I greatly respect both Barack Obama's genuine desire to ensure that Americans of every stripe have a voice in our new government and his political savvy in reaching out to his ideological adversaries. But none of that makes me feel any better about the fact that Pastor Rick Warren -- he of those silly Purpose Driven Life books and the Saddleback Mega-Church in Southern California -- has been picked to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration.
That Warren's hyper-conservative beliefs stand in such stark social and cultural contrast to Obama's own worldview would be reason enough to question the choice. It's easy to understand why some Obama supporters -- particularly gay voters, who see Warren and his flock as having been instrumental in the passing of California's Prop 8 -- feel like it's a very personal betrayal.
My discomfort, though, has less to do with any one issue than it does with the idea of the highest office in the free world once again cozying up to the lowest common denominator among America's faithful -- validating that group's absurd, irrational and often aggressively divisive belief system. While having someone like Rick Warren -- the Oprah of pop-Christianity -- up there next to our new president on inauguration day does send a clear message that all views will be given consideration from this point forward, it may also send a signal to those who happen to hold the one view that's been allowed to dominate the discourse for the past eight years that they'll continue to be deferred to.
It's not so much that Pastor Rick is getting an audience with the new president of the United States -- it's that he'll be seated at his right hand on day one.
This could very well be part of a smart strategy, showing even those who stood against Obama during the campaign that, as president, he wants to take immediate steps toward healing the nation -- or it could just be that since Obama and Warren are reportedly friends, the choice makes a certain amount of sense. Regardless though, and as much as I trust Barack Obama's judgment, it ties my stomach in knots to watch another political administration treating the Rick Warrens of the world as if they're anything more than simply the CEOs of Jesus Inc. -- carnival barking purveyors of "Evangelitainment," with ostentatious, monolithic temples and excellent PR firms.
Warren's undeniably overpowering presence on inauguration day makes it seems as if God -- specifically the Pentecostal, Southern Baptist version of God -- will continue to be granted ascendancy within our government.
And after what this country has endured the past eight years -- the heinous sins committed by those who claim to be acting on God's behalf and who seek the unconditional allegiance of those who worship him -- this should be the last thing any clear-thinking, rational American wants to see.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
Comparing Rick Warren to the televangelists of yesteryear (or even to those Christian forces that have aligned themselves squarely with the Republican party like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council), is apples and oranges. Warren is neither part of the SBC nor is he a Pentacostal. His writings are seen as a fairly liberal voice, especially his concerns on social justice and giving back when we are the wealthiest Christians in the world. If Warren is "hyper-conservative" I would hate to see where Tony Perkins or Jim Dobson fall. At what point would "Stalinist" become the epithet of choice?
Chaz, you said:
"That Warren's hyper-conservative beliefs stand in such stark social and cultural contrast to Obama's own worldview would be reason enough to question the choice."
I don't deny Warren is conservative (and I'm decidedly not conservative). I don't believe Warren would deny he is conservative. How though, are his views hyper-conservative? Your post is more filled with rhetoric than meaning.
Having this guy, who I've never seen before or heard of because I squirm every time I mistakenly click on a "religious" channel, makes me sick. What's next? Joel Osteen?
NOT the change I was "hoping" for.
THANK YOU!!!
Well said. Although, you might want to re-emphasize the massive amounts personal wealth these con artists are raking in too next time...
Obama said repeatedly that his administration would be characterized by inclusion not exclusion. Wasn't anyone listening?
The Constitution says that "there shall be no religious test for office" but we ceased paying attention to that useless scrap of parchment a long time ago. Just as George II did away with the Bill of Rights and laughed at the idea of separation of church and state, the O continues the tradition.
O's only claim to place is as an alternative to the unthinkable McCain-Palin. I rather suspect that Obama will play a role in the US similar to the role played by Gorbachev in the USSR. Both may eventually may be seen as trying to save an ancien regime that is too rotten to survive.
You know, I really question if there would have been the same level of outrage if Obama had invited Louis Farrakhan or his former pastor, Rev. Wright. Interesting that there is such selective criticism by certain groups. I wonder how many on the Left would be comfortable calling them "absurd and irrational?" How about labeling them the "least common denominator" in their respective faiths?
Then again, I guess it would be so much easier if people like me would mind their P's & Q's and not post here.
Until you know something about being tortured with shouts of f*gg^t while growing up, spare me the lecture about being intolerant to a large and active movement who dehumanize gay Americans on a daily basis.
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection." - Corretta Scott King, 2004,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-king-marriage_x.htm"
The Big O has bombastically blown off all thinking people and adopted the corporatist christianist Bob Roberts agenda (Vilsack? Warren? LaHood? What is this, North Carolina?) He is obviously crapping with delight on the progressive agenda, as well as smarmily ditching anything approaching ethical standards or accountability. And the 'christian' right is neither christian nor right -- they are corporate enablers.
You know a person by their associates - and these are baaadd people.
So, Obama is obviously also a hypocrite and a charlatan. Now what? Do we have enough troops for a civil war INSIDE the walls? Can we get a progressive caucus AGAINST OBAMA? (not if he gave people their jobs - including suckups like Edolphus Towns, my old rep - what a shill. ). Any ideas out there?