President-elect Barack Obama has chosen the controversial Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inaugral. There has been plenty of commentary about this decision.
So, I’m curious: what do you think about the decision? Is it a slap in the face to LGBT supporters of Obama? Is it Obama broadening the tent? Or something else?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
It’s about the only time that a Conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage voice will be heard in this administration.
More than I expected. About all we’ll get.
The partisan in me wonders why Warren and his views are an issue but Wright and his were not. Different strokes, I guess.
The more objective side feels that Obama is in a tough position on who to choose on this. I think that any religious figure is going to have someone upset with their views, whether they be concerning gay rights or life or how strong or weak they may be viewed on those issues.
This could just be a token bit of outreach to the right who would throw a fit were Obama to choose someone like Wright or that might be a closer fit to his political views. I certainly don’t think that this is Obama showing how he’s going to govern in regards to issues for the LBGT movement, I think it’s just a bit of hedging his bets, a willingness to weather the brief storm that this one time event creates, and then come out and do what he feels he was elected to do.
I’m always suspicious of preachers who go to some other continent to “save souls”. Why can’t Warren stay here and work to create programs that teach people about safer sex practices when it comes to Aids? You know condoms. Why do people like him work to undermine access to birth control when we all know it is the biggest predictor of poverty in the world. Guess if there was less suffering then he would be out of business.
Yeah, Fran, why can’t Warren go and pursue your ideology, while abandoning his own religious views?
Personally, I’m always suspicious of people pushing methods to facilitate sexual promiscuity. Why can’t people like Fran stay here and work to create programs that teach people that practicing traditional moral values virtually guarantee that you won’t get AIDS? You know: abstinence or monogamy? Why do people like her work to promote barnyard sexual values when we all know that the biggest predictor of childhood poverty in America is having teenage parents? I guess if there were more responsibility in the world, Liberals would be out of business.
Rick Warren already has enough people condemning him from the right without you people from the left adding your voice to the condemnations.
What will it take to make you happy? Must we have an avowed atheist give the invocation?
“Rick Warren already has enough people condemning him from the right—”
…guh?
OK, I am going to surrender.
An even better choice would be the small time preacher that actually preached Jesus and never made a dime by doing it.
However such a preacher’s name, with only a few exceptions, would not be acceptable to most of us. Chances are such a preacher would take the opportunity to encourage us to follow Jesus, and that would not be a politically wise move.
I often wonder if James Young is just Mel Brooks playing a joke on us. You can’t Torquemada anything!
But speaking of the hilariously absurd, here’s a couple of bits from Rick Warren’s “ministry toolbox”:
No wonder he’s so desperate to exercise authority over someone else.
I covered that base by telling my wife that I commanded her to be my equal. Often she attempts to be more then equal from my experience. Grin.
If you can not find some form of fellowship within the Warren group you are going to have some difficulty in maintaining a majority.
I am not suprised by this move. Obama is not a staunch pro-gay persona at all. He is a Christian afterall. He is in favor of civil unions.
This is the mainstream view and mainstream evangelicals such as Rick Warren support this. Just don’t call it marriage and the vast majority are fine excepty for the radical Righ-Wingers and radical Left-Wing gay rights folks.
As I pointed out over on my blog, I think Rep. Barney Frank was absolutely correct when he said Rick Warren has the right to express his opinion “But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president.” Especially one who promoted himself as a candidate that would stand up for the rights of the GLBT community.
I agree with Bryan and Rep. Frank – Rick Warren has no place giving the invocation at the inauguration ceremony of a President who pledges to include all.
Wow, it is just a preacher giving an invocation. Maybe we have have one thing in common, we believe in God. This does not have to be a statement on issues. Just an example that the one thing that unites most of us is that we do believe in a higher being. Good going Obama, leading from the center already, you will do us proud!
Meanwhile, James Young is in his own fantasy land, where abstinence programs really work, teenagers don’t have sex, and where if we close our eyes really tight, we can pretend it is still 1959 on the ‘Leave it to Beaver’ television show.
Mr. Young, I would suggest to you that you are either here to yank our chains, or you are more delusional that I originally thought.
Traditional moral values? Whose?
I don’t subscribe to your values of deceit and thievery (you know, that whole Bush thing). I would guess that you think that religion means only Christians of the strip you believe in. How can we live that lifestyle if we find the church to be hypocritical?
“Rick Warren has no place giving the invocation at the inauguration ceremony of a President who pledges to include all.”
I had to do a double take after reading that one. Did you look at that sentence before hitting “Post Comment” Lynda? If someone is looking to be entirely inclusive, how is it that anyone would have no place in being included? I am hardly one to defend Barack Obama, but selecting Rick Warren as a speaker suggests more to me about his willingness to be inclusive than someone who supports Obama’s views.