Rick Warren?
I’m curious to see if any of my 12 faithful readers have any opinion of Rick Warren giving the invocation during the Obama inauguration. If you’re not up to speed on this, I’ll briefly explain that Rick Warren is an author of a very popular series of books and workbooks called The Purpose Driven Life and is himself the pastor of Saddleback Church, an Evangelical, politically conservative, Christian church based in Southern California.
His views while certainly not in line with my own are that (and I’m paraphrasing) the pro-choice position is most closely aligned to the Holocaust, my womb is Auschwitz (I get that a lot) and homosexuals should not be afforded any constitutional rights. To say that he was against Proposition 8 is an understatement.
So the hullabaloo (gee that’s fun to type!) is that Obama was elected in part by a very loyal, well funded and very organized gay and lesbian community. As democrats (beware of sweeping generalization) we are a “live and let live” kind of group. Why then, did Barack Obama, on the heels of the whole Jeremiah Wright debacle, decide on Rick Warren as the person of faith best suited for delivering the faith- based invocation for his presidency?
Barack Obama is a smart guy. Smarter that me, for sure. Surrounded by a lot of smart people. So what makes a smart guy make both a bold and foolish move? Were the guys from Chicken Soup for the Soul available? Surely Jack Canfield and Mark Victor wouldn’t have been so incendiary. I don’t think they’re ordained but every story they tell involves a cat, a dog or an old person which is like, the electoral trifecta. Is Robert Fulghum dead? He’s the one that wrote All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Seems like he would deliver a good invocation. Or how about Pastor Abi, my pastor? She’s a dynamic speaker, interesting person and doesn’t rank the sinner according to sins, real or imagined. I think Tony Robins should give the invocation. Or David Sedaris.
I suppose that part of Obama’s thought process is that we are a nation of all people and that just because I think that Rick Warren uses God and faith to propagate hate speach dosn’t mean that in a nation that holds free speech so dear he might not also have some worthwhile things to say as we begin a new chapter in our democracy. If Obama is trying to bring diversity to his administration then Rick Warren makes a statement… even if you don’t like the message.
Would George Bush have done the same? Would Bushie Jr. have invited, oh I don’t know… Al Franken into his administration? How about Rachel Maddow (shout out to False Auntie) or Thom Hartman?
I don’t think so.
If I were Barack Obama, I would have made a different choice. Then again, I would have also kicked Joe Lieberman to the curb when he endorsed McCain (I just saw the movie Recount over the weekend and so have a renwed sense of indignation). This is why I won’t ever be POTUS. Well, that and not knowing who won the American Revolution, inhaling that one time and the 1990 3-some at the Lake of the Ozarks.
I’ve read The Purpose Driven Life, and watched a video series from him, and I certainly didn’t read or hear any ‘hate’ from him at all, nor have I ever heard him utter any hateful speech. It sounds to me like your take on him is taken straight from the wacko Left blogosphere who define anyone who doesn’t agree with them as being hateful and evil, truth be damned. Or maliciously twist one comment completely out of context in order to make the speaker look ridiculous. And they say so in the most hateful terms.
Rick Warren never said homosexuals should not be afforded “any Constitutional rights”. That’s the sort of untrue character assasination the blogosphere is sadly famous for. He’s expressed his love for homosexuals, while opposing what he would term the sin of homosexuality. Love the person, hate the sin. And that’s perfectly consistent with his theology, whether you or I agree with him or not.
Rick Warren is a man of God, a man who preaches the bible. He was selected to host a presidential interview of both candidates because of his widespread appeal. He’s not a hateful extremist like the extremists want you to believe. Don’t just go by partisan talking points and slogans, read The Purpose Driven Life and tell me then that he’s a hateful man.
BTW, don’t forget the ‘smart’ Obama answered the question from Rick Warren about when life begins by saying “that’s above my pay grade”! And this, from a (then) presidential hopeful!
Well regardless of whether one agrees with the choice or not, you have to admit President Elect Obama is living up to his word of being inclusive; even of people with substantially different viewpoints than his own. I mean seriously we are talking about a guy who is pretty far to the right…he isn’t even close to representing ‘mainstream’
If he’s not mainstream, then he wouldn’t have been in a position to host the presidential interviews with Obama and McCain. No one would know of him if he weren’t mainstream. His book was a NY Times bestseller.
And btw, for those with a short memory, Obama himself said during the campaign that he felt marriage was between a man and a woman and therefore he didn’t condone homosexual marriage. So Warren’s viewpoint on that isn’t at odds with Obama’s.
I didn’t say he wasn’t known by the mainstream, I said he didn’t represent the mainstream. HIs views are very socially conservative, they aren’t mainstream views, they are representative of right wing evangelicals (some of his views may be mainstream, but on whole they are not).
If I’m to read you right, you are suggesting that Obama is more like Warren than the religious right would like to believe (considering they agree on the definition of marriage)…
It’s not necessary to read anything into my statement, I meant it exactly as I stated it. Warren’s position on homosexual marriage, which is the main objection to his doing the invocation, is the same as Obama’s. So the choice of Warren isn’t so far-fetched after all.
So because they agree on one thing he is the best choice to speak at the event?
Republican Dude is correct: during the election Obama and McCain took the same position on homosexual marriage at a conference they both attended. I don’t object in Rick Warren delivering the invocation; I read The Purpose Driven Life and found it to be one of the best spiritual books I’ve ever read. I think Rick Warren “gets it” on many levels but on the bigger issue of homosexuality, there will be a time when to discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation will be as inappropriate as discriminating based on other human conditions such as gender and skin color. I’ll save the science v. religion debate for another blog. In some ways, Rick Warren is the appropriate choice to deliver the invocation and Obama’s decision to ask him to do so says a lot about the kind of President he may be; one who does not shirk for dissenting opinions.
What I would say about Obama so far, to his credit, is that he’s followed Lincoln’s strategy of assembling a team of rivals, and one would presume he’s hoping to get the best possible advice by hearing from not only tunnel-visioned partisan hacks, but from the whole political spectrum that comprises the US. And good on him for doing so.
Test.
I’m struggling with this one, so it’s difficult to determine where I stand. On the one hand, I have to admire Obama for his commitment to be inclusive and egalitarian (might that be redundant?). On the other hand, Warren appears to be quite the evangelical sort (obviously not my cup of tea), so I’m puzzled by the choice. Last, but not least, is there really anyone Obama could choose who would not be controversial?
The whole matter makes me reflect upon our Founding Fathers’ wisdom regarding the separation of church and state. And that line of thought brings up another topic — why do we have this religious ceremony as part of the inauguration anyway?
Once again, JavaJennifer strikes a nerve.
Actually, the concept of separation of church and state came about in the early 1800′s, after the country was formed. The concept didn’t take any legal form until the later 1800′s, and didn’t become a matter of settled law until well into the 1900′s. The idea then was to keep government from establishing an official religion, not to eliminate religion from public life, that would have been unthinkable to the founding fathers. Don’t get me wrong, there’s no objection on my part to the concept, it’s just that it’s frequently misunderstood to be a Constitutional precept when actually it came about much later. There’s absolutely no reason legal or otherwise that an incoming president should not asked to be blessed in his new role as head of state.
Republican Dude, I think you need to read more of Thomas Jefferson’s writings about religion as it relates to government . . .
False Auntie,
Why on earth would you try to confuse Repiblican Dude with facts? Don’t you know anything about revisionism? The right wing has been claiming for several years now that there never was a separation of church and state, that ALL of the founding fathers were christians, and that they all were perfectly fine with religion being included in government… Of course the REAL TRUTH is that many of the founding fathers were Deists, were not at all comfortable with organized religion, and stood firm on making sure that there was a separation…but you knew that already since you aptly pointed to Jefferson’s writings. Of course others like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams also spoke out regularly against organized religion.
Good news is that actual historical/factual data exists to support this so the revisionists have a real problem convincing educated people of their version.
Bill
Bill B — I think I love you!
Maybe Obama should have picked Jeremiah Wright for the invocation? The way I see it is that the country picked Obama, Obama picked Warren (and somehow we are still bringing Bush into the picture?!?!). Let it go…there are bigger issues to be concerned about than who’s delivering the invocation.
False Auntie – - I’m aware of Thomas Jefferson’s writings on the subject, he basically coined the phrase “separation of church and state”. My comments were in regard to the legal doctrine and it’s eventual adoption into law, which as I said took place long after the formation of the country. Many people think that the concept of ‘separation of church and state’ is actually written into the Constitution, so I was just clarifying that potential misconception. Perhaps you already knew that and had no misconception and if so, then I apolgize, certainly wasn’t trying to condescend.
The point I was making is this, and remember this thread is about the propriety of a religious figure giving the inaugural invocation: long ago, politicians routinely made mention of God and called upon him publicly as a normal part of public discourse. It’s only in the modern era that we even question whether that’s proper or not. My gosh, George Washington could hardly utter a paragraph without reference to “Providence”, and most of the founding fathers were that way. Even many years later, Lincoln invoked God’s name in some of his most stirring speeches, including the Gettysburg Address and at quite some length in his 2nd inaugural address carved in the Lincoln Memorial:
“He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
It doesn’t matter, and in fact it’s entirely irrelevant to this discussion, whether the founding fathers were Deists or Christian or any other religion. The point I’m making is that belief in God was part of their fabric, not confined to just their private lives but also on display in their public ones. If their intent was to remove God from public discussion, then they certainly set an awful example.
Republican Dude,
Who’s God are you referring to? God is a vague term that means many different things to many different people and cultures. It is a ‘catch all’ term used to describe a higher power. The problem in the United States is that Christians have ‘reserved’ the term to mean “Christian God”. The Founding Fathers specifically used the term “Creator” as to pre-empt any one religion from asserting itself as the religion of The United States.
Now the religious right is trying to revise history to assert that the USA is a christian country. Fact is that a majority of Americans are Christians, but that doesn’t make us a christian country.
I’m not referring to any particular God, that’s the point, we don’t have an ‘established’ God in this country, that term means whatever a person chooses for it to mean. For what it’s worth, the God of Christians is the same God as for Jews and Muslims, although obviously they come at that in different ways. But the question was is it proper for a religious person to give the invocation, and since the Constitution says nothing is improper, legal or otherwise, about discussing God in public, then there’s nothing wrong with a Christian pastor, in this case Rick Warren, giving the invocation. And my guess is that he’ll mention God less than Lincoln did in his inaugural address.