The Rick Warren Choice: Offensive, Foolish, or Just Uninspired?

he Obama folks needed to pick two religious leaders for the Inaugural Ceremony — one to give the invocation and the other the benediction

"needed" is something of an overstatement.... How 'bout James McPherson or Joyce Appleby or even David McCullogh or Joseph Ellis reminding us what the Constitution means?

Another mountain being made about a molehill.

Sigh......
.
Offensive and Foolish.
Just because 'low attention voters' might be unaware of the more vile things Mr Warren has said doesn't mean that they don't matter. It hasn't escaped my notice that the Saddleback Church is pretty opulent for a place that celebrates the life of someone who said "Sell everything you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me."

Obama's choice was utterly boneheaded and tone-deaf and I hope its not too late for him to change his mind.

I posted this below, but, I think it's important:
Obama knows the pundits will never accept him unless we hate him, so, we're cynically doing our part to prop him up.

Grrr.... Pffft!

The problem is, he's not nearly as good at it. In actual fact, most of what got us PO'd is not what Rush Limbaugh said, but what his enablers did to catapult Limbaugh's bile into the mainstream and legitimize it. Without the MSM, Limbaugh's just a blowhard preaching to the masses. Katie Couric always gives him a seat at the table.

What is frustrating, and a miscalculation on Obama's part, is a huge part of the anger that propelled him to office was a result of being mocked, marginalized and ridiculed for years, and being proven to be the least wrong of all the millionaire pundits who can never seem to lose credibility or be held accountable, no matter how wrong they prove to be.

So, Presidents come, and President's go, power switches from one party to the other, but the one constant is that DC caters to right wing wack-os and mocks anyone left of center with an actual track record of prescience.

I had hoped Obama would usher in a new era of non-conservative politics by restoring pride in his party, as Reagan did, and by demanding real, good-faith offers of friendship, rather than a Lieberman like catering to people who want anyone who's not them eradicated from the Earth.

Like with Iran, you can sit down with the leaders, but don't let yourself get played for a fool. "Tough" diplomacy, that demands verification and collateral for offers made, and doesn't give away the store, but is willing to cut a deal if they move our way, too.

Joel Osteen is an evangelist whom liberals can embrace because he emphasizes who to love rather than who to hate. Obama, instead, has decided to give a great honor and platform to someone who wants him wiped from the Earth. What is Warren willing to do to demonstrate his good faith? Does Warren even WANT to be friends? Or after his prayer, is he going to just use his burst of popularity to undermine everything Obama does?

Negotiation and compromise is fine as long as both sides give something, and I'll take the first earnest hand of friendship offered. The GOP hasn't made a good faith effort to reach across the aisle since 1992.

We're just hoping Obama isn't another fool. I'm not sure I can take four years of Obama kowtowing to people who seek only his failure and humiliation, as the MSM demands Obama give more to get along.

What is smart about the choice, is Obama has now had a right wing freak to point to any time anyone brings up Rev. Wright. He'll let anyone rant.

I believe in listening to all INTELLECTUALLY HONEST points of view, and giving all EARNEST people their say. What I don't believe in is continuing to legitimize the mad ravings of cynical hacks who's only purpose is to muddy issues, and derail discussion to prevent any progress from being made under someone else's watch.

We just want a Democrat who's smart enough not to get played for a fool by people who only shake your hand to stick a knife in your back.

Amy- As Time's resident god-botherer, do you believe the Great White Bearded Sky Daddy would smite us is we didn't pay him homage during our civil ceremonies? Or do you believe benign neglect of Constitutional principle is simply good politics and good manners?

Here's what Obama says (based on Steve Benen's transcription of his press conference):
.
"What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialog, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. But what we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.
.
"During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented -- and that how it should be, because that's what America's about, that's a part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated. So, that's the spirit in which we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration, and that's hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration."

By the way, pro-gay marriage isn't the litmus test.
Non-hateful and non-dishonest and non-demonstrably unChristian are probably easier hurdles.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Just another example of Obama doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
.
I disagree with Rick Warren about a great many things, but I think my disagreement is totally irrelevant. I hope to God the left is not going to turn into the same purity-demanding cabal that the right has.
.
I cannot imagine what purpose it serves to be criticizing Obama's choices of ministers to give the invocation or benediction. Besides, Warren invited Obama to Saddleback for the AIDS forum over strenuous objections from the right because of Obama's stance on choice, and Warren didn't back down. This seems to me a fitting demonstration that people who disagree acutely can find common ground. We badly need to move forward finding common ground.

Well said Kathy.

Kathy - I wasn't aware that Warren invited Obama. That changes things quite a bit.

Still, I think it's important for supporters of Obama to criticize the choice anyway to raise his esteem among the mainstream journalists. You're screwing everything up.

This seems to me a fitting demonstration that people who disagree acutely can find common ground?

Do you suppose they said things like that about slavery?
How 'bout segregated schools? When people are being denied their fundemental rights and are unequal under the law, there aren't 'two sides' to consider. There is only justice or injustice.

What Kathy said. This is what a "uniter" actually looks like. And you can take that from a liberal, equal-opportunity agnostic (I'm not sure about any of 'em.).
.
And for everyone who needs to chill out and get into a more holiday-ish mood, here's a treat from Amtrak, my favorite government orphan.

make a snowflake

Warren can come into the tent, if Obama lets the Dirty F&#$ing Hippies in, too.

Another well said Kathy!

The point that must be remembered is that dialogue evn among those who disagree must continue to be held, it is the foundation of a free and democratic society. When the flamethrowers on either the left or right try to quelch or ignore the points of the other side we do a great dis-service to this democracy.

Like it or not, Warren has become a mainstream religious figure. Not for his evangelical tendencies or oppo to gay rights, but for his bland bestsellers and attempts to maintain his vanilla and mainstream image. Obama was trying to appease some religious types while maintaining a moderate exterior.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

I agree with Kathy. Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. This is what he's about - bringing all people to the table; this is what he's been saying since at least 2004. Maybe it's pollyannaish, maybe it's frustrating, but it's him.

As to there is only 'justice' or 'injustice'; I guess, then, those who have views that are "unjust" must be cast out, disinvited, not included at the election ceremony? I (personally) am a firm believer in gay marriage (and feel the tide will turn on this soon). (So I'm allowed to go; that's great.) Polls, however, indicate that significant portions of Americans feel otherwise. Are they all to be disinvited from the inauguration; told not to watch on TV? Wouldn't it be better to include them, rather than demonizing them, and TRY TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS?

Heck, it seems to be that maybe we'll have to disinvite Mr. Obama himself (as I recall he is opposed to gay marriage -- although against constitutional bans), VP-elect Biden (against gay marriage), and Senator Clinton (against gay marriage), and former President Clinton (defense of marriage act, no less), and, well, probably 90% of people in Wash. who have ever run for public office (in all their weak-kneed wussiness) -- they will all have to be disinvited, too. Surely it is not only Mr. Warren who will be singled out for exclusion based on his views of gay marriage, right?

It will be an interesting inauguration.

I'm just not sure if this is like sitting down with Iran, or we've just elected another Lieberman.

For Obama to succeed, he needs to recognize why Lieberman never could.

Reaching across the aisle is nothing new for Democrats. Pissing off hippies is nothing new for Democrats. Figuring out how pundits and conservatives manipulate those tendencies to tolerance and getting along for four more years of Democratic sucking up and capitulation, and getting nothing but mockery in return? Is this another four years of triangulating the same hippies who propelled him to power because they wanted a spot at the table? Or are we finally part of the national discourse? Because we've earned that. Obama not only needs to let Warren in the tent, but to give the marginalized Krugmans, bloggers and the likes a seat as well.

No matter who's in power, it seems, the main concern is placating unplacatable blowhards who see anything short of our scalps as an affront to God.

Can Warren meet someone he disagrees with halfway? If Kathy's correct, yes. If he's like all the other evangelicals, diplomacy is only used for jujitsu.

I believe the dirty $##*($&@*($ hippies are welcome. By the time they get to D.C., may they be 1/2 a million strong.

O is desensitizing us. There will bed a Pass/Fail Rorschach Test at the end. If your anger remains, you will be harvested for fuel.

So glad so many of you see it this way.
.
meme - this is a contemporaneous account of Warren taking heat for inviting Obama, but I noticed the Wapo brought it up again today too.
.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1369496.php

Uhmmm did yall see this?
.

Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

Personally, I think evangelicals are scum. That said, I don't have a problem w/ it so much. However, my friend's son is gay and he and his friends aren't taking it well at all. Right now, they're in 'looking for a fight' mode, and if Obama doesn't come through for them w/ policy in the future, they will turn on him big time. We'll see, but as for dialog w/ people we disagree with, well, I don't see Obama inviting David Duke. Also, I should note, there seems to be a growing racism in the gay community that seems to have been borne from Prop 8...not good.

Amy, this is the best post you've written here.
--
Jim, obviously the "needed" comment was referring to political, not constitutional, realities. There's no reason to try to misinterpret things, although at least your handle is not false advertising!
--
Kathy, I think the problem with Warren in particular - as Amy points out - is that he's not the best conservative evangelical Obama could have chosen. Advocating the assassination of world leaders on cable TV is just stupid. His comments on gay marriage were also ridiculous - there are many other people who managed to support prop. 8 without saying anything quite as extreme or illogical.
--
As for the larger issue of just how inclusive the tent should be, I'm undecided. I am convinced that in 50 years opponents of gay marriage will seem as abhorrent as segregationists seem now. That said, I think everyone is eager to move beyond culture wars and polarization. Obama won a mandate to do just that. I guess including homophobic evangelicals in the inauguration ceremony is a gray area.