Your thoughts are generous and welcome, SW; I don’t apologize for taking it personally.  Atheistic peace and goodwill to you from me at this exciting solstice time when the sun returns and, perhaps, some new enlightenment can spread across the land as the dark Bush years disappear over the horizon of the past.

Yes, Obama is wise to consider a broad range of viewpoints and not arbitrarily shut out those whose views he doesn’t share. Yes, he’s going to be president of all the people. But your argument comes undone with this:

” . . .even though, rick warren’s message isn’t always one of inclusion . . .”

Exactly. “Unrepentant” gays can’t join  Saddleback Church. Warren’s church funds an outfit that seeks to “rehabilitate”  gays, which is quackery. You can’t brainwash a person’s sexual orientation out of them; you can only get them to repress it for a time, quite possibly doing psychological and emotional damage in the process. Gays’ orientation is as natural and normal for them as heterosexuals’ orientation is for them.

I agree Obama’s speech will be the main thing at his inauguration and that Warren’s role will be relatively minor. Still, Warren’s inclusion was an unnecessary and uncalled for slap in the face to several million Americans, most of whom supported Obama with money, votes and some with campaign work.

Symbolism matters. If Obama wanted to reach out and get Warren’s input, he could’ve invited him to the White House for a chat or to take part in a conference on social issues later on. As I explained in my post, IMO, inviting Warren to give the inaugural invocation is what’s way off base.

While I don’t agree with your position, I appreciate your taking the time to comment.

his selection of rick warren as the invocation speaker and joseph lowery as the benediction speaker is completely consistent with how Obama ran his campaign, how he picked his Cabinet members, and how he intends to run this country. we only move forward when we hear thoughts and opinions from all quarters. he is breaking the paradigm of right vs. left, blue vs. red, gay vs. straight, black vs. white… even though, rick warren’s message isn’t always one of inclusion, the message Obama sends must always be one of inclusion!

it may just be me, but i’m thinking the highlight of the inauguration will be Obama’s speech, not the 5 minute invocation by rick warren or the few minutes that joseph lowery chooses to close the show.  although, i don’t subscribe to warren’s “politics”, i support Obama’s desire to bring those with differing viewpoints to his coming out party (no pun intended). Obama is going to be the president of people who support gay marriage as well as people who think all gays are going to Hell. as he has said so many times, we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

the groups who are protesting this minor speaking role at the inauguration are way off base.

Carmen, first,  tell me where I “bashed” Obama.

You seem to believe gays and lesbians have no right to speak up for what they believe is right and fair. Worse, you try to equate their desire to be able to marry with the activities of addicts, adulterers and pedophiles.

Carmen, your comments indicate you’re ignorant about gays and lesbians, about them getting married, and about how and why the love life of  gays and lesbians has nothing in common with addicts, adulterers or pedophiles.

Finally, you claim gays and lesbians getting married will harm others. That flies in the face of facts and logic.

Please, read the Newsweek article. It might not change your mind, but you might learn something.

RG, I don’t think even Gilbert and Sullivan would’ve touched that. I like you’re idea about working for political capital, though.

I understand Obama’s “big tent” approach, but if you’re frightened of a “liberal” pastor, then grab a centrist. Make the homophobes and torture apologists work for their political capital by, you know, not being homophobes and torture apologists any longer.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/jobs_is_to_have_his.php