Purpose-driven protest
The liberal group People for the American Way is "profoundly disappointed" that the Rev. Rick Warren will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration: "Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance."
PFAW faults Warren for his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group wishes Obama had instead tapped one of many religious leaders "who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good."
Warren is pro-life, and he has compared same-sex marriages to incest and child abuse. To that extent PFAW can get away with portraying him as Dobson Lite. But he also invited Obama to his Saddleback Church and, as PFAW concedes, has been in the forefront of evangelical efforts to combat poverty and AIDS. Weighing the good against the bad, Steve Waldman, the editor of Beliefnet, calls Obama's selection of the folksy, self-effacing Warren "a smart move."
"George W. Bush chose Franklin Graham, a hard-right evangelical to do his prayer," Waldman writes. "Instead of retaliating by choosing a liberal preacher, Obama opted for spiritual bipartisanship. The move helps to depoliticize prayer -- which, of course, is very politically shrewd."
Also, if Warren is persona non grata in the inaugural pulpit because of his views about abortion and gays, the same would be true of any Roman Catholic bishop. Although the Catholic hierarchy speaks about homosexuality in softer and more nuanced terms than many evangelical Protestants, its bottom line on same-sex marriage is the same: No. In PFAW's terms, that means that the Catholic bishops also have "actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans." (So, one could argue, has Obama. Although he opposed Proposition 8, the next president told MTV that he is "not in favor of gay marriage.")
If the furor over Warren escalates, Obama can console himself with the knowledge that he'd be in even more trouble if he had tapped his own long longtime pastor.
Photo: Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times
If "Change" is allowing gays to marry, killing innocent lives through abortion and taking God out of society? I don't want that kind of "Change!"
Posted by: steve rodriguez | December 26, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Hopefully the "CHANGE" Obamas talking about
is change back to traditional American values!
If that's the case Pastor Rick should be there to lead!
Posted by: steve rodriguez | December 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I have no problem with the fact that Rick Warren was chosen to do the invocation at Obama's inauguration.
In fact, I find it shockingly disingenuous that the gay community is asking for "tolerance" while they seek to black-list, boycott and bludgeon all those who oppose gay marriage and gay adoption into silence. One thing is for sure; If Prop 8 is struck down, polygamy must also be legalized. If the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is struck down, it must be struck down for EVERYONE. Unlike the hypocritical and bigoted California Supreme Court, which sought to exclude Polygamists from their decision.
Posted by: Pro | December 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Paul Ramos y Sanchez, by your logic, Obama should invite as Inauguration speakers some racists, sexists, and perhaps some torture apologists, too, just so everyone has a "seat at" your happy and tolerant "table" and no one feels left out.
The issue is not whether Warren has a right to express his views. The issue is whether Warren's views, contrary to American principles of equality and no state entanglements with religion, should be covered in honor, by inviting Warren to be an Inauguration participant.
Opponents of Warren's selection argue that Warren's views do not deserve to be honored in this way. They do not that Warren should be silenced. So thanks for the self-righteous lecture on high principles; it's too bad you did not correctly identify the high principle at stake.
Posted by: Luke | December 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Barack Obama was elected as president of all Americans, gay and evangelical.
Let's not forget. Many evangelicals will be offended by the liberal Reverend Joseph Lowery's participation in the inaugural as well as the gay marching band that will be part of the festivities. Are the views of the GLBT community somehow more important? Is there to be no seat at the table for those with whom we disagree?
Voltaire said it best:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Liberals: Live up to your principles.
Posted by: Raul Ramos y Sanchez | December 20, 2008 at 04:44 PM
The wounds are too raw in California and elsewhere for Obama to choose a man who was involved in a very demoralizing defeat - a defeat of basic rights that should be guaranteed under a secular constitution, with no reference to anyone's religion. I can not believe this is anything but a slap - and a message to the rest of America. Anti-gay pastors and their churches are 'in', more moderate and tolerant views are 'out'. This invited gay baiting and gay hating and Obama and his people know it. The inauguration is too symbolic for this. If not, why didn't Lyndon Johnson ask George Wallace to speak at his? Wouldn't that have been 'inclusive'?
Posted by: Dan | December 19, 2008 at 02:25 PM
I voted for Obama although I disagree with him on some things, including whether or not same sex couples should marry. I have interpreted Obama's comments around this issue to be a statement of his personal beliefs, and not his beliefs regarding what should be written into law. Obama is already married, after all. More importantly, he is a constitutional scholar who understands the difference between religion and the law (unlike at least 52% of Californians, it turns out).
I admire Rick Warren for some of what he does, but certainly not everything. Obama's theme has been to look for what we can agree on, and I think he has been consistent with that theme in selecting Rick Warren. He could have made better match to my personal viewpoint but perhaps it would not have accomplished as much in practical terms to bring about progress towards worthy goals that we all can agree on - such as reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing the abortion rate.
Maybe this is "blind faith" on my part, but I'm willing to give Obama a chance to show what he can do. It certainly can't be worse than what's already been done to us over the past 8 years.
Posted by: bjl | December 19, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Maybe the homosexuals would prefer the prince of darkness instead to do the inauguration. I'm sure they would. People are really getting fed up with all of their gripping and complaining. The homosexuals overestimated the public support for their cause and now reality is setting in that america isn't as anti-God and pro-gay as they were lead to believe. The homosexuals believe with enough kicking, screaming, and bullying, in time, the public will begin to be more tolorant toward sodomy. I disagree. 57% of the vote against them in the MOST liberal state in the union is no small accomblishment, given the flood of pro-homo agenda circulating. If a vote was held today, the percentage now would be higher just to prove to the homosexuals that intimidation doesn't work.
Posted by: Mott | December 19, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Obama should be ashamed of himself. This isn't change anyone can believe in.
Posted by: Mike Tidmus | December 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Obama is being inaugurated as President of the United States, not President of PFAW - it makes sense that the modern day Billy Graham do the invocation...(by the way nearly every president in recent history sought the council of Billy Graham - Democrate or Republican - BG's beliefs are similiar to Warren's) who do they want, Jeremiah Wright? - I guess the "American Way" is to blackball anyone you disagree with -
Posted by: Brad Flatoff | December 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM
seriously disappointing. i am a lesbian who has worked tirelessly for obama's campaign. our campaign donations are as green as anyone's--cash.
Posted by: tara | December 18, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Stuff like this really makes me doubt his innocence in the Blogojavich affair.
Obama has proven himself to be a total fraud.
We might as well have elected McCain!
Posted by: Thomas Mc | December 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Selecting Rick Warren is the biggest misstep of the new administration. What is the purpose of this selection? If folks want someone like this for their personal guidance so be it but why give him a public, national role?
Obama has lost my financial support over this one.
Posted by: Margaret | December 18, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Um.... Barack Obama was quite clear during the campaign that he, too, was unequivocally opposed to gay marriage. So why would there be surprise or disappointment that he would choose a pastor that shares those views? Did you think Obama was lying before?
Posted by: Gene | December 18, 2008 at 10:47 PM
As a gay man I don't have a problem with people disagreeing on gay marriage. What I have a problem with is people writing their religious beliefs into my state constituion. Gays and Lesbians should be able to legally marry. This has nothing to do with religion. I'm ashamed I ever supported Barack Obama who is just another backstabber to the gay community. I will not be watching the inauguration.
Posted by: BIll Tanner | December 18, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I fail to see any reason for invoking religion when swearing in new political leaders. The only entity a national leader owes alliegance to the citizens he or she represents. Who or what their god is makes no difference as long as they carry out their duties in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Better yet, have the President swear fealty with his hand on a copy of our Constitution.
Posted by: Phil | December 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM
So People for the Norman Lear Way protests until being called out. Upon attempting to read their protest from the link above, I found it to be gone. Warning to the incoming President: Your party faithful expect you to toe the line and "be a good boy."
Posted by: Tim Bowman | December 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM