The Warren Factor
I’m going to outsource my version of the inevitable Rick Warren post to my colleague Matt Duss:
Pastor Rick Warren will deliver the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20. While he is a recognizable celebrity and best-selling author, Warren also advocates a number of deeply anti-progressive views. He supported California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 and has likened gay marriage to polygamy and incest. He is strongly anti-choice, and has equated abortion to the Holocaust. Warren also supports the assassination of foreign leaders. Appearing on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes on December 3, Warren agreed with Sean Hannity’s assertion that “we need to take him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out,” saying that stopping evil “is the legitimate role of government.” He added, “The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”
We should really think about this. If Ahmadenijad is defeated at the next election by a candidate promising to take Iran on a different, more constructive path in international relations a lot of people will be excited by that. If said candidate follows up his electoral victory by elevating a cleric who’s well-known for his high-profile endorsement of assassinations, people will be upset about that. And rightly so.
88 Responses to “The Warren Factor”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Sadly, I’m not going to be at the inauguration, but in my mind, there’s only one way to deal with people like Warren.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:51 am
It makes me proud to believe in Traditional Values, especially «Ecrasez l’infame.»
December 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Warren’s an overfed and overrich shyster huckster with a vicious ideology wrapped up in a superslick sales pitch.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am
…and the insecure dim bulbs lap it up.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
That’s not change you can believe in.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am
http://change.gov/page/content/contact/
let them know what you think about it. it’s worth a shot.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am
sdg–thanks for the link. I vented.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:13 am
It really does feel like a punch in the stomach. The best argument for this is it’s a political gambit. If so, it’s really quite offensive and undercuts Obama’s brand, as it were, significantly. If it isn’t a political gambit it’s just astonishing.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Just to be fair about this, it appears that the selection of the fascist goat fucking scumbag Rick Warren was made by somebody in Congress. Apparently, President Elect Osama is only guilty of going along and not objecting.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Yeah, but that guy would be a Mooslim, not a good Christian man! When Christians call for murder, it’s for the “right” reasons so that makes it okay.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Can only repeat one word:
Suckers.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:26 am
People are making much too big a deal out of this.
No one cares what Rick Warren thinks about foreign policy. He’s just a Christian Dr. Phil, as others have said, and there are many Christians in this country so he’s sold a lot of books. I’ve found Warren in interviews to be almost astonishingly boring. But Obama also apparently thinks of him as a friend.
Obama had serious problems with his nominal preacher during the campaign. Why wouldn’t he, looking to 2012, try to shore up his credibility with white Christians by inviting his friend to give the invocation? Obama’s a politician trying to insulate himself from criticism. Gay people won’t like it, but who else are they going to vote for? That’s the cold political calculation.
I say Wright was his “nominal” preacher because I genuinely believe Obama got into trouble with Wright because he wasn’t paying that much attention to his preacher. A Senator is a busy person; I doubt Obama attended church that regularly and probably had other things on his mind when he was there.
Obama cares about this world, not the next. I think his famous debate with Alan Keyes made this abundantly clear. He wouldn’t describe himself as an atheist, but he’s not concerned with what preachers say about who should be assassinated and who is going to hell. Obama cares about attaining political power to accomplish his policy goals, which is why he is a politician. He will do what is necessary.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I’m probably making a huge mistake, but I’m going to choose to believe that Obama is going to combine stylistic political ecumenicalism (ie, hanging out with rightwingers) with progressive policies.
Frankly the symbolism is small stuff compared to the policies I want Obama to enact.
The question is, am I being overly generous in my interpretation? Either:
a) He’s cleverly disarming his critics with moderate or religious-conservative appointees and guests so he’ll encounter less reflexive resistance when he presses for progressive policies, or
b) He’s really a spineless politician who values being universally loved than he values good policy
I’m holding my breath and guessing (a)
December 18th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Nobody expects Warren to have significant say in the decisions of the Obama administration. Meanwhile the President of Iran doesn’t control Iran’s foreign policy, so if a new Iranian President had a radical cleric give his invocation, that wouldn’t tell us much about Iranian foreign policy either. In both situations, it’s much ado about very little. It would have been much better if somebody other than Warren were giving the invocation, but it won’t have any impact on Obama supporting abortion rights, changing the policy on gays in the military, promoting birth control over useless abstinence based education, etc. A few days after the inauguration, nobody will even remember who gave the invocation.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Can only repeat one word: Suckers.
D’oh! I knew I should’ve voted for Ron Paul!
December 18th, 2008 at 10:41 am
“The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”
Chapter and verse, please. Because I can’t seem to recall where in the Bible it says that.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am
What are the chances Warren mentions the “unborn” (or is it “preborn” now?) somewhere in the midst of a long thing the incoming president needs to protect? That will be fun.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
edit: “long line of things”
December 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
so warren won’t get the nuke codes? what a relief. i hadn’t realized that.
the notion that since warren will not influence policy, his participation is insignificant is absurd to me. we should not celebrate irrationality and intolerance.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Jeremiah Wright wasn’t available?
I know Obama is quite a multitasker, but must a President-elect micromanage every detail of the inauguration? I thought Sen. Feinstein was running this–which makes it a pretty strange decision as well.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Dr. Phil thinks we should assasinate politicians in other countries? And thinks homosexuality is akin to pedophilia?
Technically, you are correct. But if a person grows up worshipping a being who slaughtered the children of Egypt because he was mad at Egypt’s king, told a follower to kill his son and then said “just kidding” when he was about to do it, and wrapped it all up with sending his own son to Earth to die horribly, they can be forgiven for thinking that God wants them to whack the scary brown president of Iran.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Me as well. If his place in the ceremony is inconsequential, then it should be no problem at all to drop him from it. Problem solved.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Sometimes I think people around here are so wrapped up in symbolic victories and symbolic gestures that they wouldn’t know a real victory if it hit them in the face.
Always be willing to give something that costs you nothing to gain something that you value.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“Just to be fair about this, it appears that the selection of the fascist goat fucking scumbag Rick Warren was made by somebody in Congress.”
I’ve seen this discussed elsewhere, but come on, do you think Obama doesn’t know and approve of who his invocation speaker is?
December 18th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sam says:
“People are making much too big a deal out of this.”
Okay, Sam, why is that?
“Obama’s a politician trying to insulate himself from criticism. Gay people won’t like it, but who else are they going to vote for? That’s the cold political calculation.”
Oh, I see. Gay people are being as much as told that their desire not to be discriminated against is politically insignificant and that their votes are literally taken for granted, and they should not make a big deal about that.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am
what is gained?(not a rhetorical question) support from people who believe what warren believes? if that’s what you are suggesting, what happens when obama proceeds to make policy decisions that are not in line with those beliefs? could that not lead to a backlash of sorts?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
“Sometimes I think people around here are so wrapped up in symbolic victories and symbolic gestures that they wouldn’t know a real victory if it hit them in the face.”
When a real victory hits the gay rights movement in the face, I think we’ll know it. Right now we just elected a guy—a guy who hid from Prop 8, opposes gay marriage, and already pulled this crap once before with Donny McClurkin. How much license is he supposed to get before he’s delivered even one “real victory”? You should think carefully before talking about the difference between what’s real and what’s symbolic.
“Always be willing to give something that costs you nothing to gain something that you value.”
Giving the Presidential stamp of approval to yet another “moral” bigot doesn’t cost anything? Reinforcing the idea that truly religious people are always anti-gay doesn’t cost anything? I think you’re confusing some of us with Obama.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Nobody’s being elevated. For god’s sake, the man is saying a prayer and going home. Obama doesn’t currently have a pastor (remember?) so he invited his friend and there is absolutely nothing there to get the vapors about. The actual governing will be done by people named to the actual government, not by people who just show up for the party.
God almighty! You expect the man to get bills through a divided Congress and also to spit on anyone you disapprove of. We can’t be happy winning the election until we assure that the whole entire affair is ideologically pure? Worry about something worth worrying about.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
“Gay people are being as much as told that their desire not to be discriminated against is politically insignificant…”
Yes, that is what gay people are being told. I’d love to see democrats pay a political price for failing to stand up for gay people, but the numbers just aren’t there yet. Some day.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Fine, Sam, but then don’t tell us not to be angry about it. Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“…don’t tell us not to be angry about it…”
OK.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“Obama doesn’t currently have a pastor (remember?) so he invited his friend…”
As I said when you made this point at Ezra’s: That’s sweet. His friend should certainly get a ticket to the inauguration. He shouldn’t necessarily be put forward as the religious face of the entire inauguration if his religious views involve discrimination against a minority group.
“God almighty! You expect the man to get bills through a divided Congress and also to spit on anyone you disapprove of.”
Now who’s getting the vapors? We are not asking him to spit on anyone, but we are asking that he not choose bigoted religious leaders to lead the entire country in prayer on the first day of his administration? And you say Warren’s not being elevated? How much bigger a platform could there possibly be?
General question to those defending Obama: do you have a pet cause that you wouldn’t mind seeing Obama downplay and marginalize–not just on Inauguration Day, but throughout the entire campaign? How patient and cool do you think you’d be about it?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Stefan,
It’s Romans 13:4
For [the ruler] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
and you didn’t even mention the fact that he’ll be on a podium.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Stefan,
From Romans 13,
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
As for the topic of political assassinations, the just war theory of Aquinas explicitly envisions that they may sometimes be necessary, and do not necessarily fall under the sin of sedition. That doesn’t necessarily mean that assassinating Ahmadinejad would be a good idea, but ruling out assassination of government leaders always, on principle, on the grounds that it’s a form of sedition would be foolish.
The ignorance of Mr. Yglesias and his commenters about moral philosophy is rather prodigious. But it should not be astonishing, for we live an era when the common cultural touchstones of a bygone era, like Plato and Augustine, have been replaced by cultural touchstones like ‘The Simpsons”, “Debbie Does Dallas”, and the pernicious errors of Judith Jarvis Thompson.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I’ve cancelled going to the Inauguration Guess their hoping the holiday will mitigate the furor. Not change I can believe in. So fuuny that this is thought not to matter. Actually, it is probably best that I woke up from the dream now. It’s the most ugly, cynical move of many a day. I’m reminded of Tracy Chapman’s song, All That You Have is Your Soul. Let the Obama administration find out in the hard days ahead how the religious right is going to have his back. They’ve lost me.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
proof that the bible is anything more than ancient literature, please. i can’t seem to recall ever seeing that.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Obama has been consistently unenthusing since November 4, but he has been consistent. He’s buying interest blocs off with inconsequential gestures. Clearly this was Warren’s quid pro quo for serving as a counterweight against the Dobsons. I can totally understand the outrage, but I think we should consider that the inauguration sermon may not be a big deal and that the net cost benefit of this could be positive.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“…do you have a pet cause that you wouldn’t mind seeing Obama downplay and marginalize…”
Frankly, yes. Obama’s going to disappoint 65% of the time. But Bush actively stank up the joint almost 100% of the time, and McCain would have been in the high eighties or worse. That is politics. I’m a peacenik, I back unions, and I want to reform agriculture policy, and I’m scared to death that Obama’s going to get us into more trouble in Afghanistan, fail to get EFCA through, and basically roll over for ADM. But hey, he was the best we could do at the time. If the choice had been Obama or tomemos, I’d probably have voted for tomemos. But that’s not how it was.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I think it’s interesting that a morbidly obese fellow can be seen as some kind of moral leader. Can he even name the deadly sins?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am
i think that’s a roman catholic thing.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Re tomemeos
Mr. tomemoes apparently has a reading comprehension problem. In my comment, I stated that President Elect Osama was guilty of acquiescing in the selection, which should be considered guilt by omission.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am
The more the apostles of abortion get metaphorically punched in the stomach, the better. You people need to realize that decent people of conscience are not going to allow you to propagate your pernicious errors unchallenged. I realize that standing up for the Faith is not Stuff White People Like, but it happens to be true nonetheless.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction, so there are at least two religious faces of this inauguration. Not that I’m happy that Warren is one of them.
If it were a sermon, it might be a big deal, but it’s just an invocation.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
SLC, I didn’t misunderstand; I’m in full agreement with you, I just don’t want to let Obama off the hook at all. Sorry if that didn’t come across.
Sam, I’ve always been aware that Obama’s not the messiah, and I know this is just politics. Some people are more sanguine than others, that’s fine. But I don’t understand the people who are using that to defend this, or worse, sneer at those who are angry. The way movements stay marginalized is by saying, “Let’s all be quiet and maybe then they’ll give us what we want!” It’s time for progressives to put on pressure, even on the symbolic stuff; it’s no longer time to sit back and say, “Our guy won; all is right with the world.”
December 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
While I hate Rick Warren as much, if not more, than the next liberal, I have a hard time getting exercised about this selection. HE IS JUST GIVING AN INVOCATION. He was not asked to help set or execute policy.
It doesn’t seem that crazy to have, arguably, the most popular religious figure in the US give the invocation. If he had also asked an orthodox rabbi to give an invocation, would that be a signal that he is about to ban the sale of pork products?
I hate to see liberals waste our political capitol with Obama by fighting on these purely symbolic issues. Next up, why don’t we go head-to-head with Obama on a non-binding senate resolution? That will really teach him to take us for granted.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Apparently, President Elect Osama is only guilty of going along and not objecting.
I think this is a good point. I can just imagine the Drudge headlines now in screaming red letters: “OBAMA TO GAYS: I’M DUMPING PASTOR RICK!!!”
Now, reasonable people can disagree — and there’s obviously a strong case to be made that Obama should stand up on this bit of principle — but on the other hand the reality is he’s going to need the votes of a certain number of lawmakers — not all of them Republicans by the way — who represent folks who share Warren’s worldview. Getting into public tussle with the country’s best known white Evangelical Protestant preacher — one who’s actually a bit of a moderate by the standards of such people — might not be worth the political cost. I’m not confident that the vote to enact universal healthcare, say, or a massive stimulus plan, or a robust climate change policy will be lopsided — are you? Moreover, the tone of, well, hysteria, is a bit misplaced, I think. I can certainly understand why gay people are pissed off at this — and I can understand the universally human feeling of impatience — but it’s not as if plenty of progress hasn’t been made. And it’s not as if it isn’t clear which way the wind is blowing. Just look at the California vote total in comparison to earlier votes there on the same issue.
It seems to me that it was really DiFi who effed up here — let’s not blame Obama.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Nice work on starting a “Bad Obama” tag. Got to keep ‘em honest.
On the Rick Warren thing:
There seemed to be a difference between the Clinton triangulation-without-principle thing and Obama’s appoint-Republicans-and-talk-centrist-but-pursue-liberal-policies thing. A lot of bloggers and activists hoped that difference continue hold as Obama starts office. Warren’s invocation isn’t a good sign. As much as people say (TLS @ #46, Paul @ #28) these things don’t matter; they do. CNN is running coverage on the inauguration until it happens — and the Warren thing is great for a progressive Sistah Soulja-ing story. Progressive anger makes the news and Obama scores some points. It’s insulting and it’s unnecessary.
Why not Jim Wallis? He’s constantly held the [awkward] spot of proclaiming liberal causes but still refusing to either be pegged as a Democrat or get sucked into wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. He does the whole “bringing people together” thing while refusing to fan the flames of the culture wars. And he’s an Evangelical. Several of those characteristics also sound a whole lot like Obama.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I mean come on… highly anti-progressive views? Anti-choice? Anti-gay? How many high profile bible belters do you know who DON’T take those positions. This is not news. Obama is a Christian and he scores points for putting a high profile guy out there…
Personally, I think this is all part of Obama’s plans for reconciliation… his reaches across the aisle are not always going to be popular, but someone’s gotta do it (unless we want to be mired in a partisan quagmire forever).
December 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Here’s the thing. After the Wright debacle, Obama can’t have anybody at all from the African-American church. He probably can’t even get anybody who was anti-war, because they will have pointed out that America was being evil.
Rick Warren is a punt. Unfortunately, he’s also a cunt.
Compared to finding a moderate evangelical who is pro-gay marriage, this is probably more effective due to Warren’s celebrity.
Keep in mind that the more Obama gets beaten up about this, the more he’ll owe the left.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I actually kind of like that Obama’s showing himself to be pretty unserious about religion. I agree with the upthread post that the whole Wright flap came about because he never actually was listening to Wright’s message.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“Why not Jim Wallis?”
Now this is a good question, with a complicated answer, I think. There are millions upon millions of evangelical christians in the U.S. They skew conservative, but who can really be said to speak for that many people? Rick Warren gets the nod these days, I think, because he really is pretty bland, not a lot of original thought there.
Jim Wallis has more interesting things to say, but he gets interviewed on NPR. A Carlton Pearson-type pro-gay evangelical is so heretical that he’s a story on This American Life. Shane Claiborne and his New Monasticism are fascinating, anti-war and pro-gay, going to Iraq to protest the war before it started, but he’s very much a fringe figure.
Rick Warren would get the Today Show. And his interview would be just as boring as you’d expect on the Today Show. But he’s as much as you can stretch the idea of an evangelical in most people’s minds and still be an evangelical, and that’s why he gets Obama’s nod.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Obama did not proclaim himself the Progressive candidate Progressives (Liberals) can believe. Obama never claimed to be the check in the box uberliberal to fulfill all liberal political fantasies and crush the hated conservatives skulls. If some of you guys actually listened, you would be much less disappointed. I’m a moderate, so of course I am satisfied on almost all fronts. And, nearly the majority of Americans define themselves as moderates.
You can be disappointed that he doesn’t support gay marriage, but don’t pretend to be surprised by it. The same goes for the foodies who were hoping Obama would take on agribusiness or the Code Pink types who hoped Obama was secretly the anti-war candidate, instead of just opposing the Iraq War. Since when did he ever show such an inclination?
This isn’t The West Wing.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Matt, with all due respect, your analogy is wholly incoherent. “Elevating a cleric” in Iran is something completely different than having someone deliver an invocation at a ceremony. A comparable analogy would be if the newly elected president got said cleric to deliver a prayer alongside a more moderate prayer as a gesture of national unity. I think many outside observers would see something admirable in that.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“Keep in mind that the more Obama gets beaten up about this, the more he’ll owe the left.”
Now who’s being naive? Somehow we got to the end of Clinton’s term without getting to cash that check.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
And to think large sectors of the electorate believe Democrats are spineless wimps who won’t take a strong stand! ! !
What do you suppose is Rick Warren’s most moderate belief: that evolution is not true, or that we should assasinate Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, or that homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia?
Which, I’m sure, will sound absolutely nothing at all like a sermon. I mean what is he, a preacher?
December 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
It’s important for people to remember the context for people’s anger at this. Gay rights was the one liberal cause that wasn’t invited to the party on November 4, and Obama didn’t help at all: he was nowhere on Prop 8, and in fact was so wishy-washy that his comments got used by Yes on 8 in a mailer. I don’t blame him for that—he wanted to get elected and I wanted him to as well. But now that the race is over and we want to start seeing results, he gets another homophobic religious figure (Donny McClurkin was the first) to front an event of his, and people say, “Do you mind taking one more for the team? It’s just symbolic politics, it’s no big deal! And it’ll show national unity?” Understand why that isn’t a very attractive message to gay rights activists right now.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
What Warren said on Hannity’s show is quite interesting considering that the cleric Ahmadinejad chose to speak at his inauguration, Rukh al-Warun, essentially said the same thing, but in referring to Bush, “The Prophet, Peace be upon him, has said, ‘Allah puts government on Earth to punish evil-doers.’ And it is written in the Holy Qu’ran that evil cannot be bargained with; it must be brought to an end. That is the legitimate goal of government.”
It’s a pretty strange coincidence.
Originally, Ezra Klein posted the quote, by the way.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Trust me - everybody who programs in any language is a monkey. Have you actually used any software lately? It all sucks rocks - even most of the OSS stuff. but you see for home http://www.liginmaclari.blogcu.com
December 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
This isn’t The West Wing.
The West Wing wasn’t the West Wing either. Bartlet was a moderately left of center guy too.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
It doesn’t seem that crazy to have, arguably, the most popular religious figure in the US give the invocation.
When the “most popular religious figure in the US” is an insidious self-promoting huckster? Well, I suppose that’s the Christian way in America. Yeah, he’s bland and self-serving enough to offend only the kind of common-or-garden prejudices that reach across denominational divides (a hard-on for American war, a fear of Teh Ghey). But there’s a feedback loop here: the inauguration stuff wraps those prejudices in the flag.
Billy Graham’s not going to be around for much longer, and the nation apparently needs someone representing the new generation of megachurch bullshit to take his place.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
In a sense, it’s a mistake to act like Warren matters, because his ascent to America’s Most-Respected Fat Beardy Megachurch Impressario® has fuck-all to do with religion.
At least Fred Phelps and his inbred little church of haters have the courage of their convictions. Warren’s in it for the money.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
More fake symbolism from Obama. Sharing aracanum imperili with Rick Warren as W did with his shit-for-brains ministers would be another story.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
you know what would really solve this? a separation of church and state (what a wacky idea). why do we need invocations and benedictions at the inauguration?
December 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Amen, sdg. Er, I mean…
Let’s keep in mind here that the flaw isn’t in Warren, the flaw’s in the goddamn bible. Deuteronomy in so uncertain terms calls homosexuality an abomination–the same word that it uses for eating crustaceans. Why?
Because Deuteronomy is a 3000-year old pile of horseshit, inexplicably reprinted by Christianity, which is a 1500-year old pile of horseshit.
If he were going to have Richard Dawkins talk about how awesome atheism is, then maybe there’d be a sniff of representation of progressive beliefs. Complaining that the Christian minister is too conservative is like complaining that Obama’s favorite children’s author is too puerile.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
While i am no fan of Rick Warren, your analogy to the “elevation” of an Iranian cleric is just off base. Obama isn’t “elevating” him, he is letting him say a prayer to a lot of people. I read your use of the word “elevate” to mean giving him some position of power in the government. Obama is not doing this. And, if an Iranian President had a hard-liner give a speech at his inaugaration, we might rightly assume he is trying to keep all parts of his government in tow. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I’m gay and I don’t give a tinker’s damn that Rick Warren is going to get up in front the crowd at the Inauguration and give a long-winded speech full of the portentious platitudes that define American Civic Religion. Now, if Obama had appointed HHS secretary I’d go grab my pitchfork and drive down I-95 to DC. But this is really mnuch ado about nothing. It’s not even a teapot tempest, more like a thimble tempest.
Re: Deuteronomy in so uncertain terms calls homosexuality an abomination
No it does not. The word “homosexuality” is no wher in the Bible (of corse I mean, no Greek or Hebrew word that can be plausibly translated such is there).
December 18th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I say Wright was his “nominal” preacher because I genuinely believe Obama got into trouble with Wright because he wasn’t paying that much attention to his preacher.
I agree with the upthread post that the whole Wright flap came about because he never actually was listening to Wright’s message.
Ridiculous. He knew what Wright’s message was. And he also knew that that message was very popular among blacks in Chicago. He picked Wright as his pastor because he knew exactly what Wright was and knew that it would help his political ambition.
When Wright ceased to be an asset and started to become a liability, Obama dropped him.
Obama was neither ignorant of Wright, nor was he in agreement with him. He was simply makng a cynical political calculation, for better or for worse.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:48 am
uhh, yall know that rev. joseph lowery, of the african american church, and who SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE, will be delivering the benediction after the swearing in right?
this is a throwing a little line to the younger evangelicals that like warren stuff, but still keeping one of his earliest supporters (rev lowery) have an equally big spot.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Hey, Hector, “Debbie Does Dallas” seriously dates you.
Ever heard of Tera Patrick?
SDG has the right idea. Get rid of all this religious crap in the government.
Then we start executing Christians by throwing them to the lions at the various zoos around the country. Sell tickets at feeding time. We need to keep the zoos solvent and that will do it.
As the late Aleister Crowley used to say, “The Christians to the lions!”
December 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Go back upthread to number 57 (Tomemos at 3:07 pm); that is totally right, and the final (and very reasoned) word on how a lot of California gays (myself included) feel about Obama’s continued benign disregard for us.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Although I disagree with him about some important issues, I have nothing against Rick Warren personally. The reason this is sad is that there are so many progressive Christians who have been working for the things Obama cares about for so many years and could have used this legitimation for good. The list of deserving religious progressives is long. Just a small sampling of worthy candidates to give an inaugural invocation: Jim Wallace of Sojourners, James Forbes of Riverside Church, Peter Gomes of Harvard, Samuel Lloyd of the Washington National Cathedral, and on and on… It just seems that when conservatives are in power, they prop up conservative religious leaders and when liberals are in power too often they also prop up conservative religious leaders. Progressive clergy are truly doing holy work - preaching God’s love for all people regardless of sexual orientation, aiding the poor, etc. - and they deserve some recognition too.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Just to build on my point a bit more. In a nation where 70 to 80 percent of the population identifies as some type of Christian (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm), it’s in the progressive movement’s strong interest to build up progressive Christian leaders rather than marginalize them. We need to make an effort at this because, despite the fact that a significant proportion of Christians are progressives, the media often prefers to use the atheist versus fundamentalist frame for many issues. In ignoring rather than promoting progressive/mainline Christians, Obama is going against the long term interests of the progressive movement.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 6:26 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:57 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:59 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
viagra