"I'm Shocked, Shocked", Obama Consorts with Evangelicals

What are all you guys who voted for Obama doing complaining about an Evangelist delivering the invocation at his inauguration? To quote what I wrote in this space in July: Obama has promised "faith-based groups, 'more federal tax money than George W. Bush gave them'".

On July 1st, in a speech to Evangelicals, Barack "called for a 'partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular'"... not only did [he] promise to outspend George Bush, but he promised to establish "'a new council for Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships that will be a critical part of [his] administration.' He added that his "Council", in contrast to President Bush's similar group, 'will have a broader role -- it will not be just another name on the White House organization chart -- it will be a critical part of my administration.' He also proclaimed that, 'it [the Faith-Based Group] will help set our national agenda.'"

If Obama's Faith-Based Group is going to help set our national agenda, why can't it have one of its own deliver the invocation? Pastor Rick Warren does oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. I doubt that will make it to President Obama's national agenda, but then again, one never knows , does one, and, if it makes it to the agenda, we can't say he didn't give us fair warning.

No excuse to be shocked now.

Comments

[D2D2]

I wonder exactly what Obama meant when he ran for office and said that he wanted to bring some modicum of unity to a divided nation. Back in 2004, arguably the most politically divisive time in the last eight years, at the height of Republican dominance Senator Obama delivered a speech designed to bring unity, not division. Instead of embracing the strategy of feeding red meat to his base while attacking the opposing party he offered an olive branch and solutions designed to foster unity.

Does not such a candidate, the first successful African-American, who embraces the risk associated with such a unique strategy, irrespective of the vicious nature of our national political process, deserve an opportunity to show the wisdom of his reasoning? During the Democratic primaries and the general election time after time well-intentioned progressives and pundits railed against the strategies employed by candidate Obama, yet his vision and actions proved successful. Perhaps as President-elect, Obama now appreciates the awesome task associated with representing ALL people, not just those who agree with his politics or who voted for him.

Promising to utilize faith-based initiatives does not equate to emulating President Bush. Furthermore, faith-based does, and I trust will under Obama, include all faiths, not just those supportive of the Bush administration. It can work.

I trust the President-elect to answer to the people regarding his decisions and to make the best decisions possible to benefit all Americans. Give the man time.

[SeanGardner]

"Pastor Rick Warren does oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. I doubt that will make it to President Obama's national agenda, but then again, one never knows..."

Your post is WAY over the top. Rachel Maddow attempted to the very same hand-wringing and second-guessing last night but it fell flat. You and Rachel (and many others) are conveniently Obama's record. First of all, Mr. Schonfield, he's pro-choice. Always has been. This should not even be an issue to hand wring over. Not at all.

Second of all, Obama (like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and...Al Gore) oppose gay marriage. But, despite this position (that I personally disagree with), Obama has a strong record on issues of importance to gays: As a state senator in Illinois, Obama helped lead the charge against discrimination of gays in housing and employment and he co-sponsored a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, he has pledged to review close to 1000 federal laws to make sure they are updated to include gays and lesbians, and, he has hired and vetted a record number of openly gay men and women for his staff. RECORD NUMBER!

So what's the beef? Because he doesn't want to be The President of Democratic Constituencies, and aims to be The President of "The United States"? Isn't that what he was elected to do? Represent everyone and find ways to evolve a consensus on the pressing issues that affect RED and BLUE America alike?

[PleiadianPrincess]

I could not say this better myself Sean! Very well put across.

[faithnj]

Hear, hear! (...or is that here, here, he he.)

[CandideinNC]

There is a difference between being shocked and disgusted. I fall into the latter category.

[faithnj]

I have to wonder about this. Did some people miss the memo? That Obama chose to be a Christian? Just because he doesn't hate gays, and believes a woman's right to choose should be protected, does not mean that he doesn't share common ground with people like Rick Warren. (And vice, versa....the Religious Right is in more of an uproar over Warren appearing with Obama, than gays are over Obama appearing with Warren!) I hear people screaming about who's giving a prayer at an inauguration. I think they are forgetting that what really matters is how Obama legislates.

[hopeless277]

So I guess you wouldn't mind if Warren took to the stage and said Jews are pedophiles and practice incest? Or that black people cannot marry white people? Of course you wouldn't. You're just that type of understanding guy.

[PleiadianPrincess]

What is interesting in your comment is that although I would not call a specific race of people by such names as "pedophile" or that they practice "incest"...perhaps you should take a look at the book they use. The Talmud. You might wish to retract your comment if you only knew what is contained therein.

The other part of your comment is not even an issue in this new millennium and anyone who still practices this kind of bigotry is truly backwards in their thinking.