Obama's Rick Warren pick irks liberals

From day one, before his campaign (officially) began, part of Obama's overarching strategy has been wooing Evangelical Christians. And it's a fact that many a Liberal activist has been in favor of doing that for some years now. The Evans used to be solidly Democratic until Reagan snatched them.
.
So Warren's presence is not as surprising as it might seem at first blush, if you've been paying attention.

Obama knows he has liberals in his pocket, and he no longer has to pay lip service to them. What are liberals going to do about it? Vote Republican?

He didn't appoint him to his Cabinet, he asked him to give an invocation. Big deal.

He picked a man that tried to set him up with his stupid so called conservatives.

Yeah I get it. But at the same time there are other evangelicals that are less harsh than this guy.

For those of us who already feel kicked in the head by prop 8 and those, like Rick Warren and his ilk who believe in legal discrimination, it really hurts to see this guy share the stage with our new President.

Rick Warren? Are you freaking kidding me?

Why in the name of, well ... God, would Obama choose someone whose outspoken beliefs are substantively no different from the James Dobson's of the world? There's a thriving progressive religious community in every faith, and many believe the religious left is ascendant.

If a republican had been elected, I would understand choosing a right-wing zealot to give the invocation. I'd be disgusted, but I'd understand. But, a republican did not get elected, and I expect better.

It seems that Obama is going to have to learn the hard way that Republicans could care less about working together for the good of the country. The Republican party has just been soundly rejected by a majority of America in two straight elections and they have proven over and over again that the only thing they do well is whine and complain (helped along by a complient corporate media), Skip the bi-partisan stuff Barack, let them sceam and yell like they already have been while trying in vain to make up a criminal link between you and Blago. This is one campaign promise that you should break.

stop falling into the line of thinking that WE SHOULD ALL LOOK ALIKE A THINK ALIKE.

Inclusive means people we do not agree with as well.

Just because Warren does the invocation fdoes not mean that I am going to rapidly change into a ZOMBIE and believe everything he is about.

A PRAYER IS A PRAYER...

"In fact, PFAW's reaction may help Obama with some centrist and more conservative voters."
First of all, this is rubbish. Centrists aren't exactly falling all over themselves in favor of social conservatism.

Second of all, this inauguration is as much about the voters as it is about Obama. A lot of people put a lot of time, money, and effort into making this happen. And Obama's gay and lesbian supporters certainly deserve better than this symbolic gesture.

Re: "What are liberals going to do about it? Vote Republican?"

I can vote third party or stay home. One always has a choice.

Deano Victorino,

If this were my inaugeration, I wouldn't let Rick Warren within 1000 miles of the festivities. In fact, I would ban all of the ruinous religious right. But then, with that kind of intention, I probably would never have been elected anyway. I imagine this is part of Obama's plan of inclusiveness----"and to all those who didn't vote for me, I want to be your President too"-----and he finds Warren the least offensive.
(Obama is better than me, and for the record, I find Warren creepy and offensive too).

I love the understated headline..."Obama's Rick Warren pick irks liberals"

Just curious, What doesn't irk liberals?

This liberal doesn't mind.

However, a better pick might have been the Chaplain of the House of Representatives.

His prayers are great. In fact, they ought to be published, if they aren't already.

Hopefully, Rick W. will teach Obama a lesson.

Overall, as a Obama supporter, I am not happy with his picks in general, though they are certainly better than anything GWB 'thunk up'.

I've stated in the past that the Dems. are more afraid of the Con. base than their own base. I guess Obama still is. That needs to change.

Come on man, you won by an electoral landslide!

Rick Warren is a slap in the face to every member of the LGBT community and their straight friends. This is offensive.

I find the selection of Warren to be offensive. It’s one thing to open the doors to dissent, it’s quite another to provide a platform and an amplifier to a bigot.

While some may see Warren’s inclusion as an example of tolerance, I view it as an endorsement of intolerance.

I’ve been an active and avid supporter of President-elect Obama, and generally subscribe to his efforts to bridge the social divide. However, there is a significant difference between being willing to listen to opposing viewpoints and putting one’s imprimatur on the message. Obama’s choice of Warren delivers the latter.

Obama just flushed his credibility down the toilet. He can forget about ever again receiving campaign donations and votes from gays, their families and their friends. And those are the votes that put him in the winner's circle. 2012? Forget about it, Obama. Fool.

This liberal minds.
Obama is fast approaching a line with the progressives, that once he passes, he will not find it easy to undo. He has shown by this pick utter callousness to the many progressive supporters who donated money,time and sweat to help him get elected.

I just sent this email to Obama's transition LGBT liaison:

> Dear Parag

I am a longtime proud supporter and donor to the Obama campaign (one of the first 100,000 donors), and have a cherished email from the day after the Iowa caucuses when I predicted joyfully that he would win the presidency.

That is why I am completely disgusted by the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation on Inauguration Day. I will not be thrown under the bus by Obama or any other politician on the core human rights issue of equality, and I will not stand idly by when a bigot is given such a national platform. I will support any campaign, join any fight, to protest this attack, EVEN ON INAUGURATION DAY if I have to.

You may have thought that bestowing this honor is an outreach to religious conservatives but instead it is a tremendous assault on the dignity of gay people like me - it is a complete slap in the face that will not be accepted placidly.

Times have changed - the irony of the election of Obama means that institutional discrimination is actually no longer possible in this country, and the inclusion of bigots like Rick Warren cannot pass muster on a day of national celebration.

I will join any fight, any campaign in protest against this horrific assault on the dignity of gay people on Inauguration Day. I do not want to have to protest Obama on the day of his inauguration but make no mistake I will if necessary, and will organize with others to fight against displays of discrimination by the incoming administration, even to the point of campaigning against Obama in 2012 if I have to.

Like many things, the left- leftists talk about, "reaching across" is not really something that they, themselves, do.

Much credit and praise to the great Obama that he has not shown himself, to date, to be totally in-step with them. There's "hope" here, America.

obama's colorless schizophrenia inside the gay rainbow is increasingly callous and repulsive!...

see more at:
OUTLOOK
http://aliciabanks.blogspot.com/

shame!!!
ab

"In fact, PFAW's reaction may help Obama with some centrist and more conservative voters. "

If Obama thinks that then he's not as smart as I thought. So called conservative voters are busy supporting lawsuits to prevent Obama from taking office. They don't even think he's a citizen to say the least. And as for "centrist" do you think anyone other than hard core activist are going to know or care what Rick Warren and PFAW are doing?

As a true Liberal, I'm more and more impressed with Obama's choices. Hillary, Gates, Vilsack, Duncan - all hard working, pragmatic, fair minded public servants. The more his deluded original base become disillusions, the happier I am with Obama. It was this smug base that turned me off of Obama in the first place. Godspeed, President-elect Obama.

At the end of the day, Obama would never win no matter who he chose to speak.

Some group is gonna be offended, it's the nature of people - always offended by something.

America is facing total economic collapse and people are worrying about who is gonna give a speech at some fancy dinner party?

From when Rick Warren's speech starts to when it finishes, over 20 women will have been raped in the congo by rebel soldiers.

Who gives a stuff about who gives bloody speeches - it's all just political rhetoric anyway. Isn't 233 years long enough to figure that out?

Perhaps Obama should just get the head of the Satanic Church to deliver the invocation, followed by a swig of human blood from a goat's skull. That way he could just offend everyone at the same time [except a few satanists].

Heck, if you're gonna offend, may as well offend everyone from the religious right to the dopey liberals. Then they could serve 'whale steaks' to the guests - don't want to miss out on offending the greenies.

To my pseudo-liberal friends in the Swamp:
.
Rick Warren giving the inauguration invocation should be the least of your worries. You have gone and gotten one of your own pseudo-liberal types elected President in very distressing times, and I think you should spend your time earnestly in prayer to see that he does something resembling success in office. If he doesn't, we could all be toast for any one of a number of reasons. We are in for interesting times. Mark my words.

Warren is a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful. Obama's religious outreach was intended, supposedly, to make religious voters more comfortable with him and feel included in the Democratic Party. But that outreach now has come at the expense of other people's comfort and inclusion, at an event meant to mark a turning point away from divisive politics.

* * * * *
Posted by: Laura | December 17, 2008 7:14 PM
.
Dear Laura,
.
I find you offensive (and creepy too) for suggesting that it would be appropriate to invidiously deprive people of their constitutional rights because you disagree with their conscientiously held views. That’s not very American of you, is it? Typical pseudo liberal: always hypocritical with regard to freedom and tolerance toward when it comes to those who don’t fit in with the pseudo liberal agendum.

Like many things, the left- leftists talk about, "reaching across" is not really something that they, themselves, do.
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | December 17, 2008 11:59 PM

While I agree with you in theory of the bi-partisan issue, I have to say that Warren is a hard pill to swallow. He stands for the biggest problem I have with the republicans. Intolerent religion. He does not believe in the seperation of church and state. There must be a pastor out there that doesn't exclude a certain group of people to enjoy life because of the way he decided to interpret an old book by an unknown author.

Obama has already won a resounding victory without the support of the right wing conservative fundies.

Why reach out to them now?
He's giving credibility to group that was finally discredited from a political standpoint.

As an earlier poster pointed out, RW represents the group that is working toward BHO never taking office.

Didn't he read about the little kids on that Rexburg school bus chanting; 'Assassinate Obama!'
Where do you think those little darlings got that idea? Their parents? Their Sunday school?

This is so hilarious. The anti-8 thugs were happy to terrorize some old Morman woman and hurt her restaurant (and its gay employees) while they issued a pass to the black and latino communities. C'mon now, best get down to Obama's transition HQ and start shaking him down for support funding.

Gee. Lighten up. It's an invocation. Not a marriage proposal. All things will pass, and so will this.

Warren is no Dobson. By his inclusion of Obama in events at Saddleback, Warren sent a clear message that voting for Obama was a legitimate Christian choice -- something Dobson would never do.

Obama figures he can treat his core voters like dirt now that he is elected.
Would say he is looking at the big money NOW not CHANGE..

Why is there a religious invocation at the inaugural in the first place? And, if there is, why not have representatives of ALL religions? (Of course, that would take all day, but would still be preferable to this act of privileging one religion over others in what is, after all, an official government event.)

"Reaching across the aisle" as an explanation doesn't fly unless there will also be invocations from across other aisles, such as a Muslim imam, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests, a rabbi, a Buddhist, a Hindu. Maybe a few words from a Humanist to represent us agnostics and atheists. That would scarcely begin to represent our true religious diversity.

To Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel:

Which liberals are you talking about that say they want to reach across the aisle?? I don't know who you've been talking to, but the liberal and progressives, like me, who supported Obama all the way to the White House have absolutely no interest in reaching across anything if it means compromising with intolerant xenophobes like Warren.

I love the understated headline..."Obama's Rick Warren pick irks liberals"

Just curious, What doesn't irk liberals?

Posted by: heartburn | December 17, 2008 7:20 PM

Well, Pre-Barf, let's see: The country remaining peaceful and treating other countries with respect, our Constitution being upheld and not trampled on by power-mad dictator-wanna-bes, our fellow-man being treated fairly and knowing they're going to be able to put food on the table for themselves and their families, whatever their race or social status.

You know -- all those things that irk the beejeepers out of Conservatives.

So lets see here.

The racist hate-monger Rev. Jeremiah Wright is OK, but this California dreamin' pastor Rick Warren is not?

Don't you just love American politics?

Tom J. wrote: "He didn't appoint him to his Cabinet, he asked him to give an invocation. Big deal."

Indeed. Besides, liberals need to be irked. It builds character.

"You can please some of the people all the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." -A. Lincoln.

Obama has done things since his election that irk conservatives, too. So he's an equal-opportunity irker; that's probably a good thing.

Mr Obama--Thank you for your belief in fairness---thank you for serving our nation of people that feel their way is the only way---make yourself proud and the majority who know where you stand.

As far as 'hope' goes, I would have given President-Elect a year or two before such a contemptuous and naive policy or gesture would have been produced. At least that was my hope. That time has come sooner that I would have thought. I understand the necessity to 'reach across the isle', however this takes the cake. I think the same gesture could have been made by asking a member of the Klu Klux Klan to speak at Our inauguration. But that would seem outlandish considering the apparent facts. I was hoping that the Senator from Illinois would set some amazing precedents in his administration. Well, congratulations to you! You have accomplished this goal. It is a hopeless day for Women and the GLBT here at home and around the world. I hope President-Elect rethinks this disdainful and archaic gesture.

John Z, good point. Op109.....the funniest thing I read all day!!!

The sooner that the educated realize that religion (especially) is the biggest polarizing lightning rod out there, and the sooner we can get past that chapter in world history, the faster we will evolove. Religion served the masses by creating a pseudo-government to control them, and to collaberate with weak governments, but its service now is becoming an issue in pulling apart people. This coming from someone that was a super christian for 24+ years.

I could care less who gives the invocation, as I don't believe in it anyways. To the GLBS.....get over this small issue. Obama is still your best man to have, so quite squeeling like a pig. This really is a very small issue. If you do not think he will extend a benefit to you too, then protest away, but just because he gives a token nod to one fraction of society does not mean he has abandoned you.

"...our fellow-man being treated fairly and knowing they're going to be able to put food on the table for themselves and their families, whatever their race or social status.
..."
Posted by: Op109 | December 18, 2008 10:49 AM

Unless of course, they are fundamental christians...because if they are, they should be excluded from prayer at the inauguration..

I hoped Obama would have selected Rev. Martin Marty, PhD whom Obama has said is a mentor.

Mr. Obama’s selection of RIck Warren is a terrible affront to the supporters of equal rights.

Why would Obama decide to have this anti-human rights, anti-anything but Christian far right preacher at his swearing in ceremony?

Warren has often denegrated the other major world religions such as Hindu and Islam, and Buddhism.

Given how extremely narrow this best selling Oprah Book author/ preacher actually is, why has the man I supported with my dollars and with my precious time, select this phobic-pastor?

Is what was past a prologue?

I pray not.

'Liberals think':
BIGGEST.OXYMORON.EVER

Dosen't matter to me as long as he's not rolling in bed with big oil. Quit whining about religion and get over it.

The 'tolerance crowd' demonstrates the use of irony.

This isn't the fight. Warren isn't making policy. He's praying. Already, people are falling into the mistake of fighting over TOKENISM rather than SUBSTANTIVE DECISIONS.

The real fight is going to be when our aging Supreme Court starts retiring. May God save the Court. That is, may He give Obama the wisdom, prudence and common sense to nominate justices that put the Constitution, liberty and freedom before religion, bigotry and closed-mindedness that will stagnate this nation and hinder our progress and innovation.

And by the way, I'm just curious - what doesn't irk conservatives?

Obama said he does not support gay marriage. Warren does not support gay marrige. The majority of Americans do not support gay marrigae. What is the problem?

I understand trying to include the religious wackaloons, but they don't want to be included--they want to be in charge. That's why I don't want that man there--he thinks I shouldn't have the same rights as he does just because he's a Christian and I'm not.

Hey folks it is a invocation nothing more, Now all you GLT and PFAW go lay down in the corner and stop whining and crying about your rights, you have rights.so stop trying to push your gay agenda on the rest of America.

I'm disappointed. This lends credibility to his beliefs.Obama might be inclusive, but the inaugural invocation is not the place to do that.

Imagine that... an Illinois politician saying "screw you" to a key group of supporters after he's elected. It amuses me to see that Obama's supporters from outside Illinois are surprised.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thats awesome i love how upset all the hardcore's are. Its almost as awesome as watching Blago go down.

I'm so happy all of the new Prez's supporters are angry with this selection. I couldn't be happier. Merry Christmas!

I don't really like the choice, but I do like to look for silver linings in things. Here's one: by elevating the profile of a *somewhat disagreeable* right-wing preacher, Obama steals a little thunder from the *truly nasty* right-wing preachers. That could at least dial back the vitriol a bit, even if it doesn't change the underlying situation.

What I find Funny and harsh at the same time is folks like this who hide behind a title like "People For the American Way" First you do not speak for the American people, not a majority of them just a 2 to 3 percent (or less). So you have that right to hide behind the title, bu tnot the right to speak for all Americans. For petes sake, get a life. This will in no way hinder President Elect Obama's agenda. If anything it may help.

"...our fellow-man being treated fairly and knowing they're going to be able to put food on the table for themselves and their families, whatever their race or social status.
..."
Posted by: Op109 | December 18, 2008 10:49 AM

Unless of course, they are fundamental christians...because if they are, they should be excluded from prayer at the inauguration..

Posted by: heartburn | December 18, 2008 11:35 AM

I never once said fundamental christians should be excluded. NOT ONCE. Any claim that I think Warren -- or any OTHER drivel-dispenser -- should be kept away from speaking is your putting words in my mouth, not reality (not that I'd ever think that Conservatives have the least regard for reality anyway). It's Obama's choice as to who he wants to have speak, and it's Warren's Constitutional right to say his piece. Personally, I think this is SUCH small potatoes. Those ignorant enough to believe in all the god-garbage will listen to this guy and they'll hear whatever superstitious jeezus-pleezus message they want, and bless their little hearts for that. Otherwise, it'll be just so much white noise. Why should I care if he speaks or not?

This liberal Christian does mind. I'm in favor of reaching out to those with differing views, but giving a platform to someone who has compared gays and lesbians to "child molesters" is outrageous. Being pragmatic is one thing. Reaching out over a divide is fine. But sometimes a line needs to be held. Obama could have chosen someone else. I'm very disappointed.

HERE IS WHAT YOU ALL SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT....NOT WHO IS LEADING THE PRAYERS. YOU SHOULD BE PRAYING THAT WE ARE ALL SAFE ON THAT DAY AND FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS!!!

Military to be on high alert for inauguration
About 11,500 troops, including chemical attack experts, will join the security detail as Obama takes the oath of office.

Liberals by nature have to be willing to talk with and recognize sides with which they disagree. You don't make progress with one you disagree by not inviting them to the table. Does PFAW advocate no talks with Ahmadinejad as well?

The gay community blindly followed Obama, even though he was no more supportive of their causes than McCain.

This should not be a surprise, as Obama does not support gay marriage, nor campaigned against the California amendment. Rather, it looks like he is attempt to "reach across the aisle." This is exactly what he said he would do.

"I view it as an endorsement of intolerance."

Most of the left's platform is exactly that. People on both sides are intolerant and hateful. Look at whenever the issue of partisanship comes up, it's always the other side that's partisan and putting their party ahead of the people.

This is just politics as usual. It's actually good to see Obama making smart practical choices, rather than trying to be an idealist that believes in nothing but trying your best even if you get nothing done. It makes me feel better about his presidency.

Except it still seems like he is going to be a trade protectionist and start screwing over poorer south american countires, which won't be good for them or is in our long term interests.

I am conservative and I have a big smile on my face. Thank you Obama.

I never cease to be amazed by the stupidity of brilliant people. For the sake of “reaching out” to a handful of people who did not and will never contribute to or vote for him, Obama is happy to alienate those of us who have given the most to his cause. His triple-digit IQ will be nice for a change, but that's the only change you can expect. I’ll never give him another penny, or vote.

One need only read the acerbic tone of many of these posts to understand how divided this country has become. Religious differences certainly don't completely explain the division, but they do go a long way.

Personally, I think the religious right, including Rick Warren, are poor representatives of Christianity. They do, however tell a large swath of this country what to think and say. So, getting them on board, even a little, is the beginning of change, and perhaps will open the possibility of future dialogue and reasoning where it does not exists today.

Great Pick by Obama. He needs a christian to cover up his religious background. Has he got a dog yet?

In this country, the government and the church are two separate entities. There should be no invocation at the inauguration.

I am afraid we are losing track of the meaning of "liberal". The term implies openness and inclusiveness when it comes to hearing the various points of view that define any issue.
I consider myself liberal in my political leanings and I say: Good for Mr. Obama! When the ceremony is over, he will still be the one moving into the White House, and, as a liberal, this is what truly matters to me.

God will never bless same sex marriage or abortion. It's morally wrong. I'm encouraged about Obamas choice. He just might be a "real" Christian after all.

"In this country, the government and the church are two separate entities. There should be no invocation at the inauguration."
--Derek

Really? What country is that? Here in the U.S. we gave up on that idea long ago.

You know -- all those things that irk the beejeepers out of Conservatives.

Posted by: Op109 | December 18, 2008 10:49 AM
--------------------------

Here's the problem, Op109; you think that you know us, but you don't. I am all for World Peace, Democracy, treating ALL people fairly, with dignity and respect, a big plate of food on everyone's table. I suspect heartburn is also.

At issue is, how do we get there. De-habilitating me to prop up someone or some organized cabal that is determined to maintain a course of self-destruction would not seem to help anyone. That is the well- spring of my conservatism. NONE of the things that you listed "irks the beejeepers" (I think that you meant beejeebers) out of me.

And thanks for telling me where to stick my Barbara Streisand CDs. I now have them in my most obscure cabinet, at knee-elbow-floor level. The venomous BS discourse emotionally cancels out the music, and conflicts with my love for my "fellow-man" even universally condemned, hated, and rejected Republicans. It is very difficult for me to look beyond that, but thanks for the suggestion.

I am liberal. But seriously. He's gonna be the president. Let him have his party for christ's(or allah, buddha,-insert god here) sake! Most of what we know about Rick Warren is his stance on gay marriage, which by the way isn't at all uncommon in respected evangelical circles. There may in fact be more to Rick Warren then what he is infamous for. Maybe not. But he's not going to be president, he is just talking at the inauguration. The minute a conservative Christian is asked to talk at an event like this, all us liberals whine and complain and pull out old excuses like "why aren't all religions represented?" wah wah wah.

Lets face it, at this point no matter who Obama picks to do what, he is gonna piss off a significant amount of people from here on out. We are so accustomed to partisanship that we don't even realize it, and so we freak out when that pattern is broken. I am sure Obama appreciates people who are nothing like him and I applaud him for having the balls for such a pick. Rick Warren is not taking over the country, Obama just likes something about him. I am all about looking past differences, even way up there in the presidential inauguration world, even if those differences are huge. I think in order to effectively rock the world of over partisan politics Obama will continue to pull insane stunts like this, and I think he should.

I see so many posts from Obama supporters that are openly stating their unhappiness with the president elect. Not just with this particular slap at the people who believed in and elected him based on his campaign rhetoric and promises of grandeur but with the majority of his decisions made and he's not even sworn in yet.

What will it take for the worms to turn? Doesn't look like it will take very long, given the reactions to his decisions already. Some people would say "I told you so" but that might be a bit premature. I'll save that line for the real humdingers coming to a democrat liberal minded theater near you!

I know it will be hard to let go but sooner or later, the embarrasment and ingratiating style of the great one will wear thin on those who were once his most loyal fans.

Don't forget what was promised, that's why you voted for him.

I'm not the least bit surprised.

Obama used the LGBT community to help him get elected. Now he's throwing them under the bus.

I have never trusted that man, and I think this is just the beginning of the disappointment in him many, many of his supporters will experience.

"...I never once said fundamental christians should be excluded. NOT ONCE..."

Posted by: Op109 | December 18, 2008 12:25 PM

So were you speaking for yourself, or defending liberals in general? -if the latter ;

Wouldn't you agree that many, if not most, self labled liberals would not want Warren providing the invocation solely on the basis of his position on gay marriage?

Obama is already running for 2012- he is not the guy you thought you were electing- we don't know who he is because his base and his huge support in the media never forced him to stand for anything in the campaign.

This will not be the last time he alienates his base..

I'm an evangelical Christian who supported Obama. It's funny that in the big-E "Evangelical" world Rick Warren is considered to be a little too liberal (multiple Christian websites are out there calling him a liberal heretic). But I'm strongly in favor of Warren offering the invocation, and I hope he and other pastors have a HUGE impact on Obama's presidency as a whole. I don't condemn homosexuals (neither does my non-denominational evangelical church in Chicago -- we're not all "Dobsons", if that's a new code word for being judgemental and mean-spirited) but gay marriage just isn't what marriage is. The often-used (and very accurate) argument that most HETEROsexuals don't understand what a real commitment is, and what marriage is supposed to be, doesn't mean that all of a sudden we should change the definition entirely. Marriage is NOT a human right, it's a privilege (do you think all heterosexuals that desperately want to be married get to do so?). In my opinion, the audacity to call someone a "bigot" for not supporting gay marriage (or any similar comparisons to racism) is really beyond ridiculous. So now it's "bigotry" to acknowledge what every culture around the world has acknowledged for as long as humans have been around?
I give Obama credit for not giving in to this outrageous rhetoric, and I hope and pray that he never does.

The thing that really offends me is that there's going to be an invocation at all. The inauguration is a political, not a religious, event. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring any attention to religion in an inauguration.

So I guess all of those high-minded ideals of electing a president for "all of the people" were just platitudes from so many on the Left. Good to know. Now you're all on record. Tolerance for all – as long as you agree with me on my key issue.

The thing that really offends me is that there's going to be an invocation at all. The inauguration is a political, not a religious, event. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring any attention to religion in an inauguration.

Posted by: Jean606 | December 18, 2008 1:17 PM

Offended? our government was formed on the premise that we have inalienable human rights that were given to us, not by gov't or a king, but by a creator..

Since the opening line of the declaration of independence is what our government is based on- wouldnt you say that basic human rights endowed by our creator is an awfully spiritual philosopphy that ought to be recognized when we inaugurate our leaders?
+++
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In this country, the government and the church are two separate entities. There should be no invocation at the inauguration.

So much for the 1st Amendment. Some of us are a bit confused about it. The idea is that anyone can express an opinion or a belief publicly. Even if 299,999,999 other citizens don't agree with it, it is a protected right. If I don't like a TV show, I change the channel. If you don't hold a particular religious belief, go on your way. The 1st amendment does not advocate atheism or humanism, or the repression of either.

Swamp scoreboard
----------------
Op 109 - 1
heartburn - 0

President-elect Obama’s selection of Rick Warren, a homophobic bigot who supported California’s Proposition 8, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration is reprehensible. It’s obvious that everyone’s invited to President-elect Obama’s party EXCEPT the LGBT community. Obama says we all have to come together but only in so far as everyone’s rights are respected EXCEPT the LGBT community. Bad enough that Obama didn’t speak out forcefully against Proposition 8, his choice of Rick Warren is a direct slap in the face of the LGBT community. How sad that an African-American President-elect doesn’t support the equal rights of EVERY American. My partner and I have been together 23 years now and still are told that we’re not good enough, not human enough to deserve the equal-rights that every American is entitled to. Why didn’t Obama select Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum from the LGBT synagogue (CBST) in New York, or another gay or lesbian pastor, to participate at his inauguration, if he really wanted different voices represented? We thought Obama was different, but he’s not. He’s just another politician. We contributed money to his campaign; we’ll never do it again.

Swamp scoreboard
ONE HOLE WINNER TAKES ALL PLAY-OFF
----------------
Op 109 - 1 OVER PAR
heartburn - 0 PAR

Posted by: Sportscenter | December 18, 2008 2:36 PM

My fear with the selection of such a divisive and hate-filled bigot to offer the invocation to begin the Obama Administration is that it's representing the exact opposite of the message Obama has been sending out for over 2 years; that his Administration will be inclusive to all. When you invite someone who does not believe in civil rights for all Americans, it sends a clear indication that once again, the LGBT community has been used to help win an election, and then discarded. There are many pastors, priests and rabbis who believe in love and equality, but don't have the "star power" of a Rick Warren. But because of his national presence, we all know what he stands for, and his choice is truly disturbing to me. I will no longer contribute financially to the Obama cause.

He stood for nothing during the campaign- He has made a political career out of morphing into whatever he needs to be to get to where he wants to go..

For all of the folks that projected their identity politics onto the blank screen of the Obama candidate hoping that he will elevate their agenda - don't complain now when he has moved on... he doesn't need you anymore- live and learn.

You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything... he stood for hope and change. There is your CHANGE , I HOPE you vote differently next time..

Is Obama nuts? This is a bitter pill for us all.

People for the American Way just want it "their way" not interested in what the majority wants. I admire Obama for reaching out and including Rick Warren in the inaguration.

Awwww. Looks like I've irked little Django. Well, MY day's complete! Time for some dinner and quiet music. Let's see -- how about that good ole Streisand CD?

You're disappointed over who is going to deliver a prayer? It's going to be a long four years for you.

By the way, the phrase about disagreeing without being disagreeable very much appears to be a quote from Rick Warren's "Purpose driven life"!

Well, well, well. The Left is already getting ready to tear him apart. You guys on the Left can never seem to get it together, can you? You're only good at tearing down and deconstructing things, never building up. The Right is far more organized and willing to put personal feeling aside to support whatever cause they need to support.Seems to me that many of his supporters didn't listen very well to what he said during his campaign - that he would be inclusive and reach across party and ideological lines. He's doing exactly that. Too bad some of you weren't paying attention.

if McCain had one and had picked a preacher that supported any type of homosexual agenda, conservatives would be furious, so I get it that liberals are upset. But consider this, Obama won by getting evangelical votes as well as liberal votes. While a majority of california voters supported Obama, they still did not support prop 8, so are those voters to not be represented? Pastor Warren may be performing the invocation, but at the end of the day, Obama makes the decisions.

if McCain had one and had picked a preacher that supported any type of homosexual agenda, conservatives would be furious, so I get it that liberals are upset. But consider this, Obama won by getting evangelical votes as well as liberal votes. While a majority of california voters supported Obama, they still did not support prop 8, so are those voters to not be represented? Pastor Warren may be performing the invocation, but at the end of the day, Obama makes the decisions.

I did not vote for Obama, but I admire and fully support his asking Rick Warren to participate in the swearing in ceremony...as well as any other swearing he might want to do. Pun intended.

For Obama--Don't bite the hand that feeds.

Why some of us do not like Obama's choice for Rick Warren as a person to perform as a Pastor during Obama' inauguration? Please do not be too selfish. Enough if those people just have a common sense and let Obama to have freedom to choose for his personal need as all of us include those who disagree with Obama’s choice. All of us like to have freedom but why some of us if possible not to allow other to choose for him/her self. Please do not be too selfish.
What ever your life style is, God loves you too as He loves me and others. When I express my opinion here it does not means lashing any one. Not at all. My point is just simple: When majority of people give their opinion regarding marriage in California Gay-Lesbian people say: “No equal right?” How about the right of those people who support prop.8 in California and defeated, will you say that’s equal right? Give me a break. Please do not be too selfish.
Another view I have is as follow: All animal from the largest to the smallest all have the desire for sex. I do not think any single animal have the desire to have sex with the same gender. All animals always look for opposite sex for their need not just for sex but also for continuation of generation. Up to this point I think all of us agree (include those who choose homo-sexual life style) that animals have much lower intelligence than human being.
I wonder why some of us still have a desire for sex with the same gender (homo sexual)? Are those people that desires to have sex with the same gender have lower intelligence and desire than animal? I do not think so. But why they choose that life style? I also still agree for them to choose freely without lashing or blaming. Since long time I was having difficulties to get the answer to this big question and still looking for answer.
The same as pet (dog, cat, other animals). Any one likes to see pet even though not their own. Not even one of us like to see pet animal killed. Even we allowed suing people who kill his/her own pet inhumanely. Government will charge you if you kill your own or by accident you kill animal (not necessary pet) on the road. But why some of us never consider that baby in the womb (that going to be a real human being) not higher than animals. Some people still claim for freedom to abortion without charged. Is that means killing of baby in the womb should be allowed? Where is human equal right? Is that means that baby is less value than animal? Give me a break. Where is your common sense? I urge you, who read this article, ponder and think deeply the real meaning of freedom, equal right, human right, etc.

There's a difference between picking a pastor who doesn't support gay marriage and doesn't allow gay people to join his church (this I could deal with) and picking a pastor who says homosexuality is akin to pedophila and incest. Not only is that wrong but it's scary to think that people might believe Warren when he says such things. So it's not a matter of liberals (and gays) objecting to a difference of opinion, a "reaching across the aisle" at the inauguration, it's a matter of us not wanting a man with such hateful and incorrect views being legitimized and given recognition by Obama.

Considering the lack of national Democratic leadership during the Prop 8 vote, and Obama's coziness with other homophobe ministers during his campaign, I think that the LBGT should consider 4 more years of the same Bush policies regarding gay civil rights, from the new regime. At least with the Republicans, they had the integrity to state their position to our faces, instead of what appears to be a new Democratic double talk.

Considering the lack of national Democratic leadership during the Prop 8 vote, and Obama's coziness with other homophobe ministers during his campaign, I think that the LBGT should consider 4 more years of the same Bush policies regarding gay civil rights, from the new regime. At least with the Republicans, they had the integrity to state their position to our faces, instead of what appears to be a new Democratic double talk.