Actually, he's not a religious figure. He's a celebrity impresario whose circus happens to be called a 'church'.

He doesn't have "spiritual credibility": he has a sufficiently homogenised message that allows him to avoid treading on denominational divides while embracing the kind of safe, common prejudices that make you part of the fuzzy platitudinous world of American celebrity god-bothering.

In that sense, by having him on the podium on Inauguration Day, you tacitly endorse those prejudices as all-American. Turn him into the next Billy Graham, and he's going to be a pain in the neck for perhaps the next 30 years.

i'm pretty sure that "spiritual credibility" is an oxymoron.

and a nice sharp pointy point an that!
But I mostly agree with pseud up there- he's mostly a celebrity.

what pseudonymous said eloquently.

This comment at Balloon Juice says it perfectly, and sums up what so many liberals are missing:

If you followed the internal politics of evangelical and fundamentalist leaders, you’d see this for what it is—not an elevation of Warren, but a slap in the face of the old guard leaders like Dobson and LaHaye. They’ve been fighting to see who gets to be the spokesman for the movement, and lately it’s been a tie. Obama just broke it.

And let’s be clear, there is a difference between those groups. Warren may not be progressive on gay rights, but he’s been out front on a number of issues of global justice—traveling from Davos to Damascus, and working hard to get rank-and-file evangelicals invested in “creation care” environmentalism and the fight against global HIV/AIDS.

If he were put in charge of HHS or listened to on gay policies, I’d be pissed. But what Obama is doing here isn’t that. It’s a move that marginalizes the worst on the religious right, elevates a guy who’s more progressive than most religious leaders on a number of issues, and earns him some moderate cred at the outset.

If Obama sells out on the progressive promise in actual policy, I’ll be in the streets protesting with everyone else. But if his “selling out” is having a fairly moderate, popular evangelical give the invocation at the inaugural—when large sections of this country still worry Obama’s a scary evil Mooooslim—then who gives a flying fuck?

"Warren is a kinder, gentler Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt and blue jeans with better P.R. ..."
http://blog.au.org/2008/12/18/inaugural-mistake-rick-warren-is-the-wrong-man-for-obamas-swearingin/

Ezra seems to want one of two options:

1. Evangelicals cease to exist.
2. Evangelicals all of a sudden turn into liberals.
3. We save the world without any support from moderate evangelicals.

I, and Obama, would choose #4. work with evangelicals on critical issues like the environment and poverty, while agreeing to disagree on social issues. Any significant gesture made by Obama to Warren would have pissed off liberals, whether it be at the inuaguration or some other time. There was no getting around it.

We will win this in time. It just takes generational turnover. In the meantime lets all work to make sure that there is a civilized world left for that generation to inherit. I am scared shitless about losing it, and that thought needs to be uppermost in our minds at all times. It is our top priotity, and that is why I am glad to see Obama tackling the toughest issues by reaching out to Warren. I'm sorry, but gay rights just isn't one of them right now.

In that sense, by having him on the podium on Inauguration Day, you tacitly endorse those prejudices as all-American.

Well, I believe the state referendums, laws and constitutional changes in the states demonstrate that is, indeed, the case.

In every case that comes to mind when American voters have an opportuninty to express their will about homosexual 'marriage', they soundly reject it.

Protecting and promoting marriage as it has been understood for the last five thousand years in all geographical locations of the earth, across all religious platforms from Christianity to Judism to Islam, is truly All-American.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to argue otherwise. Those who try simply don't want this to be true.

Picking up on the comment that nathan copied across from John Cole's:

I think choosing Warren says more about the state of American Christianity, Inc. than Obama. That's to say, one which has a wide audience by being doctrinally homogenised to the point of being fast-food religion.

I suppose my point would be that there are lots of progressive ministers who have no fame whatsoever, but would spark interdenominational whining if elevated to the podium. A social-justice Catholic would presumably piss off the evangelists, or have Lou Dobbs spitting about those darn brown folks, and so on.

But to have Rick Warren's celebrity, religion more or less goes out of the window, and his issues with Teh Ghey or his love of America's military dick-swinging really just reflects low-level national gut-rumbles. In that sense, "sprirituality" is a very dilute concoction.

If it's a way of making the Dobbos and LaHayes scream, then that's perhaps a silver lining. And evangelicals aren't going to be Raptured away any time soon. We're dealing with gut, generational prejudice here, just as the older generation has been dealing with its gut prejudices on race.

Billy Graham grew up in a religious culture defined by segregation, but outgrew it earlier than most of his peers. But I'm not convinced that Warren, with his nice little media empire, has the courage to confront his gut and the guts of his target audience.

marriage as it has been understood for the last five thousand years

Ah, the historical cluelessness of Vajima never fails to impress.

How much was your bride's dowry? Three longhorn bulls and a sack of corn?

Ah, the historical cluelessness of Vajima never fails to impress.

Wait, are you telling me that there have in fact been religious and cultural traditions wherein marriage was anything but a union for life between one man and one woman? Surely you jest! Surely there has never been such a culture, outside of hippie communes in San Francisco at least.

I'd also be willing to bet that Obama's grand strategy is to completely avoid controversial social legislation, and instead focus entirely on promoting liberal policies on economic and environmental issues. That would mean little legislative progress on gay rights, reproductive rights, gun control.

But if Obama manages bring about a green revolution, save the world from catastrophic global warming, bring the American economy back with green-collar jobs; he will be one of the greatest presidents in history.

On the social issue battles, we have time on our side. For the other ones, we don't.

f you followed the internal politics of evangelical and fundamentalist leaders, you’d see this for what it is—not an elevation of Warren, but a slap in the face of the old guard leaders like Dobson and LaHaye.

That's just delusional. Dobson and LaHaye are old. They're going to die, and everyone knows it. Obama didn't pick Warren to do him a favor, but in a (futile) attempt to curry favor with American Evangelicals.

I like Balloon Juice as much as anyone, but on this issue they know about as much about Evangelicals as Richard Dawkins.

Ezra seems to want one of two options:

1. Evangelicals cease to exist.
2. Evangelicals all of a sudden turn into liberals.
3. We save the world without any support from moderate evangelicals.

I, and Obama, would choose #4. work with evangelicals on critical issues like the environment and poverty, while agreeing to disagree on social issues. Any significant gesture made by Obama to Warren would have pissed off liberals, whether it be at the inuaguration or some other time. There was no getting around it.

One way to get around it would be to not make significant gestures to Rick Warren, especially since there's no obligation to do so.

Further, Evangelicals who do actual work on the issues you mention - as opposed to spending lots of money and posing for photo ops - pretty much tend to stop being Evangelicals. In case people haven't noticed, the number of Christians is shrinking; Evangelical churches are getting what growth they have through "converts" from Mainline denominations, which isn't sustainable in the long run. And while they have lots of kids, most of those kids get out when they can.

But lets do all we can to prolong their outsized influence only because it's still respectable to discriminate against gays. That's a great plan.

maywidge
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html

Rick Warren is our very own American Ayatollah!

On the social issue battles, we have time on our side. For the other ones, we don't.

Who's "we?"
I'm guessing "you" aren't gay or lesbian.

I put one hand on Rick Warren's crotch while pouring a beer down his throat with the other in support of his delivering the invocation.

To all the folks who are saying "calm down, it's just symbolic, it's only politics, etc. etc." -- a part of me agrees with you. But another part of me is sick of always being the bargaining chip in these political games. At the risk of trotting out that widely-reviled metaphor: we gays somehow always seem to be the first ones that get thrown under the bus when it's time to make concessions. And I'm sick of it. Warren is scum, and not merely because he is against gay marriage, but because he sees no difference between a loving relationship between two people of the same sex and pederasty. How do you constructively engage with that? The only way this kind of poisonous stuff ends is when decent people say "I'm not having any more of it," and *mean* it. It's all very well to say "politics is about compromise" when you don't have to live with this stuff day in and day out. Believe me, it wears you down after a while. And while I realize that Obama is no radical on LGTB issues, I though he would do better by his gay supporters than this. Disappointing, if inevitable, I suppose.

I just wanted to say that this is the best reason I've heard yet against this choice. As a member of the Catholic church, I first couldn't see much that was wrong with this. After all, I go to a church that actively disagrees with me on nearly all social issues; it's almost a study in finding common ground. So I didn't meet this decision with much outrage. I thought that Warren could be perfectly acceptable on a spiritual level. But the problem really is, as you said, that he is not a pure spiritual leader; he's a political one. This, I think, makes it far less appropriate. I'd like to think that Obama's team didn't think this one all the way through, which is probably the nicest explanation of their thought process on this. But as Andrew Sullivan said, the proof will, ultimately, be in the pudding. I'm still hopeful that gay people can make some serious steps forward in the Obama administration; If I'm wrong, no one will be more disappointed.

Gay people are understandably upset by this, and I am upset as a non-gay person that they have to deal with second-class citizenship.

But I am more upset that global warming is likely to destroy civilization.

I am more upset that we are staring at a catastrophic depression that will do more harm to human rights than Rick Warren could ever dream of doing.

If obama needs to make alliances with anti-gay rights people to solve this crisis, I support him.

Bash Rick Warren, fine, but don't bash Obama for having his priorities straight.

Also, I don't believe that Rick Warren is scum. My mother had many of the same views until I started working on her. She is the kindest person I know. But grew up in an outmoded belief system, and needed to evolve.

"If you followed the internal politics of evangelical and fundamentalist leaders, you’d see this for what it is—not an elevation of Warren, but a slap in the face of the old guard leaders like Dobson and LaHaye. They’ve been fighting to see who gets to be the spokesman for the movement, and lately it’s been a tie. Obama just broke it."

That's the stupidest thing I've read all year. James Dobson is tossing and turning because he didn't get picked by Barack Obama? Dobson knows his views aren't mainstream, at least not from a Democratic perspective. Warren's pick, by contrast, sends the message that homophobia isn't a problem for us Democrats. Score!

I am more upset that we are staring at a catastrophic depression that will do more harm to human rights than Rick Warren could ever dream of doing.

Fine, then you needn't join in the booing at the inauguration.

Let's be clear, here.

Obama has publicly stated that he doesn't support homosexual marriage.

*And* I believe that Warren served protesters refreshments. He simply disagrees with their agenda.

Obama and Warren have the save views on this.

The path between inviting Rick Warren to give an invocation at your inauguration and solving the global warming and financial meltdown crises is not exactly clear to me. Like I said: I understand that political expediency makes strange bedfellows, which is why, if Obama wants to involve Rick Warren in specific plans for solving global warming or fighting poverty, then by all means, let him do so. But, as others have pointed out, this is a symbolic event and his choice of Rick Warren for this particular job has symbolic significance.
And sorry, but I don't budge from my estimation of the man. He's in his 50's--young enough to know better--and his dislike of gays is not merely passive: he spends time and money on it and encourages others to do the same.

"But I am more upset that global warming is likely to destroy civilization."

And capitulating to the anti-science religious right is a solution?

Make no mistake, Obama does have a grander strategy at play with this selection. As I've told a few of my peers, Obama is one of the shrewdest political operatives to come down the pipe in many a moons. He does not do anything from the position that he holds at any time without a larger strategem at play. I can't say exactly what he is trying to accomplish with this selection ( Outside of a whole lotta speculation and pontification in the blogosphere.) but rest assured, this is the frontal movement. The rear will come later.

I wonder how much calculated thought Obama/Michelle/senior staff put into this choice. With cabinet positions, and dozens to hundreds of senior executive slots to fill, plus orchestrating the transition, I suspect not much discussion occured - and probably rightly so.

I can hear someone saying to Obama, we recommend Warren as an outreach, and Barak, yeah, that'll do.

I hate the choice, but I don't like religion in government in general, so I'd choose someone suitably obscure. But that isn't where Obama comes from.

I sure hope they ask to review his text beforehand. If Warren says something outrageous this will hurt Obama for real on the left. As it is, it's a fuckedup choice that I can easily ignore.

Obama needs an outreach coordinator/advisor from the liberal left to act as the canary on key discisions. He needs a loyal solid base, and the centrists aren't goign to provide that.

All hail the new meme: We don't need to worry about equality and civil rights because, hey, the problem is old people and they're gonna die soon!

Can anyone seriously imagine liberals contentedly accepting the same argument with regard to civil rights in the 1960s: Hey, we don't need to worry about equality, because the problem is crackers, and they're gonna die soon (or become economically irrelevant)?

This is a lazy argument. It tries to elevate demographics into a principled statement of inaction, and, imho, fails badly.

I don't blame people for feeling thrown under the bus, though I wonder, after Donnie McClurkin, how this comes as a surprise to anyone.

...but rest assured, this is the frontal movement. The rear will come later.

Some sort of gay slur? (snark)

The path between inviting Rick Warren to give an invocation at your inauguration and solving the global warming and financial meltdown crises is not exactly clear to me.

Yeah, that one got me too, especiall since Warren's constituency is also the one least likely to even believe in global warming, let alone want to do something about it. They're also the ones most likely to blame people for their own financial troubles rather than endorse progressive spending to help them.

Reaching out to Evangelicals in order to team up them to solve global warming and the mortgage crisis ranks right up there with invading Iraq in retribution for 9/11.

@Jim

The idea that Obama and staff would select the religious figures at the Inauguration without a great deal of thought strikes me as implausible, given the prominence of Rev. Wright in the campaign. He doesn't get a pass on this one for not thinking it through.

OBAMA TEAM TO INCLUDE KLANSMEN AT INAUGURATION
by Scarlet O'Butler - NYT 18 Dec 2008

In a surprising move, surrounded by much secrecy, Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Ca] (who is in charge of a $1.24 million budget for the 56th quadrennial presidential inauguration) announced today that President-elect Obama would host the Grand Wizard of the KKK at the inauguration.

When asked about the mixed messages such a gesture might send, the Senior Senator said "it's sends a message of inclusion that even the dimmest bulb will understand" she went on to say "we want to reach out to all the cracks and crevices in America, even if means looking under slimy rocks". While the Senior Senator distanced herself from the outreach search committee due to her aversion to manual labor, she did offer up "that whatever the search committee found, ought to be included".

When asked what Obama and a head Klansman might do together, she offered that while the two originally planned to drink beer and shoot some hoops, the plan was changed when the Wizard complained that being seen on a basketball court might send the "wrong" message to the KKK members. Instead, the two will sit around and practice knots and finish with a bonfire specifically built by the Grand wizard for the ceremony.

While this meeting might seem alienating to one of President-elect Obama's biggest support groups, it is thought that the political jujitsu of this move should leave Gays who complained about the President-elect including a Preacher who insults gays and wants to deny equal rights...absolutely speechless. So far, the Washington consensus seems to support view, "this as a very clever move that should be seen as "real change" by the American public" a well respected Washington insider close to the administration was quoted as saying.

Also appearing by special invitation to the presidential inauguration will be the Hell's Angels from California, along with assorted Somali Warlords and representatives of the Sudanese Government. For the record Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Ca] was asked if she had personally extended a warm welcome to the Brown Shirt Organization of Greater America, but she declined comment specifically on that saying that "it's a real mixed bag" and "including everybody, regardless of their background had left a lot on her plate...and she wasn't sure if it would come clean in time for the big event"

Ed. note, special thanks to Washington freelance writer John Aravosis who provided background for this story.

This guy should pay taxes.

"The path between inviting Rick Warren to give an invocation at your inauguration and solving the global warming and financial meltdown crises is not exactly clear to me."

I can help with that. Rick Warren is the leading proponent of the "creation care" doctrine in evangelical christianity. It says that christians should care about the environment.

NYTimes:

Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html

By making the symbolic gesture of inviting Warren to speak at the inauguration, Obama is trying to further a coalition to stop global warming.

Someone said "why can't Obama just invite him on plans? Why a big symbolic gesture?"

Obama ain't playing peanuts here. He's going for all the marbles, which is what we have to do at this point. The big gesture will do more to increase support, and get people talking.

I repeat: worldwide economic and ecological catastrophe will do more to harm human rights through war and social unrest than a 1,000 rick warrens could ever do.

Am I the only one here who sees the parallels here between liberals on Rick Warren, and conservatives on Iran?

In both cases there is this weird argument that symbolic gestures of unity equal "surrender". And that dialogue with our adversaries is somehow elevating them.

This is why I have always been a supporter of Obama. This is what he means by change.

When I was doing the phone banking and such for the campaign, I worked along side with people that differed greatly on topics like abortion and guns and quite a few other things. We all wanted Obama to win, though. We wanted it badly, and we worked hard together.
I think about this alot when these things like the Rick Warren thing comes up. I'm no fan of Warren's but I can see why it is not a slap in the face.

Obama = change.

Used to be you had to wait for repubs to get power before the gov gave mics to bigots.

Not anymore!

The Iran parallel doesn't hold water. The problem with the conservative argument on Iran is that diplomatic contact is an expected form of interaction between the US and ALL foreign nations. There's no similar expectation that the President will invite ALL religious figures to take an important role in his Inauguration. One (talking with a foreign country) is a normal state of affairs, the other is an honor that few will receive.

Look at it another way:

Imagine that Obama had invited a anti-gay muslim imam to give a prayer at the inauguration. Would liberals freak out about the anti-gay part of his beliefs? I don't think so. People would look at it as a great show of unity.

I don't understand why Rick Warren is much different. Both he and the muslim imam come from outmoded religious cultures that need to grow the fuck up. But why are we willing to celebrate unity in one case and not the other?

"The Iran parallel doesn't hold water. The problem with the conservative argument on Iran is that diplomatic contact is an expected form of interaction between the US and ALL foreign nations. There's no similar expectation that the President will invite ALL religious figures to take an important role in his Inauguration. One (talking with a foreign country) is a normal state of affairs, the other is an honor that few will receive."

But liberals would be pissed off at ANY gesture or honor bestowed on Warren, whether it was the inauguration or something else. Are you saying that anybody who is anti-gay should not receive any recognition or gesture of unity, no matter how good there work on other issues?

@Anon

I can't speak for all liberals, but I'd have no problem putting him on some blue ribbon Pres commission on AIDS or global warming. Celebrate unity where there actually is unity of purpose sounds reasonable to me.

So the argument here is that if we don't grant Warren the honor of giving the invocation, he's going to take his marbles and go home, global catastrophe be damned? Sorry, I don't buy it. If the future of the earth truly depends on Mr. Warren to such an extent we're doomed. Nathan: You posit these "creation care" folks as group of people who want to avert global catastrophe but are so selfish that they must be given a voice in matters which specifically have nothing to do with global warming or fiscal policy. If true, than their commitment to creation care doesn't seem reliable. And if not (the point I'm inclined towards) then not inviting Warren makes no difference. It's all very well to proclaim that Rick Warrent's invitation is a noble sacrifice you're willing to make when you have no skin in the game, so to speak. But don't begrudge those of us who do.

Can anyone seriously imagine liberals contentedly accepting the same argument with regard to civil rights in the 1960s: Hey, we don't need to worry about equality, because the problem is crackers, and they're gonna die soon

The situation that gay people are in in 2008 is very far afield from the situation that black people were in in 1960. This comparison is absurd.

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, for some reason Obama has yet to be given credit for his subtlety and foresight. This is a guy who thinks at least three moves ahead and, when circumstances warrant, knows how to spring the steel mousetrap on opponents, as past opponents have discovered to their chagrin.

james, you twist my argument beyond recognition.

Its very simple: to solve our enormous problems I think we need to make alliances among a variety of folks, some of whom have terrible beliefs on some issues. Rick Warren giving the invocation creates an enormous symbolic gesture to the green evangelical community (they are not demanding anything, where the hell did you get that idea?). There will be more of these kinds of alliances, that will piss off different groups with legitimate greivances. But we have to keep our eye on the big picture: which is saving the planet.

I understand people feeling uncomfortable and angry with the idea of Rick Warren at the inauguration. But I think that you should at the same time be able to at least acknowledge the big picture purpose, which you seem unable to do. Warren speaking at the invocation is not going to hurt gay rights at all. How does this damage the "skin you have in the game?" It really just damages your feelings, which sucks but is a little like worrying about denting your car as you flee from the godzilla of global climate change and peak oil.

But the reason I bring this up is that will be more of these issues in the future. Warren by himself doesn't matter that much to solving global warming, but if liberals and conservatives continue this pattern of putting social issues over the big picture, we are truly fucked. We need to be willing to worry less about these social issues that divide us, and try to save the fucking planet.

JimPortlandOR: "Obama needs an outreach coordinator/advisor from the liberal left to act as the canary on key discisions. He needs a loyal solid base, and the centrists aren't goign to provide that."

you drastically overestimate 1) the power 2) the opposition of the "liberal left." Obama has been traveling in far-left progressive circles for his whole life (Hyde Park)... he doesn't need an "outreach coordinator" to tell him how his own friends are going to react. He knows exactly what's he's doing.

The game plan: when politically expedient, stick the far-left in the eye on SYMBOLISM. Call this the Rick Warren maneuver; it'll happen a lot more. Predictably the far-left will throw temper tantrums (but they have no power), which makes Obama look moderate, centrist, bipartisan, inclusive, etc. The far-left also has nowhere to go--how can they ditch Obama over Rick Warren? Not gonna happen. So there'll be no significant opposition.

Meanwhile Obama accumulates political capital--support from moderates/conservatives, grudging support from leftists. Most people like and trust him. Then Obama uses his political capital to end the war in iraq, pass universal health care, pass an economic stimulus plan, overhaul the energy infastructure, repeal DADT, and a slew of other SUBSTANTIVE progressive programs. And what's the base gonna do then? They got run over by the bus for their own goddamn good and they'll know it.

But please, turn up the outrage! Warren maneuvers do not actually, of course, impact real people's lives, but as long as the far-left gets their panties in a knot that's good enough for the game of politics. Remember that Chris Bowers post about how anti-progressive the Obama transition was, which then got picked up in the media? Best fucking thing that happened to the progressive movement since 11/04/08.

JimPortlandOR: "Obama needs an outreach coordinator/advisor from the liberal left to act as the canary on key discisions. He needs a loyal solid base, and the centrists aren't goign to provide that."

you drastically overestimate 1) the power 2) the opposition of the "liberal left." Obama has been traveling in far-left progressive circles for his whole life (Hyde Park)... he doesn't need an "outreach coordinator" to tell him how his own friends are going to react. He knows exactly what's he's doing.

The game plan: when politically expedient, stick the far-left in the eye on SYMBOLISM. Call this the Rick Warren maneuver; it'll happen a lot more. Predictably the far-left will throw temper tantrums (but they have no power), which makes Obama look moderate, centrist, bipartisan, inclusive, etc. The far-left also has nowhere to go--how can they ditch Obama over Rick Warren? Not gonna happen. So there'll be no significant opposition.

Meanwhile Obama accumulates political capital--support from moderates/conservatives, grudging support from leftists. Most people like and trust him. Then Obama uses his political capital to end the war in iraq, pass universal health care, pass an economic stimulus plan, overhaul the energy infastructure, repeal DADT, and a slew of other SUBSTANTIVE progressive programs. And what's the base gonna do then? They got run over by the bus for their own goddamn good and they'll know it.

But please, turn up the outrage! Warren maneuvers do not actually, of course, impact real people's lives, but as long as the far-left gets their panties in a knot that's good enough for the game of politics. Remember that Chris Bowers post about how anti-progressive the Obama transition was, which then got picked up in the media? Best fucking thing that happened to the progressive movement since 11/04/08.

somebody really needs to fix TAP's comment section.

every time i make a post i get a "you entered the little security text wrong" (i didn't!) which means i need to go back and retype it in, which sometimes means a double-post. i'm... outraged!

Raft--

bingo. Sometimes I wonder whether certain elements of the left know how this postmodern game is played and just go along with it. After all, everybody wins; Chris Bowers get attention, Obama gets to look centrist, the entire national conversation is moved to the left, and we (hopefully) get a progressive record of accomplishment. Its a weird, weird game. Used to be, infighting was bad for the party. But now its a good thing? Ah well, whatever works.

I always copy my posts before sending them off to the void....

Yes, Obama knows what he is doing.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/504326.aspx

Pro-Lifers Rip Rick Warren on Obama Invocation

Liberals and gay activists aren’t happy with Barack Obama for choosing pro-life and prop 8 supporting pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inaugural. But pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it.

The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this. Below is but a very small sampling. I can’t reprint all of them but let me just say that pro-lifers are NOT happy with Warren at all.....

so Nathan invents an anti-gay Muslim imam to speak at the inauguration, arbitrarily declares that liberals won't mind, and then uses this pretend fantasy to blast us for hypocrisy.

I wonder what other delusional things you'll accuse people of being hypocritical about?

Will:

Answer the question then. You think there WOULD be a liberal outcry over an anti-gay muslim giving a prayer?

I don't think so. But if you do tell me why?

I really like this email from a right-winger:

"When I first saw this headline, I thought it was a joke. For a man like Rick Warren to give the invocation for a man that has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act is beyond the pale. Moreover, the Orwellian concept of “social justice” with which Pastor Warren is so enamored belongs in the dustbin of history. To the trained ear, “social justice” is nothing but political cover for yet another failed government-run welfare program. I am a Christian trying to live a Christian life, and I feel no guilt for my disdain for the latest civil-rights fad called “social justice.” I do not believe that anyone’s compassion for God’s children must be directly proportional to his or her support for wasteful government programs that do little more than ensure reelection."

Is anybody out there starting to see the point of this? Even a little?

Probably because Obama could have hypothetically picked a legion of Muslim imams who aren't gay bigots?

Or, if Obama really wanted someone who disliked gay marriage, don't pick someone who thinks child rape is equivalent to gay marriage. That's not a necessary part of the package.

The issue is not that Warren doesn't support gay marriage. It's that he thinks homosexuality is equivelant to pedophilia, incest, etc.. This is not about a disagreement on a political issue (which honest disagreement on marriage equality is) but rather someone who hurls disgustingly bigoted insults at gay people. See the difference?

We need to be willing to worry less about these social issues that divide us, and try to save the fucking planet.

Are you that obtuse? Rick Warren is the one dividing us on social issues. We just want equal rights. How is that not clear to you?

Oh, I see. Your plan is to save the planet...for you only. Nice, that.

nathan +1 on all counts.

nathan +1 on all counts.

Ah fuck we're not keeping score are we?

"Imagine that Obama had invited a anti-gay muslim imam to give a prayer at the inauguration. Would liberals freak out about the anti-gay part of his beliefs?"

Yes.

But that's not important. What's important is: you're posing a hypothetical to say, "See, Obama could have pissed off a lot of people with the invocation speaker! As it happens, he chose to piss off the same group that gets shafted every time, but it could have been anyone!" Please try to see how ridiculous that sounds as a bit of consolation.

Jeebus: please stop saying that gay rights are relatively unimportant. We don't just go by median income in determining who gets equal rights; if we did, American women would still be waiting for the vote.

Personally if I was going with an anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion religious figure with some political cachet I would have picked the pope.
Better than Warren on the environment, social justice and war plus a snappy dresser. He may have even let Obama borrow the popemobile for the trip up Pennsylvania Avenue.

Thus, when asking whether Obama should give Warren the most important religious-political honor available, you have to ask whether it's a good thing for Warren to be a more powerful political figure.

First you have to ask, is my premise bullshit?

Is giving the invocation at an inauguration the "most important religious-political honor available?" What about the benediction? Do you remember who gave the invocation four years ago or, say, at Bill Clinton's first inaugural? Has that person, or any invocation-giver, gone on to wield any appreciable power at all as a result of the honor?

Or is it possible that you're puffing up some trivial courtesy (bestowed, to be sure, on an unsavory fellow) into a grave and meaningful occasion for wankery? Bang your spoon long and loud on your high chair and maybe someone will give you a treat.

Picking Warren is a particualrly obnoxious move because there is notm uch question that Obama isn't going to do much at all legislativly for the LGBT community in his first term.

Yeah, he will pick liberal minded judges who more often than not will defend equal rights, but Clinton's gays in the military disaster no doubt cast a long shadow over the Obama adminstration and how fast they want to move on GLBT rights.

We will probably get gays in the military (more like the right of gays currently serving to not live in fearo f being outed) under Obama, but probably not until 2011 or beyond.

I think groups like the HRC understood that and were quite willing to be pragmatic about how much they expected Obama to be able to accomplish right away. But then he goes and pulls the equivalent of shoving a big middle finger in the face of the GLBT community by picking a hipper, younger (he's got a goatee!)James Dobson to have a place of honor at his inaguration. Real classy.

Picking Warren is a particualrly obnoxious move because there is notm uch question that Obama isn't going to do much at all legislativly for the LGBT community in his first term.

You're kidding, right? This is the most progressive president on gay rights ever elected. Here's the Human Rights Campaign summary:

Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois:

Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Barack Obama in the United States Senate:

Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard. Here’s how HRC rated Barack Obama:

Barack Obama on Hate Crimes:

Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Employment Non-Discrimination:

Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Gays in the Military:

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.”

Gay & Lesbian Adoption:

Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

“Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination,” Obama said. “I think it is the right balance to strike in this society.”

Rick Warren made his name by demonstrating successful church growth strategies through better marketing. His church is located in an economically conservative, culturally liberal area and his marketing of the church does not obsess on cultural issues. For a preacher coming from a Southern Baptist background, he is fairly moderate, purposefully deemphasizing wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage and placing more emphasis on third world poverty, AIDS, global warming alongside the wedge issues. He's not a liberal but he is a step in that direction. There are other prisms to evaluate Warren outside of the narrow prism of gay rights.

Anonymous wrote: "You're kidding, right? This is the most progressive president on gay rights ever elected. Here's the Human Rights Campaign summary:"

Filling out a HRC questionare and acutally carrying out legislative cahnge are two very different things. I have no doubt that Obama is personally very progressive on LGBT issues. The question is whether he will make them a political priority.

Obama is also on record as supporting reopening NAFTA. I doubt that's going to happen.

Answer the question then. You think there WOULD be a liberal outcry over an anti-gay muslim giving a prayer?

I don't think so. But if you do tell me why?

Posted by: nathan | December 18, 2008 7:41 PM

I agree with you that there wouldn't be, but that's just because the two situations are extremely different. If you don't understand that like you said, then you didn't think very hard in your first comment on it. Rick Warren represents a substantial minority if not the plurality of the country. His movement has too much power as it is. Your hypothetical imam represents, what, one or two percent of the population of America? Less? And it's a population that is already treated like lepers. Unlike Warren, there's no danger in legitimizing (or validating or whatever) an imam in this way.

while we're all frothing at the mouth railing against Warren, let's all remember it was OBAMA that invited him to speak. It was choice. He was proactive in asking.

Get over *that*!

Are you feeling neglected, El Viajero? Haven't people been paying enough attention to you lately? Well, don't worry, I'm sure miscegenation laws will be up for debate someday, and you'll have your moment in the sun again.

Truth hurts