Obama picks Rick Warren for inaugural invocation

Deckard · #1 12-19-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gambit

I was mostly scratching my head when I heard it. I understand not getting into a furor over Prop 8, but Obama certainly could've picked someone who was less in the spot light. But I've also heard this has angered conservatives as well, so yay?

But to give Warren his due, here's some bits from his Wikipedia file.

Quote:

Warren has worked to shift the evangelical movement away from a narrow focus on social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, to a broader social agenda. His five-point plan for global action calls for church-led efforts to tackle global poverty and disease, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to support literacy and education efforts around the world. In February 2006, he signed a statement backing a major initiative to combat global warming, thus breaking with some of the U.S.'s high-profile evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, who had opposed such a move.

But also...

Quote:

In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove Terri's feeding tube "an atrocity worthy of Nazism" and suggested that Michael wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said".

So I like his efforts to combat poverty, disease, and global warming, but I could do without his crazy stuff. What I sense is Obama wants to build support amongst evangelicals for his social programs. Politically, this is a very good move for him, and I hope it translates into real results.

Yeah, there are certainly worse than Warren around. I'm not totally against this decision, it's just that I think it's interesting to be aware once again where the line (doesn't) get drawn.

(and I refuse to accept that I'm "creating a mountain" by simply saying that)

Sean · #2 12-19-2008, 01:32 PM

Setting the specific issue of gay marriage aside for a moment, I believe that it's simply another example of Obama finding ways to achieve real progress. Time and time again, he's shown that his governing style is to engage people he's in ideological opposition to by finding a foundation of trust and respect to build the possibility of change on. For example, Lieberman embraced and perpetuated the idea that Obama "pals around with terrorists" during the campaign. Democrats wanted retribution, but Obama voiced his support for Lieberman to retain his chair on the Homeland Security Committee. You can bet he'll be able to work more effectively with Lieberman now than had he continued the chain of tit-for-tat squabbling.

Regarding the social acceptance of equating gay marriage with paedophilia and the like, yeah, that's completely wrong. But if welcoming Warren into the fold means Obama may be able to work more effectively with him in ultimately changing some of those views for the better, then it's worth it to me.

kagenaki koe · #3 12-19-2008, 03:32 PM

i don't really see the furor over Rick Warren. what exactly is he going to do on Inauguration Day? it's not like he's going to preach about rights/laws/my religion is better than your religion etc. it's just one day and a prayer people!

gambit · #4 12-19-2008, 04:03 PM

Furor. Fewor. furoooooor. ffffffuuuurrrrror. Furrreeer.

Deckard · #5 12-20-2008, 08:13 AM

Having been reading and listening to more of Warren's views, I have to say I'm growing less and less bothered by Obama's decision than I was before. Clearly I think Warren's reasoning is fundamentally wrong, and I still feel frustrated knowing that he wouldn't have been invited if he was appearing to compare African-American marriages to paedophilia - but as I said, there's worse out there than him. On that point, I just watched the clip in which he apparently 'equated gay marriage with paedophilia and incest'....

Quote:

"The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

When asked whether he views these things as "equivalent" to gay marriage, he answers: yes.

So is he suggesting gay marriage is as bad as paedophilia, and by extension, gay married couples are no better than paedophiles? It might seem that way from invoking that equivalence - and yet, I'm not so sure that's really what he necessarily meant to suggest. I don't think we can be so quick to assume that he views gays and paedophiles as equally sinful, which is what much of the media coverage of this has implied. He may have just meant that when it comes to the definition of marriage, anything other than a grown man and woman is equally unqualified.

I guess the fact that Warren is clearly a charismatic speaker, has been receiving a lot of exposure, and was already known for his remarks on the Terri Schiavo furor, fewor, furoooooor.... controversy.... has made it easy to cast him as the great bête noire. Which frankly just furnishes him with too much credit.

(We all know Jody Wisternoff should take some of it too

)