Barack Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inauguration invocation was either the most cynical or the most naïve move the president-elect has yet made.
To begin with, this strikes me as a strange move for a careful guy like Obama to make. He didn't have to make it. If he felt his swearing-in had to have some religious flavor to it, he could have chosen from a field of hundreds of respected clergyman. Like, say, Jim Wallis, or any number of African-American preachers who aren't Rev. Wright.
So why this choice?
Here's what the cynics would tell you, as posited by Hilary Rosen in Huffington Post:
"There is a new political reality for LGBT people to deal with and how it works will be a measure of the sophistication and capability of the community. It was never a community that represented more than 6 or 7% of the vote in most campaigns, and it seems the biggest numbers are achieved in districts that are already reliably Democratic. Raising and giving political money always helped the community to play a larger role at the table than its numbers would seemingly offer and yet in this new era of online fundraising, constituent fundraising has diminishing importance. So we saw lots of mollifying and calculating when it came to new Obama Administration appointees for other constituencies but to date not much more than a little handwringing when it came to LGBT appointees"
So the LGBT constituency is not all that important to Obama. It can be thrown under the bus and "change we can believe in" will survive. Where else does this group have to go?
Then there's the Obama camp's Kumbaya approach. We may each have fiercely different opinions about issues but we can all come together as Americans. We can, as they say, dialogue.
Now, I'm all for dialogue. It helps us understand where the other fellow stands, and how he/she feels and why.
But then what? Do I change my mind? Does the other fellow? Sometimes, on issues that are highly technical, or those we consider clearly peripheral, maybe. But not about any viewpoint or conviction we consider fundamental to who we are. If I meet a rabid racist who does a great job of explaining to me how he is just a product of his racist parents, I may understand how he got where he is, but would that persuade me to become a racist? Never. There's a difference between sociology and conviction.
At that level, dialogue is not only irrelevant; it can be damaging. The struggle for civility and understanding can take political correctness to a whole new low. It can have the effect of homogenizing us.
Wouldn't it be more honest if we just recognized that, on some issues, "getting to yes" just won't work?
The Rick Warren issue is one of these. He may be doing lots of good works in areas like HIV/AIDS, alleviating poverty, advocating for action on climate change, et cetera. And we should be grateful to him for that. But similar work is being done by hundreds of other bona fide clergymen (and women) who just don't happen to preach at megachurches.
What Rev. Rick chooses to say on January 20th is irrelevant. It's all the other stuff we already know about - but won't hear a peep about on inauguration day - that we'll remember. It's Warren's views on issues like same-sex marriage and a woman's right to choose that frame this mega-preacher in many minds. To millions who don't agree with him, he's little more than Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt.
Nothing he says is going to change that. And nothing we say is going to change him. Evangelicals will be happy; LBGT-ers will feel the stick in their eye.
Is this important? As Hillary Rosen points out, the LBGT community not an existential constituency for our new president. Moreover, inauguration preachers don't make public policy; what they say on January 20th is usually forgotten by January 21st, if not sooner.
But symbolism is important, and it's especially important for this particular inauguration. Regardless of how he may try to nuance it, Rick Warren is part of the constituency that was courted and won over by George W. Bush. And it was the enthusiastic support of this constituency that played such a major role in W's journey to the White House. We can dialogue with them from now till The Rapture, but many of their ideas will still be anathema to most of those who elected Barack Obama.
So this is not change we can believe in. In fact, it's not change at all. It's more of the same. And that's not what we voted for.
Obama's choice of Rick Warren is a totally avoidable mistake of considerable proportion. The clergyman or woman who delivers the invocation next month could have been - should have been - a symbol of the values Obama believes in most deeply - the ones that won our support.
Rick Warren is not that person.
Mr. Warren is going to say a prayer or two.
Gays need to take a giant step backward on this choice and fight for more imporatnt things. Gays are not the only populace in the US.
"Rick Warrer: What was Obama thinking?" surely you jest? the answer is obvious Obama is just another hard hitting self-serving Chicago political opportunist
Selecting Warren had furthered this discussion -- albeit, at this point, only in a narrow way. There's a whole segment of the population that is capable of being swayed by a real debate and discussion -- one devoid of election-time pressures, deceitful tactics and other election distractions.
Even though the Prop 8 vote is over, there's work to be done in garnering more support for same sex marriage -- throughout the country. And thrusting Warren (already a media darling) into the spotlight (and, by default, LGBT leaders), there's a real chance to frame the debate and really have an in depth discussion about equal rights for all.
----------------------
Let me answer your question. Obama is a smart and savvy politician and he knew darn well this would provoke an outrage in the gay community. He must have decided that it was advantageous to him to have those "gays outraged by Warren pick" headlines.
Warren isn't just a minister who is "anti-gay marriage, but pro-civil unions." He compares gay relationships to incest and pedophilia and gays are not welcome in his church unless they repent. He denies the very legitimacy of our existence believing we can be cured. It matters not whether Warren will be speaking for 3 minutes or 3 hours. With all the millions of clergy for Obama to choose from he deliberately chose one to anger us.
I could care less about any politicians lofty speeches. Campaign promises are just words. Look at Obama's action here. He deliberately poked the gay community with a stick for political advantage. This portends very badly for us in the future. It is terribly unfortunate that our new President won't draw a line in the sand on bigotry.
And these hypocritical posters lecturing us on "inclusiveness" are just spitting in the wind. If a new President had chosen a segregationist, misogynist or anti-Semitic minister to do the invocation, I highly doubt that people of color, women and Jews would be receiving condescending lectures on "inclusiveness".
Yet, the only thing you and other columnists have focused on is the inclusion of Warren to deliver the invocation.
"Gee, don't gays love a parade? What's the problem?"
Lets do the first things first and then take it from there.
Rick Warren is a bigot who compares gay relationships to incest and pedophilia and denies the legitimacy of our existence believing we can be cured.
I hardly doubt if a new president had appointed a segregationist, misogynist, or antisemitic minister to do the invocation that people of color, women and Jews would be receiving hypocritical lectures about "inclusiveness" and "coalition building".
I am always surprised when people are shocked when some minister expresses the beliefs of plain, ordinary, garden variety Protestantism.
Obama is comfortable with Protestantism, and he thinks he can win a significant chunk of people who are influenced by people like Warren. He is looking to increase his likelihood of getting his agenda passed. He is not going to be too concerned about how this plays with gays. If anything, the controversy will help him with people who think he is a left wing radical.
It goes way further. The same Bush policy; anti-stem cell . As for women, Warren preaches & believes that we should not take a lead role in family life (exceptions; to cook, launder, change diapers, etc).
He stands for Bush ideology, regression NOT progression.
The symbolism is extremely important - it's appeasement of & political pandering to his rivals.
I for one am getting sick of Obama's political correctness - "working across the isle" is fine to a point BUT this is getting ridiculous. He's trying way too hard!
As for the 3 min invocation from THIS man - (for this major history making moment so many have waited for) - well it's not AT ALL what Obama claimed to stand for!
As mentioned below, Wallis would or could have been perfect!
Where do we go? What can we do now? Stay home in 2012.
As I posted above, Warren stands for Bush ideology = regression NOT progression!
He has not selected Rick Warren to work with him in abolishing gay marriage everywhere.
He has not selected Rick Warren to hold any position in his administration whatsoever.
He selected Rick Warren to say a 3-minute prayer. And... that's it.
You can say it is only a 3-minute prayer until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't make it any less a deliberate action by Obama to throw gays under the bus for political advantage.