitability of prosperity for those who pray and believe. His insistence-along with others like Joel Osteen-that all things are possible with TRUE faith, belief and prayer is dangerous. He and others insist that riches are waiting for those who just believe and pray the hardest, for those who 'truly' love and set their faith in God.
This type of preaching is dangerous in numerous ways; it develops a sense of entitlement for those who are truly saved, whether this entitlement takes the form of money or opportunity.
The idea that prosperity is designated for some and not all is problematic and I think one of the more insidious parts of his ministry.