There has been much discussion (see Memeorandum from around 6:05pm est) today about President-elect Obama’s selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.
The AP has the basic run-down (Obama defends choice of pastor for invocation):
President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday defended his choice of a popular evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, rejecting criticism that it slights gays. The selection of Pastor Rick Warren brought objections from gay rights advocates, who strongly supported Obama during the election campaign. The advocates are angry over Warren’s backing of a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. That measure was approved by voters last month.
Quite a bit could be said about Warren who, I think, fancies himself taking on the role that Billy Graham played for some many decades as pastor to presidents/the nation. However, let’s cut to the political chase. The bottom line is that the Warren selection will clearly upset a small (in relative terms) vocal segment of Obama supporters, and cause a blogswarm/cable news storm that will last until maybe tomorrow or the next day (at which point it will be washed away by the holidays), but it will mosyly be met with shrug of the shoulders (”Rick who?”), a vaguely positive response (”oh, it’s that nice pastor fellow I saw on the cover of Time“) or even some positive reviews (”hmm, maybe Obama’s not as scary as I thought!”). Indeed, the net politics are positive once one sums the entire effect of the choice.
After that, Warren will end delivering a prayer of probably less than two minutes and it will mostly be forgotten. Beyond that, it isn’t like Warren is going to be asked into the cabinet or setting social policy, so in terms of concrete importance this strikes me as a great deal of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Note: Minor editing to next to the last paragraph to correct screwed up sentence)
Sphere: Related Content
December 18th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I think the context of the anti-Warren protest is that the gay movement is still smarting from having Prop 8 and other anti-gay marriage ballot proposals pass with the overwhelming support of African-Americans, and arguably the tacit support of Obama himself (as he said he opposed gay marriage), so getting angry at Obama for inviting Warren is the gay movement’s passive-aggressive way of showing anger at the elements of the Democratic coalition that went against their interests in the election; hence, the massive outrage over something arguably trivial.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Two points:
1. Gays are not damning the choice because of Warren’s support of Proposition 8. They are are damning the choice because Warren, as recently as six days ago, equated gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. Anyone who dismisses that as “trivial” needs to go out and meet more gays.
2. Billy Graham, who admittedly was surely not a supporter of gay marriage, nevertheless achieved the position he did precisely because of his inoffensive, milquetoast approach to faith in the public square. Warren is as far from that as is Louis Farrakhan.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
For the record (so that my own position is clear):
-I support the rights of same-sex couples to engage in civil marriage.
-I can understand why some are upset over Warren’s selection, I just think that in terms of the political it is overblown and overall will redound positively to Obama (whether that is a good or bad thing is another issue).
-In regards to Warren and Graham, the choice of the phrase “fancies himself” was chosen quite deliberately.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
One of the many disturbing things about being a Democrat under the Bush regime was the feeling I didn’t have a president. Even though I strongly disagree with Warren about gay marriage and abortion, I realize many people agree with him. I love the idea that Obama wants to be everybody’s president.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Obama will be another divide politcian. So much for bringing us together.
Obama is a big disappointment
December 18th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’m FURIOUS!!!!!, my vote went to this political, fascist, BARRACK HUSAIN OBAMA! If you inserted the word “BLACK” for the word “GAY” in Rick Warren’s speeches, there would be riots in this country. It is dehumanizing and goes against everything we have fought for as a equal society and negates ALL equality. Tolerance for Intolerance is unacceptable and this Bigot is given more power by Obama’s Decision! This man speaking alienates and disenfranchises so many people not just homosexuals! This is not a platform or inspired, it is hatred and has no place in politics nor any public taxpayers forum. This man would never be able to speak at a college, or graduation and has no merit or relevance to what is happening at the inauguration.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Dr. T, I tend to agree with you for the most part but in my opinion, you’re wrong on this one.
This latest “pastor problem” is sheer tone-deafness on Obama’s part. As KipEsquire rightly points out, Warren is far from being a “no drama” selection because of the incredibly denigrating things he regularly says about LGBT Americans. His participation in nullifying thousands of CA marriages just adds to that drama (we won’t even go into Warren’s ideas about the superiority of the Bible over science; I wonder what the Nobel physicist Dr. Steven Chu thinks of Warren). I realize that Obama’s selection of the gay-friendly Arne Duncan for Edu. mitigates Warren somewhat, and the speculation that his Sec. of the Navy may be an openly gay man* adds to that mitigation.
Even so, it strikes me as incredibly ill-considered to piss off two not-inconsiderable segments of the Dem base (LGBT and secularists) with the Prop 8 wounds still raw and bleeding. Obama may as well have invited Tim LaHaye or James Dobson. Warren is cut from the same cloth, he just has slightly better manners. Let’s not forget the State/HRC/Bubba mess is still ongoing, and top that off with the (probably) tangential Blagojevich mess. It makes me shake my head and wonder WTF Obama was thinking to invite such controversy right now. Did Obama really need to stir up trouble within his base by giving (basically) a “kinder, gentler” Dobson an opportunity to speak to the entire world during his historic inauguration? The world will not be watching Mr. Duncan or (potentially) Mr. White. It will be watching the inauguration, and there on the screen will be this “agent of intolerance” (to use McCain’s marvelously apt phrase).
Naturally, neither Obama nor Warren will withdraw the appearance — face must of course be saved. And I fully realize that Warren’s participation will be brief and what he says will be quickly forgotten (unless he shoves his hoof in his mouth, which is not impossible). The problem is that Warren’s participation gives the LGBT community the back of Obama’s hand — in front of the entire world. Symbolism matters, no matter how fleeting. How long did the shoe-throwing thing take? A few seconds at most, yet that will likely become one of the enduring moments of Bush’s presidency.
I don’t want to regret my “lesser of two evils” vote, but this…
* It took quite an effort to resist making the obvious Village People joke.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Mr. Obama, Rick Warren is a Great Choice! Hope you keep going in this direction…
December 19th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Anyone must be crazy to think that this Rick Warren is just a reach across the ile. The Bible says alot of things including the owning of slaves. So tell me if we are to follow the Bible with no questions asked then I guess we have to go back to the time when slaves where apart of everyday life.
Lets not forget that the killing of women and childern where common also in that time. This man is nothing more than a well payed bigit And Obama was and is dead wrong to choise him.
And if you believe that this will be forgotton easly you are wrong. I hope Obama is not looking for a socond term.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
EJ,
Certainly holding slaves and the killing of women and children (and other men) happened during biblical times. But the Bible clearly condemns all of these activities. I would urge you to read some of the Bible– the book of John is a great place to start– and I think you will see a very different reality than you currently hold about scripture.
Rick Warren certainly does *not* advocate ‘reading the Bible with no questions asked.’
I am encouraged that Obama is willing to reach across the aisle; that gives me hope that despite the fact that I don’t agree with Obama on some things that are very important to me (although I voted for Obama despite these misgivings), that some hearing will be given to these things I find very important.
As a previous poster mentioned, I am glad that Obama is attempting to be president to everyone. THink about it this way– how represented did you feel during the Bush presidency? Did you not wish he would have been more open to things that you find important? If you feel this way, then you’ve got to give props for Obama attempting to do what Bush did not do…
jim
December 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Jim, he might not advocate it in those words, but he certainly does advocate “surrender” to biblical authority in all things. Here are a few choice quotes from The Purpose Driven Life:
Now, how do you square that with your remark that “Rick Warren certainly does *not* advocate ‘reading the Bible with no questions asked.’?”
December 19th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
America’s ills are partly because of the bleeding heart media inciting feelings.
This knee-jerk reaction from certain members of American’s minority is a travesty! Let the majority speak, for once. Too many special interest groups and lobbying is what has brought this country to the moral morass we are in.
Obama is doing a splendid job of including those who are not of his ilk - such as Republicans and Rick Warren. Get over it! Those who want to continue seeing America on a divisive path WILL fail. Make no mistake about it! Warren WILL deliver the invocation!
December 19th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I really could hardly care less who gives an invocation at a presidential inauguration. (Well, OK, I will admit that I would prefer it not be Warren, that I’d be really happy were it a lesbian rabbi, and my sincere preference is not to have a public prayer, regardless of who leads it, at a presidential inauguration.)
But this is just so smart politically. With this one decision, Obama sends a very clear message that he is serious about something that the last Democratic president promised, but largely failed to deliver on: “focus like a laser beam” on the economy. Social issues will not allowed to be distract. And it hardly hurts Obama with the public to have part of his party’s base carping. (And it also hardly hurts the gay rights cause to have this as a reminder within their own community, and to those of us outside of it who are supportive of the cause, of the hard work still ahead.)