Rick Warren Will Deliver Invocation at Inauguration
Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic reports that pastor Rick Warren will deliver the invocation on Inauguration Day:
Here's a bit of a surprise: Dr. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church will give the formal invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration. The good doctor first met Obama in 2006 at a Saddleback AIDS forum in California. Obama used the occasion to press the evangelical pastors present to embrace "realism" when they considered the issue; preach abstience, yes, but preaching against contraception can kill. (Here's some of what Obama said that day: "I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree. I do not accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence.')
It's tempting for me to feel some level of righteous indignation over this news. However, the invocation is a traditional procedure at the Inauguration, and it hasn't been uncommon for right-wing preachers to deliver the address on that day. Furthermore, it's a one-time event and perhaps nothing more should be read into it. It's not like Obama is asking Warren to become his closest spiritual advisor.
Still, something tells me that the Sarah Palins of the world will not be questioning Obama's association with a "radical pastor" like Rick Warren. This is the same preacher who claims he could not be a homophobe because he apparently has "many gay friends," even though he frequently demonized their pursuit of gay marriage as a dangerous redefinition of marriage:
"Most people, you know...I have many gay friends, I've eaten dinner in gay homes, no church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of "A Purpose-Driven Life" helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't beleive in the re-definition of marriage."
He's also the same guy who believes that that the gay marriage movement is an attack on his First Amendment rights, stating:
"There were all kinds of threats that if that [Prop 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships. And that would be hate speech. To me, we should have freedom of speech. And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position, and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position. And can we do this in a civil way?"
Maybe I shouldn't be uneasy about all this. But is it unreasonable for me to ask if Obama couldn't have picked someone else?
You're damn right he could ask somebody else, but we all know how hard it is to find an appropriate minister to give an invocation.
Oh wait, how about Bishope Eugene Sutton, former dean of Washington National Cathedral and the first black Episcopal Bishop of Maryland? Who has made reconciliation of conservatives and liberals his life's work, and argues passionately for full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the Church?
That only took about FIVE MINUTES TO LOOK UP, by the way...
December 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's willingness to associate himself with anti-gay bigots is truly troubling.
December 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that sounds a lot like the "guilt by association" attacks being thrown around by the Republicans during the election. Their Bill Ayers is your Rick Warren. Has everyone already forgotten Obama's words that were one of the reasons many of us supported him?
"Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long"
"And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."
December 18, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It really troubles me that Obama didn't listen to Rick Warren for a few minutes when he met him, then mumble something polite and run like hell.
The guy just reeks of religious backstabbing. And he will, just as soon as he can. Obama should look at Carter's experience with the right-wing evangelicals, and take a lesson from it.
Also, the guy says "overrid" instead of overridden or overrode. Yechhh!
December 17, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"even though he frequently demonized"
Um, you're the one demonizing here. Talking about redefinition is not demonizing. If you want to substantiate the label, give better data.
I don't know much about Warren, but it looks like a symbolic gesture in an attempt to weaken the antipathy of the religious right, an obvious tactic of a clearly stated Obama strategy of making government work on a middle path.
Warren is hardly the worst gay-bashing minister or priest one could find out there (and he doesn't seem to be a basher at all, much less a demonizer). But it would be interesting to hear Obama defend the choice. Is change.gov still taking new questions?
December 17, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds you have it exactly correct. Good.
December 17, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly the worst gay bashing minister? As if it's okay to be a gay bashing minister if you're not the worst?
December 18, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might help you to understand my comments if you would read them in their full context (incl. parenthetical remarks), destor
December 18, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know, you absolved him of the crime. I don't. It's not his rhetoric that matters is his anti-homosexual beliefs.
December 18, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is "demonize". The article didn't justify its use.
I don't know what other evidence you'd have to support your hate of Warren, if it's not rhetorical.
December 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Rick Warren was picked by a committee, not Obama. I guess from now until after the inauguration, this will be debated at fever pitch amongst Progressives. I'll just stick to the relevant news and stay clear of posts like this. Sometimes I see why the media doesn't take you guys seriously.
December 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I think what we blog goes around the world and into the light, unfiltered by the media. The media does take the blogosphere seriously, and if they do not it is at their own peril. Of course, there are some bloggers who ought to be ignored. Everyone should be ignored at some time or other. But ones who posts in a blog that they will "stay clear of posts like this" is someone who should be ignored in that moment. It sounds like someone who is stands their taking money out of your wallet right in front of you and at the same time declares that they do not steal. Seriously, post OR stay clear. You can't have it both ways.
December 18, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? WHO GIVES A FAT RAT'S REAR END????
Do you not get it? Why did you vote for him? He IS what he said he was. He doesn't go in for all this petty crap. He cares about building bridges.
He cares about people. He doesn't do tit for tat. He doesn't keep score.
You know that AIDS thing at Saddleback Church? Well, my niece, who is about as conservative as they come, went to that. It was her introduction to Obama. After hearing him speak she changed her affiliation to Democrat, became a precinct captain, raised money for him, donated herself, voted for him and ultimately broke ranks w/ all her siblings and her parents to do it, causing a rift in her family that took months to heal.
The Christian Leadership as a whole has some real problems IMHO as a Christian woman who is being sorely tested by them and their behavior as of late.
But Rick Warren is not a bad guy. I would submit that he is doing a lot of soul searching during this process. I believe he is basically a man of honor who is doing the best he can to reconcile his religion and his understanding of the world, as I am.
He has made a gazillion dollars with his 40 days of Purpose book and accompanying materials. He promptly used some of that money to pay back the church he founded every penny of the money they ever paid him in salary and has used a whole mess of it in charitable works. Is he perfect? No way! Are you? No way!
Does he deserve to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration? I think so. Will it help heal some of the hurts in the country? Maybe.
It is time for us to start emulating the man we have put so much faith in, rather than criticize him for being the man he told us he was.
December 17, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you against fat ass as an appropriate description. You can really respond with vigor!!!!
This is so good!!!! But it is so funny.
December 17, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Busted! Oooops!
Yeah, there are some subjects that just get me goin'...
December 18, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
December 18, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"[Nancy] Sutley is the first prominent gay person to earn a senior role in Obama's new administration." from Wikipedia 12/17/08
Maybe he is just fulfilling a promise to be inclusive, which means that if you come to the table willing to bring your views but still work with others to accomplish something in this democracy then that should be a major improvement over the past eight years of the "with us or against us" approach. I cannot imagine that the Christian right was happy about Sutley's nomination.
Warren does seem to be working through some issues rather than declaring his beliefs as if they were the only gospel out there. Did any other Christian church ask Obama to address its congregation? I cannot remember one that did.
December 18, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
IF I were the 'Bama man, I would have my staff grill Slick Rick about "Why did you tell the free world both men were sealed in a soundproof environment when you had no way of knowing if that was true, and in fact, knew it was not"?
When Johnny McCame lately showed up to the house of exploitation of fears, in OC, did you carefully screen his staff to determine if he had been able to hear the questions, or if anyone on his staff had?
It was SHAMEFUL the way the media let this story slip under the radar as soon as the McCain camp raised the "He's a war hero!!" flyswatter. Which of course was an obvious admisssion he cheated.
December 18, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink