Can anyone imagine a scenario when an overtly liberal preacher who advocated for and performed gay marriages would be allowed to even be seen at a Republican inauguration, let alone give an address?

Still not convinced, Steve.

I get it. AND he's ending it with Dr. Joseph Lowery. On a high note, of sorts. So why is everyone so effin' freaked out? We railed against this past GOP for being intolerant, and now we have our narrow range of acceptable stuck in our craw. It is not intended to convert liberals. There is another reason he is doing this.

Agreed, Steve. Of all the religious figures in the country, he gives *the platform of the year* to a hate-spewing person. Sorry, Obama -- there is no equivalence with you (and many others) speaking at his church. Your choice is a slap to many.

Attendees of the inauguration should shout down the Rev. Warren when he invokes his wrathful god.

us vs them mentality suffers a defeat...maybe just maybe showing tolerance to intolerable people will enable them to become more tolerant themselves...maybe not...

Why do I sense that there must be more to such a gratuitous insult? This is the guy who, don't forget, ran the most politically astute campaign in at least recent memory.

If this isn't an intentional insult to his base on the left where did that sensibility go?

Attendees of the inauguration should shout down the Rev. Warren when he invokes his wrathful god.

How...Republican.

Yeah, it's a mistake. But it's a mistake in appearance rather than substance, about on a par with the black and red dress Michelle wore on election night, so I'm not too worried about it.

I don't want sound like an Obama apologist because I'm not. I'm still very unhappy at his vote on FISA and I think many of his policy proposals are too conventional to work. But Obama has demonstrated time after time that his is a better strategist than I am, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe Warren will abuse this opportunity or the attention it gives him and end up discrediting himself. Or maybe Obama's supporters can point out to the corporate-controlled media Jake's idea of contrasting Obama's inclusiveness with the Republicans' intolerance.

Man, if only he were also known for some other great work he does, say with the HIV/AIDS community, there might even be a good reason to invite him. Oh wait, he is.

Should it be any surprise that Obama decided to show, like usual, that he can disagree with you on many issues and still have a very positive relationship based on the areas where you agree. Are we really wanting to claim that one must be ideologically pure to give a freaking invocation? re:Jake, do we really want to base best practices on Republican purity tests?

Is this a "Sister Souljah" type move by O, showing he's not a captive of the netroots?

Anybody notice that Warren is to "invoke", i.e; ask God to bless the Obama presidency and the country?

Okay, you all small tent liberals need to get over yourselves. Obama won by focusing on what unites us and not petty differences. And yeah as a gay man, I think this amounts to a petty difference.

I wonder how Obama would then deal with a preacher who is not disagreeable in tone but who is a member of the Klan and has a long history of supporting, in a respectful manner, separation of the races, subordination of blacks to whites, etc.

There's only going to be one invocation at Obama's inauguration

There's also going to be a benediction, delivered by a liberal pro-gay pastor. That takes out some of the sting for me.

Beyond that...this is really of a piece with Obama's race speech. His argument, at its core, is that we need to find a more mature way to address bigotry. Shunning the bigots and letting their prejudices calcify is not productive, and we can't claim to understand the circumstances that bring people to be prejudiced. He's consistently accepted that some people he deals with will have issues with black people, white people, gays, probably others. Maybe dealing with bigotry on this level will diminish it over time.

It's an unusual strategy, and it sets him up for a backlash from his own coalition, but given that there are still remarkable tensions between different groups of Americans, it might be what we need.

But that's not what we're talking about here. There's only going to be one invocation at Obama's inauguration, and it will be delivered be a conservative who strongly disagrees with Obama on gay rights, reproductive rights, foreign policy, and modern science.

Which might be a problem, if the invocation had anything to do with any of those things.

I get it

Well, you did say, "Talk me down"

If Warren, in his invocation, calls upon the almighty to rain down fire and brimstone on the sodomites and thrust the abortionists and their patients into the lake of fire, well, I'll probably be pretty upset. On the other hand, if he gives a God-bless-us-every-one prayer, then I guess it's okay with me. My preference would be for NO invocation or benediction, but I know that ain't gonna happen. Let 'er rip, pastor.
. . . jim strain in san diego.

I would never have Warren in my house, let alone let him say a prayer at a major political event. However, one of the reasons I voted for Obama is that he is a better person than I am, something I expect a president to be.

To me, the choice says nothing about Obama's beliefs about gays, abortion or anything else. It says: prayer is greater than politics, and we all have the same ultimate goals.

Personally, I don't even pray and wish there were no invocation at this thing at all. But as long as we're having one, letting someone you disagree with utter it sends a very powerful message about how you truly get started on a path of reconciliation with people. And that doesn't happen by appointing tokens to do token things.

It makes him look incredibly magnanimous, I think. And furthermore, I think it does not because it was good strategy, but because he actually IS magnanimous.

No Jake, I can't. But then, Obama isn't a Republican and doesn't intend to govern like one either. Which is a good thing.

Look, we're in tough times. This election wasn't about political pay back for the last 8 years but getting this country back on course. It wasn't about holding power for the next four years or eight years but getting things done on a wide variety of fronts and to do that you need as wide a coalition as you can build. I doubt Warren is going to change his positions much, if at all, but if Obama can open his ears a little, if Warren can help Obama get a few things done, then it will be worth it.

p.s. SB, I wanted to take this opportunity to report that I think this is the first thing I have ever disagreed with you about. That is a darn good record, at least in the tiny little universe between my ears.

I'm reluctant to make too big a deal about this.

Too late. Your obsession is showing. Geez, move on already.

It makes him look incredibly magnanimous, I think. And furthermore, I think it does not because it was good strategy, but because he actually IS magnanimous

Magnanimous? Fuck that. It wasn't *Obama's* right to marry that Warren led a successful campaign to obliterate just two months ago. Warren didn't do anything to *him*.

And fuck the blithering about how Warren has done good work on AIDS. If Obama wants to appoint him to a committee on AIDS relief in Africa, that'd be relevant. Instead he decided to appoint him America's pastor, the only one holy enough to invoke God for him.

If he wanted to do 'outreach' there's plenty of evangelicals that don't hate gays.

"if warren can help obama get a few things done"

like what?

name one.

this invitation lends legitimacy to warren's fundamentalist positions. there is no argument that can show that as anything other than wrong.

Bubba's right.

That "wide range of viewpoints" obviously should include at least one prominent speaker who so sincerely believes that mixed-race marriages are immoral that he's compared them to incest.

That's what America's all about.

I could actually imagine this being good for gay marriage by reducing the "heat" of the issue, and increasing understanding. That's the whole point of Obama's style and a lot of recent liberal politics -- to defuse cultural hotbed issues by getting people to understand each other rather than shouting. When you do this, you remove the symbolic importance of the hotbed issues. There may still be a substantive disagreement, but people may be more amenable to compromise when they feel validated by the other party.

Obama's move is a symbolic move to validate the other side, while acknowledging substantive differences. With due respect to Steve, the symbolism of this event is the whole point. The symbolism is why this particular invitation is the right one to extend.

Anyone can have a few calm debates with the other side, and then go home and fall back into the same patterns. But if you reach out and say "you're an OK guy, I want to be your friend" you're making it harder for people to go home and fall into the same patterns, because you're making a lasting connection.

I would dispute the idea that this suggests anything substantive about Obama's lack of committment to GLBT issues. I think it is the right thing to do, and I vehemently disagree with Rick Warren about GLBT issues.

Obama's move is a symbolic move to validate the other side, while acknowledging substantive differences.

There were lots of racists on the other side. How about we 'validate' them by hiring a racist preacher for the inauguration?

No? So 'outreach' is only fine as long as it's gays getting kicked in the face, apparently.

"it's a symbolic gesture, which will likely have no substantive effect whatsoever. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a mistake."

Those two sentences are logically at odds with each other. If the invocation has no substantive effect, stop worrying about it. Stop worrying about Obama "elevating" this guys, as that doesn't make any sense. He's not agreeing with the guy's views, he's saying we liberals need to talk with people like him because they represent a large portion of the country.

I think that it's a very smart move on Obama's part. The political atmosphere has been so polluted and polarized that specific steps need to be taken to clear the air. This move is designed to short-circuit the loud-mouth idiots (LMI) like Bill O, Rush & Sean Hannity.

By giving Warren this honor, Obama risks some support from the left, but (as unfortunate as it is) this needs to be done as that critical first step to bring the LMI listeners somewhat back into reality. After this, when the LMI go off on their rants, pull up this (and there will be more gestures like this) and simply say: Wrong.

As a practical matter, Obama is already campaigning for 2012. Don't expect any big liberal moves until after that election. Hell, the cleanup of the damage done by Georgie & his band of marauding government drownders may take longer than Obama's first term.

Sorry, but for me the honeymoon's over. Symbolic or not, it hurts to see someone like Warren elevated to such prominence by Obama. I don't care about the politics involved when I'm having a self-righteous finger poked in my own eye.

Remember folks that a majority of Californians voted against gay marriage. That's a travesty. But if Rick Warren is being called a bigot for his position on gay marriage, what does that make a majority of Californians?

It's OK to say "they're bigots too" -- after all, at one time the civil rights and women's rights movements were unpopular, and it was still bigoted to be against those movements. That's a valid point.

But you have to partly understand people as the product of their times. There is a reason why many people were wary of extending equal rights to women, or to blacks -- they were brought up a certain way. It sucks that they were. It doesn't excuse their beliefs. But it helps explain how they came about.

You have to understand that tactically, it's not clear that calling 50% of California "bigots" is going to solve our problem of achieving equal rights. If too many people are resistant to your message, ramming things through when you've grabbed power may not be effective.

It's hard to say what's the best strategy. But I think Obama's thinking the right way here.

Steve B., as usual Michael Bérubé expresses himself well:

Poetry and pragmatism

Where are the racists? What racists are speaking at his inauguration? Who among those he honors have said that God views blacks as inferior? Which persons are he including that use the bible to condone slavery? Doesn't he need to reach out to them as well? Shouldn't they be up there with him at his inauguration? Can't we just all agree to disagree, but still honor those individuals?

And how about the Jews? Shouldn't he include people who view Jews as Christ killers? How about anti-Catholics? What about people who despise immigrants and consider Hispanics to be vermin? Why is it that he keeps reaching out and including people who spew vile lies about gay people, but doesn't include these others?

I'd say you've got a key point backwards. If Obama thinks Warren has some sound views in some areas (and doubtless he does) and that opening an alliance with Warren in these areas might be profitable - more so than with other evangelicals (which it might well be) - then Warren is the right guy, but the inauguration is the wrong place. Warren needs to be handed a megaphone and/or put to work in a context that showcases his sound views and makes irrelevant his unsound ones. Something as generic as the inauguration is _not_ that context.

Some of you are confusing morality with politics. So you say "Discriminating against gays is the equivalent discriminating against people based on race; therefore what Barak Obama is practically doing is morally equivalent to letting a racist person pray at his invocation." First off a lot of Americans are against basic rights for gays. Like one candidate who just got about 46% of the vote for president. Politically I think not accepting those who are against gay rights is a ridiculous proposal.

Morally your argument is better but it isn't great. Morally saying you will not tolerate intolerance has a logical dissonance to it. I personally believe in accepting people who are different than me, which for me includes people who are intolerant.

"Attendees of the inauguration should shout down the Rev. Warren when he invokes his wrathful god."

Attendees should respectfully turn their backs on him enmasse and stand like that silently.

Mistake on Obama's part in this one. I could understand meeting with Warren or working with him on some commonly held cause, but this was a reward. It sends out a terrible, terrible figure. Warren and his ilk are among the most intollerant segment of our society. there is no two way street with them. He should not have been included in an event that is intended for ALL americans.

It is clear now that Obama will employ a "kill them with kindness" approach to the right. It could work. In fact, I think it is a strategy worth trying--very tai chi. But it could fail and piss of the left in the process. I'm still in give-the-guy-a-chance-because-he-ran-an-amazingly-improbable-campaign-and-seems-to-know-what-he-is-doing mode. And I just don't understand people who are NOT in this mode.

There were lots of racists on the other side. How about we 'validate' them by hiring a racist preacher for the inauguration?

No? So 'outreach' is only fine as long as it's gays getting kicked in the face, apparently.

You're right that this is frustrating, but the difference is tactical, even though the underlying question is one of justice and equality. The difference is that 99% of people agree that racism is wrong, and we may not care quite so much about "bringing in" the remaining 1%. (Actually we may, if they start bombing buildings. There may be a parallel to terrorism here -- we may think terrorists are abominable, but to increase communication and outreach, even to murderous criminals, is still the right thing to do.)

Whereas with LGBT issues, the country is split more evenly. Questions of justice are not a simple majority decision, but if you want to speak for your country you have to be receptive to what they're saying.

There is leadership and there is receptiveness. Obama is trying to demonstrate, in his way, how the two can coexist.

There are many other ways for those two qualities to coexist (you can smile for the cameras while you aggressively push your agenda through; you can explain and persuade as you push your agenda through, etc.). Obama's one guy, and he has his style.

Right, the invocation at an inaugural address is such a huge deal.

Remember all those legendary invocations from past religious leaders? Like ... uh ... wait a sec ... Um.

This is a meaningless, ceremonial bit of nothingness. It'll be over in three minutes, and forgotten a week later. The only reason it's becoming a big deal is that we're making a big deal out of it.

it's not clear that calling 50% of California "bigots" is going to solve our problem of achieving equal rights.

But apparently it's clear that giving a prominant platform to someone who says gay relationships are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy is going to solve...what?

Stop talking about Warren as if he's the issue here. Is there any conservative evangelical, with any creditibility of standing with that community, who would be acceptable to play this role at Obama's inauguration?

MIke

Now I get it. Obama just needs to tune into the authors of this blog to see and understand the great issues of our times. He needs to remain ideologically pure; otherwise, his presidency will be a shambles. Oh, and by the way, am I ever fucking tired of people who need to invoke god in any form, especially including those of you who think god has something to do with gay rights. Are you so insecure that some guy who claims he's on a close personal wavelength with god and who happens to hate gays is going to babble some christian inanities at the inauguration ? If Obama wants to have this guy utter some prayers, who should really care ? God doesn't dictate my politics. Does he/she/it dictate yours ?

Religion sucks. I'm with Jim in San Diego - this prayer stuff really isn't necessary but since it's ingrained into our society, you have to live with these kind of silly controversies. You know all these "men of God" have a direct line to The Man. It's strange how the message is always so very different! Oh yea, I forgot, your God is the "right" one....

Just as a historical inquiry, was an invocation and benediction always part of the inauguration? Guess I have some research to do.

Boy, if the comments I'm reading here today from those defending Obama are any indication, picking Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural was definitely a mistake.

And let's not forget that Obama's mouthpieces are also saying that those fussy gay people should be happy because, you know, there's a gay/lesbian marching band in the inaugural parade!

Sorry, O, placating the queers with an occasional crumb went out with Stonewall 40 years ago.

Showing tolerance to intolerable people encourages them to write more ballot initiatives to reduce more civil rights.

Intolerance of oppressors is a legitimate expression of liberty. Intolerance of equal rights is oppressive. The Rev. Warren is an advocate of intolerance, and he is a leader of the oppressive.

Are you so insecure that some guy who claims he's on a close personal wavelength with god and who happens to hate gays is going to babble some christian inanities at the inauguration ?

I think David Duke should be allowed to speak as well.

I read someone (I wish I could remember who! Perhaps Lewis Lapham?) describe Obama's cabinet picks as giving him a case of 'post-partisan depression.' I think the same can be said for his choice of Warren for the invocation. Not only is that coined phrase funny, it also describes how a lot of us liberals are going to be feeling during the Obama administration, for better or worse remains to be seen.

Well, I did a little research on the historical significance and found this quote from Dr. Donald Kennon, the Chief Historian for the US Capitol Historical Society (for all those who give a flip):

"the role of clergy in our inaugural ceremonies is a recent development that began in 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt had a minister to give a benediction, and then his following inauguration had an invocation and a benediction. And it has involved Catholic priests. It has involved Protestant ministers. It's involved Jewish rabbis. So there has been a little bit more diversity in the -- again, religion supports the government. The government doesn't necessarily support or favor any specific religion or Christian denomination.

"It makes him look incredibly magnanimous, I think. And furthermore, I think it does not because it was good strategy, but because he actually IS magnanimous."

I don't get this at all. How is Obama being magnanimous by giving this platform to someone who has views that, yes, Obama disagrees with, but whose views when put into practice don't personally affect Obama. Obama's not gay and though he seems to respect others' right to abortions, he doesn't seem personally to want to exercise that right. Warren's views conflict with some of Obama's, but Warren isn't seeking to oppress Obama, only some of Obama's supporters. Perhaps they're dispensable.

I'm sure the invocation was a major concern on everyone's mind during the campaign. I remember several questions about what kind of person Clinton or McCain or Obama was going to choose for to deliver this country changing message. I'm stunned....STUNNED, I SAY....at Obama's choice. I retroactively recast my vote for Ralph Nader. I directly asked him about which religious pastor would be delivering his invocation and he said it would be a Grand Poohbah of the Circle of Light, a Wiccan order. I thought this was much more in keeping with our steady march towards a more environmentally aware society. I'm just sooooooo disgusted right now.

And it has involved Catholic priests. It has involved Protestant ministers. It's involved Jewish rabbis. So there has been a little bit more diversity... -whichwitch

Has it ever involved someone who recently used the Bible to agree with and justify Sean Hannity's call for the assassination of a foreign leader?

One thing that struck me all through the Obama campaign was that, time and time again, the netroots would get all worked up, and time would prove that Obama is very smart and capable.

Personally, I think that the entire lineup is brilliant, including Warren. Look at the complete schedule, he isn't the only one speaking. Obama is doing exactly what he promised, by giving a cross section of voices, and has managed to get the left and the right all wetting themselves, which just reaffirms to mainstream America that Obama is not going to be another Bush, seemingly indifferent to everything but a narrow segment of the population.

AstroTurf strikes again! Wheeeeeee....

I'm amazed. I had no idea that the invocation had so much power. We have people ready to abandon all hope because the speaker does not believe in gay "marriage". What the fuck is this legal brand of marriage anyway? It's a man-made paper trick. If you feel like being married, just act like you are. It's personal so treat it that way. It's a bitch that the courts don't acknowledge it, I agree, but this is a fringe issue relative to the problems we really have. We got way bigger problems than the narrow-minded attitudes coming from someone who gives a speech.

Hold on doubtful...those weren't my words...I forgot to close the quotes. I was quoting the historian.
I'm not a religious person at all so I find no use for any of its trappings in our governmental affairs.

I did not have time to digest all the preceding 54 comments, so someone may have already commented on Obama's setting the wingnuts against each other over this. I see political spohistication in keeping them in conflict with each other as they manifest their all-so-righteous wrath.

I'm still not convinced. While I can understand Obama's reasoning (as he presented it), it seems that it just pours fuel on the fire, reinforcing the notion that being gay or supporting reproductive rights is anti-Christian. I would have much preferred seeing a more progressive and less divisive religious figure chosen for this role.

Further, I'm assuming that no one is going to pre-approve his invocation, clearing the way for him to "make a stand" by offering something pretty hate-filled and thereby undercutting Obama and all he stands for, setting a wonderful tone right from the very start of his presidency.

If Obama wants to be magnanimous, that's ok with me, I guess, but Warren is the wrong guy. Warren is already too big for his britches. We don't need an "America's Pastor", but that's what Warren is trying to set himself up as. The fact that both candidates didn't tell Warren to stuff his invitation for that interview session was truly dissapointing (though understandable on Obama's part and predictable on McCain's). Getting to do the invocation gig just makes it more likely every presidential candidate for the next 30 years will have do the same thing.

What bothers me most about Warren is the sick implication of his best known work that athiests and agnostics live a purposeless, empty life.

whichwitch,

Sorry, my bad!

I'm reluctant to make too big a deal about this.

You already have.

Obama is showing that he supports extremely diverse people. His government record had too many in the extreme left, but as president-elect he has chosen a broad range of good people, each probably imperfect in unique ways, not all now known. If every selection had to be perfect, Obama would be alone.

this is really of a piece with Obama's race speech

In his nominations to date, Obama is living up to the best of his rhetoric.

I think his "stimulus" package won't work, and I disagree with the idea that the government can make the economy work when the entrepreneurs fail. But I admire Obama as a man, and I think he has selected a really good team.

Showing deference to right wing religious bigot leaders is not the definition of magnanimous. It may be kowtowing to their electoral power, however.

If you're going to try to get a dialog going, it doesn't make sense to start by elevating someone who's lacking in intellectual honesty. Like Rick Warren.

Would Obama feel he had to dialogue with someone who "knew" he was inferior because of the color of his skin? Of course not.

So Obama has no business asking me to dialogue with someone who believes my sexual orientation means that I practice incest or bestiality.

This is a pretty simple situation.

when 4 in 10 people in texas and west virginia think you are a muslim, throw them off course, maybe they will assplode all at one time.

i think it is crazy to have a preacher at the inauguration, but, "keep your friends close, your enemies closer" comes to mind.

give PRESIDENT OBAMA a fucking break!

Why the hell is there a preacher asking gods blessing at a governmental function? Much less one that believes that he and his kind is better than others and deserves rights that he does not grant to others. Show me one thing that God has done to benefit america? Katrina? Bush? 911? Obama? Stone the adulterers, stone the child who doesn't obey their parents, it says these and other absurd things in the bible and this is what this man stands for? Preaching hatred! GO OBAMA! Maybe the ReTHUGlicans were correct. Who is the real Obama? Jafpolitician.