Opinion, please: Rick Warren

National, Politics 1 Minute

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?

Published

45 thoughts on “Opinion, please: Rick Warren”

  1. I kind of like Marianne Williamson’s take (at http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2008/12/some-advocacy.html) on the choice of Rick Warren to provide the inauguration’s invocation:

    “…Let’s look for a moment at what an invocation is. It’s that moment when the walls between us are supposed to melt, when we move beyond the mind and surrender our hearts into the hands of God. It’s a prayer that we make as a nation, asking that God’s hand be upon us, that He forgive us our errors, and that He bless our new President and his administration.

    So having one of the more judgmental people in the ministerial world deliver the invocation seems odd to me, and extraordinarily cynical. Rick Warren has supported what would be the first legislation ever passed in the United States to specifically limit the rights of a group of American citizens. What does he bring to the table at the Inauguration other than a cynically calculated wink in the direction of right-wing evangelicals? That kind of motivation, and the name Barack Obama, are supposed to be oxymoronic….aren’t they?” And then I liked one of the responses to her post: “I would recommend that those spiritualists who take the Book of Leviticus as the literal word of God on the abomination of homosexuality also avoid shrimp cocktails and lobster over the holiday season and beyond, or you too will shall be an abomination. Look it up.”

    We didn’t need this inappropriate choice. There are so many others who would have done a fine job. And we could have kept our eye on the ball (all of our problems) rather getting caught up talking about his poor judgment in selecting this man.

  2. It had to happen eventually. I agree with Little David.

    If Democrats are going to screen every Christian preacher, and make sure they all agree with each and every thing he or she ever said, you can go ahead and schedule the invocation for 2012.

    This is a made-up controversy, and this calculated unleashing of faux outrage is designed to put certain issues front and center.

    So once again we can’t fix the economy or health care or Iraq or any of the issues important to ALL of us because we’re too busy yelling at each other about gay marriage and abortion.

    It’s time to stop falling into this Karl Rove trap, and move on.

  4. That’s right. Objecting to someone who just lead a high profile assault on the basic human rights of others is just ginning up a false controversy (because really, who gives a sh1t about those people? They should just be quiet and be glad they don’t live in Iran or something).

  5. I am hoping that it is simply a plan to give Warren enough rope to hang himself in a nationally visible fashion; an attempt to bring to full public scrutiny the hate-mongering ba$tard’s lies.

    Anything else and it is horribly disappointing and a potentially disastrous mistake.

  7. Wait…I think I missed something.

    Why, and this is an honest question, no snark intended, does there have to be an invocation led by a Christian preacher? Did I miss the part where you need the blessing of the Pope on your coronation? Honest question. Now, I’m an atheist and therefore really don’t give a damn about this Warren character, but it’s an inauguration. I think the real issue is, what part of this requires prayer or religion of any flavor? I’m not saying that preachers or religious leaders should be disallowed; I’m not sure why they’re giving, like, opening prayers and the like. Why is an invocation necessary? Other than the fact that there’s usually one, or Obama wants him there? Because those reasons aren’t really reasons. I wouldn’t get upset or riled up or whatever until, like, something worth getting upset about actually happens. Like if these viewpoints suddenly start infecting this administration. Until then, seriously, yawn.

    Unless I’ve missed something. I have been in exams the past two weeks, so it’s entirely possible.

  9. I was pretty upset when I learned that Rick Warren had been chosen to give the invocation. My anger was somewhat quelled when I learned that gay rights/marriage supporter Rev. Joseph Lowery had been chosen to give the benediction. Since Rev. Lowery will be the one with the “last word”, so to speak, I give Obama the benefit of the doubt and write his choice of Warren off as “broadening the tent” (even if I think it’s a bit much).

  10. MB: Insert not-actually-witty-yet-maybe-pretend-devastating-in-its-rebuttal reference to the income tax code and/or the model rules of professional responsibility and/or criminal procedure here. Hmmmph. I may hate America, but I don’t hate Miranda. McNabb-Mallory on the other hand…

    yeah, I fail at this whole 2L thang.

  11. Oh, and not to hijack the thread with 2L nonsense, so, relevant question- why two preachers? And why preachers? How do they find these people? Is there an application? I’m terribly, terribly confused. Where do they fit in between the poetry reading, the music and Oprah? Are they like a side-show? An introductory show of piety before levity? And if so, isn’t there kind of a, oh, I don’t know, inherent hypocrisy in that?

  12. Personally I always find it ironic that we spend all year debating the seperation of church and state in just about every issue and then we want to marginalize or put our own particular belief systems up as a sword regarding who someone in Obama;s position decides to select. Lets agree there could have been some far worse selections; say Rev. Wright for one.

  13. I don’t think Obama’s pick of Warren was about the GLBT community at all, but that doesn’t mean that they are happy with the pick. I feel that Obama should have been advised against inviting Warren to deliver the invocation, and I’m very interested in the debate and reasons provided that led to the extension of the invitation.

    If Proposition 8 wasn’t a current issue causing additional sensitivity on this issue, I’m not sure the outcry would be so much. The fact is that people are still dealing from that blow, and are outraged that Obama could include a man who campaigned for the passage of Proposition 8 in his inaugural ceremony.

    I understand the need for inclusiveness. I think Warren has done some very good things for contemporary Christianity, but I also think this was the wrong political environment for him to have been invited.

    Additional comments here and I recommend reading this.

  14. yeah, I fail at this whole 2L thang.

    You do seem to lack the requisite bitterness and self-importance (when you hit 3L, it’s just the bitterness). However, if you want to keep up appearances in the future, here’s the neverfail 2L line – “Whatever. Let’s get drunk and . . . ” [unfinished to keep in compliance with the G-rated aspirations of this blog].

    ~

    But back to the subject at hand: Where’s David Duke? Or Strom Thurmond’s corpse? Don’t we want all points of view represented?

Comments are closed.