SoCons on Warren's Inaugaral Invocation

[bryant]

Quotes here. A few good bits:

"Mr. Warren school be ashamed of himself, protection of the unborn is the MOST IMPERATIVE issue as a Christian!!!!!"

"Unless Rick Warren has changed, he is very disappointing in the pro-life cause."

"I have had about all I can stand of Rick Warren's double standards. WHOSE side is he really on anyway?"

Personal opinion: I wish Warren wasn't speaking. I am not surprised that Obama would pick Warren as one of the two religious figures to speak; it's consistent with both his campaign's approach to gay rights and his political strategies. So I can't say I'm disappointed. I also think that it'll be a small wedge in the Republican coalition, which is OK as silver linings go.

Comments

[death-by-monkey.livejournal.com]

I love this one - "I just lost a lot of respect for Rick Warren. How can someone who professes to be a Christian, put himself into a situation where other Christians would question him?"

Because Christians are supposed to be monolithic in their beliefs - the Borg of religions if you will?

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

The person who said that probably doesn't think either Catholics or UCC are really Christians.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I would prefer to have no religious figure speaking. Otherwise, it could be Zombie Elijah Muhammad for all i care.

[bryant]

... and his Men of Action.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

This old speech of Obama's is, I think, interesting reading on the legitimate role of religion in political discourse. Lord knows I wish a politician could give a speech that didn't end with "G-d bless America", but I really liked how reasoned and reasonable Obama is there.

For what it's worth.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

Once again the mobius strip of American politics rears it's ugly head... the slavering theocons and all the ideologically pure Kossacks are in total agreement! Hallelujah!

I can't help but agree with that CBN correspondent: "Sometimes we all get caught up so much in demonizing the other side that we don’t see the forest from the trees," and hope that these two fringes are the shrill minority, and that sane pragmatists make up the vast middle.

[telepresence.livejournal.com]

I'm disappointed how short term the thinking is on both sides during this transition period, it's like everyone forgot the lessons learned from Obama getting elected in the first place. Which is not me saying Obama is infallible or shouldn't be questioned, but so few commentators even seem to try to put this decision in any kind of greater context, as you just did.

We should create and host a cable political yelling show for big dollars.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

I'd be less cranky about Warren preaching at the inauguration if Aretha Franklin weren't also on the scheduled list of entertainment for the day and/or if a prominent, out gay person were also on the entertainment list for the day.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

You lost me. Having both Rick Warren and Aretha Franklin is too much?

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

On a separate note: the entertainment for the day consists of (setting aside bands, choirs, and the obligatory Senator Feinstein and Chief Justice Roberts) two religious leaders (Warren for the invocation and Reverend Lowery for the benediction), Aretha Franklin, and a poet (Elizabeth Alexander). Plus, OK, a quartet performing John Williams music. By which I mean only that it's not like there are thirty or forty people scheduled; counting Williams, the complaint is that there's not anyone openly gay among these five people.

That, coupled with the inclusion of a LGBT band in the parade, doesn't trigger my own crankinessometer.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

The complaint is that one of the invited individuals is actively anti-gay (and anti-choice and anti-atheist), having just helped the reactionaries strip rights from gays in California. It's about as enjoyable as the religious folks would have found it if Obama had invited Richard Dawkins to speak, only more serious because Dawkins hasn't managed to strip believers of any rights and Warren has managed to strip rights from gay Californians.

[death-by-monkey.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm pretty rabidly anti-Prop 8, but Warren did not strip rights from gay Californians. A majority of voters in California stripped rights from gay Californians. Warren was in support of this, yes. But it's wildly inaccurate to say that he did it. Let's lay the blame where it's due. We can be mad at Warren for his support of this and feel betrayed that Obama is implicitly supporting this by including Warren - that's justified (as mentioned above, I agree that it's a fairly short-sighted view that's missing the big picture, but I think the feelings are justified).