My eyes won't be dry either, luv.

But I don't have a God to look down on it, or look forward to it. I have my belief that within each of us humans is the desire for both tolerance and love.

So, while you pass your judgments on Warren, I will take a pass on making any judgments on anyone.

Even Hillary and Bill and Dijamo.

Here is a post by an evangelical pastor, who, I think, makes some interesting points while commenting on the Rick Warren choice:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2008/12/rick-warren-to-deliver-the-invocation-at-obamas-inauguration.html

Worth a read.

I read a couple of good articles last night that took another view on the Warren pick. One of them is from The New Republic, the best article in my opinion, because it falls in line with the way Obama thinks. He wouldn't take a risk like this if it didn't come with an even bigger reward, he's not doing this to show that he can stand up to his supporters, he's not compromising on social policy and he has not turned his back on the LGBT community and making them sit at the back of the bus like some Dick over HuffPo wrote. And he most certainly is not pandering to the Right and giving them top priority. If you believe these things then you don't know Obama, at all. The other article is from the WaPo. I really recommend you read them, because I think many people are looking at this all wrong. And Please don't comment on my comment unless you really read the articles - they are short articles, so don't be lazy.

AGAIN, PLEASE READ THE FULL ARTICLE. This one from WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121902414.html "Rick Warren is the one who is making the bigger statement here. In no uncertain terms, the best known pastor of our time will be telling his followers and fellow evangelicals that there is nothing ungodly about a president who believes that government shouldn't interfere with a woman's right to choose and that gays and lesbians deserve the protection of our laws as much as any other American. That's a moment progressives should celebrate."

Bademus, thanks for the post. I am definitely torn by this decision. I do not agree at all with Warren's views on homosexuality. But the kicker is that I believe it is rooted in sincere attempt to understand his faith (as opposed to not liking homosexuals and then finding some religious justification for it). I have met too many people who from what I know of them decent people who work hard to help those less fortunate, who are motivated by desire to be good and loving, who feel the same way that Warren does about homosexuals because this is what their faith and religious leaders have told them (homosexuality is unnatural, marriage is between a man and a women only).

I can say that I don't agree with this understanding or interpretation of their articles of faith, be whatever they are, but at what point can we say that someone is a bigot if they are sincerely trying to walk the right path.

In the sixties there were not many churches that had the pastors or whoever up on the pulpit saying that God is against integration and against equality regardless of race. Those who continued to support segregation and inequality did so without any moral grounding. But with homosexuality we are in 2008 still stuck in a battle of my morality is better than your morality. And these battles are only won when there are enough epiphanies on one side that begin to see that the other side's sense of morality is on the right path.

So does Warren's invocation prolong the time before those who follow him, and those like him, have their epiphanies, or does make it more likely since they are invited to the table to sit along side the homosexuals in helping move the country forward. I don't really know, but at this point I lean to the latter because it is an act of inclusion, rather than exclusion.

FYI: Just a couple of days ago Rick Warrens book, A Purpose Driven Life, was in the 300's on the Amazon Bestsellers list. Today it's at 190.

This whole thread is missing the point:

The discussion should not be about religion; it should be about POWER.

Obama chose as he did in a move to mute evangelical protest over him. Moreover, he did so in a way to give the more moderate version of evangelicalism the center stage. In other words, he's triangulating evangelicalism towards the center.

The invocation/benediction is essentially nothing. Yep, *nothing*. It's a show to pacify the proles and makes some nice comments about God. Want proof? You aren't going to get every major world religion represented during the ceremony. So why are you expecting "your" God to even be listening? ("God" isn't protecting this country -- the US DoD has that responsibility. And thank God for that.)

For those offended by the Warrens tapping, were you equally offended by the "faith" debate he hosted? (I remind you that *no* science debate took place during the election.)

Obama is a politician. His choices are politically guided. He just took the teeth out of the extreme evangelicals and probably made it easier for the Southern GOP congressmen to fall towards his direction.

Religion and God is a tool of the political powerful -- and has been ever since humans first shivered in fear in their caves.