Why the huge dust-up about Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration?

The op-ed pages of almost every paper have opinion pieces that come down on one side or the other. To me, an avowed liberal and an Obama supporter since 2004, his selection of Warren to give a two-minute prayer further proves Obama's intellectual fearlessness and his ability to respect a difference of opinion.

We liberals like to promote the notion of choice when discussing what we call a moral decision. Well, here's another liberal — Obama — who has exercised his freedom of choice and selected a right-leaning evangelical to participate in his inauguration.

Within a week, the effect of that, in my view, will not be even a blip on the moral or political radar. However, media space is used by both sides to rant about it.

Katha Pollitt, an esteemed columnist for The Nation, writes in the Austin American-Statesman (12-30-08) that many Democrats are incensed over Obama's selection of Warren for the symbolically important task of delivering the inaugural invocation. She doesn't back that up with any research as she goes on to compare it, metaphorically, with McCain having Al Sharpton deliver the invocation at his imagined inaugural.

Warren, as most readers know, is the pastor of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. He is also the author of the Purpose Driven Life and other books. Ms. Pollitt points out a list of Warren's anti-liberal sins: 1) led the fight in California to pass Proposition 8, banning gay marriage; 2) espouses poisonous rhetoric against pro-choice proponents; 3) condemns all Jews — along with another two or three billion people — to hell for not believing in Christ; 4) is anti-evolutionist; 5) believes wives should be submissive to their husbands.

Pollitt castigates Obama for disrespecting those who worked so hard to get him elected. She writes: “I'm all for building bridges, but honoring Warren, who insults Obama's base as perverts and murderers, is definitely a bridge too far.”

I see it a little differently. Rick Warren's belief is his business and the constitution of the United States guarantees that. However, when Rick Warren prays, I'm thinking he prays to the same God I do. I'm thinking that in his prayer, he will ask for that God's blessings on this country, and its people. That will include those who believe a woman has a right to determine what happens to her body; it will include those who love and cherish a person of the same sex; it will include all races and ethnicities; it will even include those who profess other religious beliefs.

Warren may have some off-the-wall — to us liberals — beliefs. But it is my observation, based on my limited study of history, that arguments involving moral issues are won, not by reasoning, logic, or brilliant oratory of the protagonist.

Rather, the arguments are lost by the eventual realization by mankind of the emptiness, cruelty, and wrong-headedness inherent in the belief, i.e., the right of one man to own another.

I see this as CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. It is a major departure from the last eight years where pandering has been the order of the day. Let's not forget Obama's words in 2004, when he so eloquently illustrated his vision for America:

“The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an “awesome God” in the Blue States and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.

We coach Little League in the Blue States and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

On the same page of the Austin American-Statesman, Kathryn Jean Lopez begins her column praising Obama's selection of Warren for the invocation at the inauguration.

She goes on to say that, “…religious folks have been feeling marginalized from politics of late; Obama's choice caps off an election season that hit churchgoers hard.”

As a fairly religious person and a churchgoer, I haven't a clue what Lopez is talking about. I haven't felt a bit marginalized from politics of late. I can only assume she thinks all Christians and churchgoers believe as she does.

She goes on to criticize those who have exercised their constitutional right to assemble and protest the passage of Proposition 8. She uses inflammatory terms such as “angry” and “vociferous” to describe the protesters and says that churches have been threatened.

But, like Pollitt, Lopez makes claims with no evidence to support her assertions.

Strangely enough, she departs from her original premise and spends the rest of her column criticizing and deconstructing a recent Newsweek article that takes exception to the notion that the Bible explicitly prohibits gay marriage.

I guess I'm guilty of believing words mean what they have meant over the years; that “choice” means the right to choose; that “reaching out” means respecting the rights and beliefs of others; that “uniting” means coming together in harmony.



• bibbunderwood@yahoo.com