For someone who said a few posts ago that he didn't want to make a big deal out of this issue...

...you're sure making a big deal out of this issue.

It's done. It's gonna happen. A two-minute invocation. But somehow, this has legions of "progressives" regretting their votes for Obama.

Cry me a fucking river.

Steve, where you even paying attention during the election? Obama does NOT support equal rights for LGBTQI people. He never has. "Separate but equal," the position he publicly endorses, places an entire group of people at a lower level of humanity. To say that such a worldview equates to being an equal rights supporter is intellectually dishonest. Obama has never supported immigration rights for same-sex couples, he did not support an inclusive ENDA, he caved on the Matthew Shepard Act, and his very language in describing LGBTQI people leaves no mysteries as to his views.

The major difference between the pro-choice/pro-equal rights movement and Rick Warren's sheep is that the pro-choice/pro-equal rights movement believe in EXPANDING rights and being truly inclusive, allowing everyone the CHOICE. Rick Warren believes in being inclusive towards those with whom he agrees and of whom he approves, and everyone else should be shut out, jailed, deported, reduced to less of a citizen. Hardly characteristic of the "inclusivity tent" we keep hearing about.

Rick Warren is a misogynist, a homobigot, he openly supports assassinating foreign leaders he doesn't like, he told a Jewish woman to her face that she would burn in hell, and he has admitted that his views are the same as James Dobson and the late Jerry Falwell's (good riddance), just more evenly toned to make them palatable. This man is the antithesis of everything the PE supposedly stands for, and he has no business being on that inaugural platform. "Oh, but gays get to march in the PARADE!" is not an excuse, and Rev. Lowery's presence does nothing to minimize the enormous slap in the face the Obama team has just delivered to women, LGBTQI people, Jews, and anyone who doesn't want to see the United States of America turn into the New Republic of Jesusland.

I'm not gay but I understand the problem. Had Obama invited a racist to speak I (as an African-American man) would have had a serious problem with it. I am pro-choice and pro-science and Warren is anti both so I still have a problem with it.

He's also a fanatic (does he hate all Muslims or just Iranians?) who doesn't deserve to be paid attention to much less promoted.

EPIC FAIL

Last time I looked, Jerry Falwell was dead. Real dead. For some time. Unlikely to come back soon dead. Which makes any criticism of his supposed viewpoint or Rick Warren's departure from it somewhat beside it all. Why not ask what James Dobson thinks? Apparently he and his friends are not happy at having to share a pulpit. (And yes, Dobson's not a minister, but wields more influence over the ChristoRight than anybody except King Rush himself.)

Wikipedia, my source for all things thing, says Washington was first elected in 1789. That means the first inaugural prayer was uttered at Franklin Roosevelt's first ceremony, another time when an "outsider" was trying to unite the country. Considering what times were like then and how much the present resembles them, maybe we could use a prayer now too. Judging from the antiabortion backlash, it may hurt Warren more than Obama. But no, I don't like it either. Sometimes the wisest position is not the most preferred.

I wish the gays would just shut the hell up about the choice of Warren. They are making such a fuss over nothing, acting like they've been betrayed. They are just like the religious right sometimes; they think any semblance of compromise is akin to being kicked in the face and spat upon.

It's not like Obama gave him a cabinet post or something like that. It's just some stupid prayer for 3 minutes tops.

This is how the gay community shoots themselves in the foot time and time again. They dont understand the big picture, they can only think of their tiny insulated worldview of things and that everyone must agree with them 100% or else you're a 'hater'. What the fuck ever, no wonder they can't get more straights to align themselves with their pet causes.

How'd that little stunt, a day without gays go over? Did anyone care? No. They make a big noise about things, but they sure don't have the numbers to back it up with.

It's a big tent and we aren't always going to be comfortable with everyone inside it. But we have to start to engage people we don't agree with if we hope to ever change their minds.

I don't think we're supposed to agree with Warren. I think Obama wants us fuming mad so that he can earn his cred with the punditocracy. As a blogger, by supporting Obama's decision is undermining him. Why are you undermining his Presidency?

Now would be a good time to separate church and state.

Oh wait, that was supposed to have been done a little after 1776 or so...

My bad.

"The real problem isn't with who will give the invocation, but rather, the fact that there's going to be an invocation in the first place."

Hear hear. Separation of church and state and all that. I'll pray when I choose and with whom I choose. I don't need any help from Uncle Sam.

Necro-equi abuse.

Stealing from John Cole's Balloon Juice:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14795

here is a reader's theory:

"If you followed the internal politics of evangelical and fundamentalist leaders, you’d see this for what it is—not an elevation of Warren, but a slap in the face of the old guard leaders like Dobson and LaHaye. They’ve been fighting to see who gets to be the spokesman for the movement, and lately it’s been a tie. Obama just broke it."

I know I am anti- Warren, but if this theory is right, is it short term "pain" for long term good regarding evangelists?

@Minimus: It's clearly not that big of a tent as Obama isn't inviting racists into it, just homophobic, anti-science, antisemitic, anti-muslim, anti-woman, christianist types.

thanks for the brilliant observation rbly.

now go f**k yourself.

It's a big tent and we aren't always going to be comfortable with everyone inside it. -Minimus

Can't we at least draw the line at 'people who advocate the assassination of foreign leaders,' please?

How will this look to the people of Iran?

Warren and Hannity used the Bible recently to justify the assassination of Ahmadinejad and other 'evil' foreign leaders and now the people and government of Iran get to watch as this 'Christian' leads a prayer to welcome Obama into office.

I'm sure it will get them all fired up to negotiate peacefully with Obama.

As for the big tent - are the DFH allowed inside?

This is a great subject to keep posting about. There's a vacuum of real news right now in the world and this trivial noise making issue is great to keep harping on. Will we be going over politics of the bands and entertainers that will be appearing at the inauguration? I really hope so especially as to how their inclusion offends the netroots.

People whining about this need to get a life. You're tilting at windmills.

Look, you can't build a broad political movement by automatically shunning everyone who disagrees with any portion of your agenda. I don't like Warren, or the idea of a invocation at all, frankly, but Obama's reaching out to a group that has been solidly GOP for a long time. If such low-cost efforts(and it is purely symbolic) can persuade a few evangelicals to move into the Democratic camp, then so much the better. What we're after here is political influence, not ideological purity.

I don't like this choice. By giving Warren this very singled out attention and status spot-light, he will get a lot more books sold and gain a lot more credence for his position on abortion and gay rights. I think it was wrong of Obama to pick him for such a popular venue. It's more than just embracing differences--it crosses the line to endorsing that which he claims to oppose.

And so many Gay and Pro-Choice Americans voted for Obama for his stated stance on these critical issues--so it's disrespectful, a slap in the face.

With a bit more careful thinking (what Obama is noted for), he could have picked someone else.

I also don't like the rationale he gave--it doesn't fit. Warren invited him to do a debate (or town-hall) forum against McCain during the campaign. That's different than what Obama is now inviting Warren to do. Warren did not invite Obama to speak to his congregation, to pray with his congregation, now--did he? So Obama's reasoning that "He invited me, so now I'm inviting him" is poppy-cock. I think this weak and fallacious analogy bothers me more than anything else. It's insulting to my intelligence.

That said, I'm willing to let it go and call it a mis-step. I understand he will have other quite progressive elements at the inauguration and beyond (vis a vi his policy and cabinet choices).

Cute, ambivalentmaybe. Not inviting him to be the public religious face of his inauguration is "shunning" him. Fascinating definition of shunning you have there.

Ambivalent,
I don't want ideological purity. I just don't want another four years of trying to PO and marginalize the hippies, and bending over backwards to make nice with people who only shake your hand to stick a knife in your back.

Is this an example of meeting with Iran? Or Lieberman? I don't know. But the worry is real.

It's not my intention to belabor the argument about Rick Warren giving the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration...

Dude, it is spelled OBSESSION.

Is Warren serving in the cabinet? Whitehouse office?

Warren's prominence in evangelical circles comes from DEEMPHASIZING abortion and gay rights and concentrating on other issues such as third world poverty, ecology and social justice. He is not left-wing in his theology, but promoting Warren moves the center of discussion leftward and marginalizes Dobson et al.

Obama said he wanted a UNITED states of america. Reaching out to his biggest opposition seems a wise way to accomplish that. Ironic as it may seem, his approach will yield more improvements in gay rights than would shunning the evangelicals.

Sadly, there is something in the liberal DNA that would rather win the outrage war than make political progress.

"LGBTQI"? It was just this morning at the Tapped blog that I learned that a "Q" had been added, and now someone's gone and added an "I" as well?

Someone stop this out-of-control acronym before it has all the letters of the alphabet!

If Warren works as a bone tossed to people who might be antsy about Obama, it's fine with me. Do it. As for me, in the context of the event and the program, I'll think of Warren as the ass end of the Bush years, slinking out.

And since Warren has millions of evangelical supporters, his "endorsement" will benefit Obama more in the long run.

Obama may very well benefit from the Rev. Warren's implicit endorsement in the long run, but it is questionable if that support will ever benefit Obama's 2008 core supporters.

Throughout his presidency, Obama will be under relentless, ruthless attack by America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. -- for the simple reason that he intends to govern in the public interest, rather than in the corporate interest.

One of the corporate oligarchy's most powerful weapons of social and political is the so-called "religious right", which is a fake, phony, pseudo-religious, pseudo-ideological cult that has been carefully, systematically and expensively created and cultivated with corporate-sponsored propaganda, and manipulated into supporting right-wing Republicans (who don't, in fact, do anything to advance the issues of ostensible concern to the "religious right", but DO govern in the interest of the corporate oligarchy to the detriment of everyone else).

I think Obama is trying to neutralize, or at least partly neutralize, one of the most powerful weapons of the corporate ruling class. I don't know if this choice will be especially successful at doing that or not.

But there is no question that Obama is going to have to fight every inch of the way, for every small shift of governance towards the public interest, against the vicious attacks of the most extreme reactionary elements of the corporate ruling class (a.k.a. "Bush's base").

Broken--re: your comments:

You have a good point. Sometimes when you take the sting out of your opposition, it stops mattering and stops stinging. And sometimes the opposition even dissipates enough so you then have more space and clarity to act in true fairness and justice for all. Maybe that's what this is about.

Especially if you have full on intentions to put your money where your mouth is--I think that's what is left to be seen and what folks are concerned about.

Still, I wonder.

Broken,
The liberal problem is one of playing nice and compromising with people who don't compromise. We never win the outrage war - we never try.

The debate basically revolves around whether the GOP has finally been chastened and is willing to work together now. Their willingness to cause a depression with the auto bailout casts this in doubt.

What supporters of Obama's choice are saying is that, unlike the past sixteen years, this time, if we give a little, they'll see how nice we are and hop on board. It hasn't worked for us before, but with Obama, it's going to be different.

I actually think it could be different, that maybe, after 16 years of trying, Republicans and evangelicals will be impressed by our efforts to find common ground. It could happen. At the same time, I recognize there's no empirical reason to accept this will suddenly happen. So, I hope those who pooh-pooh this concern will at least choose a seat with their backs against the wall so no one shoots them in the back. For nearly two decades, the GOP has shown it puts partisanship and the party over the country, and would rather see failed America than one that succeeds with a Democrat at the helm. That change will likely be slow, if it comes at all.

Why do you assume Wallace will criticize Obama's policy agenda? He's already getting a bad reputation with the right for participating in Obama's inauguration and they won't forget that. He can't criticize Obama later without making himself look worse to the left and right.

You forgot this one, Steve:

The fight's already over, because there never was a "fight" in the first place.

Have fun, Kool-Aid drinkers!

And, I can't believe that even Sec. Animist is halfway trying to defend this, apparently.

I'm more glad every day I voted Green again.

Chill out people! It's not an endorsement of Warren by Obama nor an endorsement of Obama by Warren. It's Obama's inauguration and if he wants to be magnanimous, let him.

By the way, he is the President of ALL the people in the U.S., even the evangelical pukes. I don't expect anything from them for this gesture. Everyone knows it is only a gesture.

Obama's policies are the real indication of how he is going to lead.

It's over ... in fact, it's already long past over. Obama isn't going to withdraw the invitation. If he did, he'd essentially be sending a signal that he'll reverse course every time progressive bloggers pounce on any sign of ideological impurity. As Bush 41 might have said, na ga da.

The way some people are reacting, you'd think Obama had appointed the guy to his cabinet. It's just a freaking two-minute (or less) invocation.

SocraticGadfly: You're actually glad you voted for Cynthia McKinney? My head spins imagining who she would have invited to her inauguration.

Hello, I didn't notice the blog posting before this one when I wrote my comment above. He's nominating a gay guy for Gawd's sake, and you're all worried about a 2 min. prayer!

Always Hopeful,

It's about more than Warren's despicable GLBT and womens' rights positions.

One last time, deep breath.

Only a handful of days ago, Warren advocated, using the Bible as justification the assassination of the president of Iran.

So please, honestly, how do you think having a 'Christian' who calls for the death of a Muslim leader pray with Obama at his inauguration help negotiate with Iran?

I can't believe how much this point is being overlooked. The inauguration does not take place in a vacuum, and there are real world consequences for tacitly approving the views of someone like Warren.

Our future negotiations with Iran simply must outweigh Obama's campaigning for future evangelical votes and high minded inclusiveness.

"e's perceived as being more moderate, because he's less likely than the religious right leaders to demonize his "opponents," but that's largely the result of effective public relations."

No, it's largely the result of him actually being less likely to demonize his "opponents".

Good grief. Democrats spent most of the last 20+ years getting their brains beat in by the GOP, largely on the basis of that evangelical Christian base. Now they win 2 Congressional cycles and a Presidential race, all of which occured in extremely favorable conditions for Democrats, and they want to fantasize their political difficulties have all disappeared and they can go back to ignoring/shunning those nasty evangelicals.

Mike

Will Obama be my President, too?

Until I started looking it up, I had forgotten who Rev. Joseph Lowery (the guy doing the closing benediction) is. He's the one who publicly scolded Bush at Coretta Scott King's funeral while Bush had to sit there and take it. Now the right-wingers can't complain about his selection -- if they even notice -- or they'll look like whiny copycats. And, yes, Rev. Lowery is a prominent pro-gay African-American minister.

That's how triangulation is supposed to work.

People need to chill out and reserve their outrage for something that actually matters. I write this as a liberal lesbian in a 10-year relationship. On top of that I spent 6 years as a professional opposition researcher specializing on the religious right. I truly get what Warren represents-- he's basically Dobson's slightly nicer brother-- but I just can't gin up the energy to care about this.

Do I like Warren? Hell no. And as an atheist I'm annoyed that there are any preachers giving benedictions or whathaveyou on inauguration day. But at the end of the day I do not and cannot care about this. If this is a taste of the lgbt community/left's reaction to everyting over the next 4-8 years I'm going to have to tune out a lot of progressive politics. I'm tired of being outraged. There are much bigger problems facing the world than who speaks for a few minutes at Obama's coming out party.

I think Obama's overall strategy is all about olive branches. This fits in with what I know about Obama and is actually one of the reasons I voted for him. That means he's going to do a lot of things people aren't going to like-- which I actually think is healthy in many respects. But take a step back and a deep breath. This is not an indication that Obama's views or principles have changed. If that actually changes then those of us in the lgbt community (and our allies) can pitch a justified fit. This just doesn't qualify.

As I look at the cabinet picks and see a distinct tilt towards common sense and intelligence, (the brainy kind, not the sneaky kind), I am so relieved that I just can't get that freaked out about Rick Warren. I didn't expect the U.S. to become a gay utopia with the arrival of Barack Obama but I suspect it's going to be a better place for gays and there will be more opportunity for moving their agenda forward.

I don't think the Shrubwit years have been a catastrophe because of the way that gays have been treated. I think it was a disaster because they have gutted the financial foundations of the country and purposefully made it as hard as possible for even a smart and energetic Obama administration to get anything done while giving the corporations more freedom than ever.

I want this country to calm down and start digging itself out of the cow patty that Shrubworld has plopped on it. Rick Warren will say his piece. It will take a couple of minutes. The symbolism will be gone 24 hours later and the real work of trying to get back on track will begin. There is so much to do and the religious/non religious contentions will continue. Meanwhile, smart folks can work on putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

And gays or not, if the prayer wasn't part of the original inaugural procedure, than I agree, we should get back to that.

I agree with this comment on Politico:

"Seriously, this has to be one of Obama's best ever political moves. He comes off as looking moderate, the fundies are getting beat up by the MSM, and he's advancing the cause of equal rights all at the same time."

There is no train.

Fight over things that matter.

Do you folks remember how Obama was painted as this secret Muslim who was going to take the oath of office on the Quaran? Having Warren give the invocation is a rather nice refutation of the slander, wouldn't you say?

Warren's contribution is purely symbolic. It's policy that counts. This will be forgotten. Relax, folks.

BTW, I'm an atheist and, unless I'm very much mistaken, that's considered by Warren and his crowd to be even worse than having teh gay.

FREE On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com 

"Warren's bad, but he's not that bad:"

So were Falwell and Dobson et al just framing a religion-tinted Overton window?

William Burroughs' advice for doing business with religious sons of bitches is always pertinent.

I do think it is, at heart, an issue of the legitimacy of invocation and benediction in the inauguration ceremony. But, as Steve says, that train has probably left the station.

Given that this religious element has insinuated itself into a primarily secular event, one is left with measuring its relative significance. Personally, I think it is a take it or leave it component. For the religious people it gives them a feeling of acknowledgment and satisfaction, and for the rest - well, it can be water off a duck's back. The issue of separation of church and state, in this instance, is simply a matter of how one perceives it: there is no actual intrusion of church into the policy-making of the state.

As a Buddhist, I make acknowledgment of the Three Jewels - Buddha, Dharma and Sangha - on a daily basis. That sets the motivation for the day's activities: to realize my buddha potential for the benefit of all beings. At the end of any meritorious activity, I dedicate that merit also for the benefit of all beings. For a Christian, I guess invocation and benediction are intended to fulfill a similar purpose. If that is so, then it is not such a bad thing.

Trouble is, however, I get the impression that there is an implicit political agenda operating within the Christian religious activity which, of course, compromises the separation of church and state principle. It is that aspect that throws into question the advisability of giving such a prominent platform to a political agent masquerading as a religious pastor. If Warren uses the occasion to introduce political opinions into his invocation that would be a serious usurpation of his pastoral duty in this ceremony. Let's just hope that he doesn't cross that line. If he does, then Steve's reservations will be validated.

That's my little thought-drop in this vast and complicated ocean. OM AH HOUNG.

Human shield. Some of the people who might want to shoot Obama might be dissuaded by the thought that they might hit Rick Warren instead. Also, Warren's a fat boy - ballistically speaking, he's good cover. He'd probably stop anything up to a .308. And you could fit not just Obama but the entire first family into cover behind him - they're all pretty skinny.

I think it's a brilliant move on Obama's part. The move certainly has and will cause a lot of focus and questions put to Warren on a national stage. He have to explain who he is and what he believes. I don't think there is anything more effective way to expose the discriminationa and hypocracy he and his followers adhere to. His is a party of "exclusion" and Obama has "one-upped" him by "inclusion". There will be no fireworks at the inauguration but plenty known about Warren before he says a word.

Forget the politics or the supposed brilliant stroke of inclusiveness. I'll be the first to admit that having Warren spew prayer during the inauguration has virtually no impact on any substantive political issue Obama will face.

The problem is one of symbolism. This is the most eagerly anticipated inauguration by progressives in my lifetime. I was already looking forward to how I would explain to my two young daughters the tears I was preparing to shed. This stupid, boneheadded invitation took away my inauguration. How can I celebrate a breath-taking unexpected affront to long held American bigotry towards African Americans during an event where Christian bigots get the stage to spew their hate against gays and lesbians.

I am not gay but I am appalled at the hypocrisy. I have canceled my plans to attend the inauguration and will, instead, be watching TV, jeering the man I contributed hundreds of dollars and hours to help elect.

What a hard-to-swallow shame.