Next Question
RSS
This is an incredibly difficult question. Initially, I was very upset about this, but I've given it a lot of thought.
We must consider context; we must consider what we knew about Barack Obama before in order to decide if this is a betrayal. We must consider the possible results.
One of the things we learned because of the scandal with Rev. Wright is that Sen. Obama is ultimately more concerned about the good a religious leader does overall than the opinions that leader might state and cultivate.
One of the things Sen. Obama received the most grief about from his opponents on the campaign trail was his willingness to sit down with dangerous leaders without precondition.
The main argument I heard Sen. McCain make against this strategy was that it validates these leaders and the very worse things they have said. Many liberals disagreed, saying it was this total-rejection and no-compromise attitude that got the U.S. to where we are at internationally today.
What President-elect Barack Obama has done by inviting Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer should not surprise us, because it is in line with everything we have heard from Sen. Obama on the campaign trail. He is more concerned about the good that he can do by working with Rick Warren -- a man who is concerned about rallying the evangelical base to work on issues of the environment, and area where we desperately need unity -- than the areas in which they disagree. They still disagree, but President-elect Obama recognizes that there will be people in the world we disagree with and we must learn to work together.
My concern, along with that of many liberals, was that inviting Mr. Warren to speak in this platform legitimized his hateful messages against the LGBTQ population of this country. It was only in realizing how much this paralleled Sen. McCain's concern about his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without making him take back every horrible thing he'd ever said against the U.S. or the Jews that I was able to take a wider perspective.
Our country is horribly divided. It does not help us move forward as a nation if we are in a stand off, unwilling to discuss anything with the other side unless they become entirely like us. It is easier to stay in our ideological bubbles if we shun all those who are unwilling to agree, but it is much more difficult to move forward.
It may be idealistic to think we can dialogue more openly and that such dialogue will change the way we interact and soften our opinions, but it's exactly the kind of thinking that made President-elect Obama so popular. This is a divided country; let's take hope from the fact that President-elect Obama is already opening up the conversation.
Permalink | Report
bluejway
to get elected, now that he is elected he is set out on creating a dynasty.
He owns the middle, and America is the middle. America isn't going to be defined by a left or right from this year forward.
He is creating a new political philosophy, one which makes judgments based on what American needs both now and in the future
Source(s):
my opinion
Permalink | Report
Barack Obama will be Rick Warren's president just as he will be yours or mine.
He represents a significant portion of this country, and it's a sign of respect for the electorate that he was chosen, in spite of some of the hatred one could argue he represents (specifically towards gays). Some people with similar views as Warren even voted for Obama (Maybe not many as a percentage, but probably millions through the whole country).
Permalink | Report
Thank you for your question.
The invitation to Rick Warren has upset a lot of people on the left.
However, it is a reach out to people in the Midwest and South especially social conservatives who voted for Obama due to the state of the economy.
It is also consistent with his campaign message as he recently stated:
“It is important for Americans to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues … . That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign´s been all about; that we´re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we … can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/22/davis_warren/
Joe Biden explained it this way:
"Barack Obama said you've got to reach out. You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.
We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise."
It is part of Obama's strategy to recover the so-called Reagan Democrats who supported the Democrats on economic issues but disagreed on social issues. This is an important swing group who supported George W. Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Presumably, Obama thinks that the liberals will be happy with his economic, health and welfare programs to accept a reach out to social conservatives.
Regards
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/biden_on_rick_warren_invitatio.php
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
I think it's a shame that this decision has been so politicized by Obama, the media, and special interest groups. Obama chose a celebrity like Warren to gain favor with the Christian right. The media jumped all over it to fill time on the evening news. Special interest groups are using the choice as leverage to advance their own agendas.
Why can't we focus on the invocation itself rather than the person who's giving it? It is a dedication of the upcoming presidency to the service of God. In that light, the person who gives the invocation is not as important as what is said in that invocation.
Permalink | Report
As a more traditionalist, I might have preferred someone with a more conservative (and shall we say "tasteful") religious demeanor, but Mr. Obama has won me over in other areas of policy and preference, so I don't mind the Warren thing. Religion has played a ridiculously disproportionate centric role in politics over the last eight years and in the coming years, I hope it will be less seriously regarded as we grapple with many, many more demanding and critical political issues of the moment, such as the management of two horrible wars and a crumbling economy.
In short, I don't mind because it doesn't really matter to me, as much as do other much more crucial and impending issues.
Permalink | Report
If God did exist I would image that such things as pride and emotion would be easy to be put aside to hear someone from an opposing viewpoint lead prayer to God for the Nation..
But than again asking to lead prayer in the hope to commit sin by killing ones enemies always did seem damn lacking of logic and common sense. Two Bush Presidents did such illogical things.
Rick Warren leading prayer is no more insulting than two Bushes leading payer to ask to be allowed to commit sin in killing ones enemies in war.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
I think he's going to spend some time fighting his own party, and I hope this helps defuse the situation a little after the polarization of the past 8 years.
I personally would have been fine with him saying, "We're not going to have an official inaugural prayer."
Permalink | Report
The majority has no monopoly on hate on intolerance. Interolerant speech can come from any group or individual. Before a genuine claim of Christian interolerance can be made the group making the claim should ideally be viewed as intolerant themselves. Obviously this is not the case, because to put it quite simply, the gay and lesbian community are intolerant of Pastor Rick Warren and all Christians on the whole. To be fair this intolerant view is somewhat tempered by the fact that some Christian groups promote gay and lesbian relations inside the church community.
It is clear that Obama has reached across the divide and extended a hand to the Christian community as a President of all Americans should do from time to time.
Source(s):
Instructional Systems - Teaching about religion with a view to....Diversity
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm
Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
At least Obama didn't invite his own oersonal spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is is far more extreme and fringie than Rick Warren will every be. Rick Warren by contrast is no different than the vast majority of Christians in the US - which makes him rather normal. Jeremiah Wright on the other hand is an America hating racist.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
December 22, 2008 11:00 PM
Should Barack Obama have invited Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer?
Let's keep it intellectual and strategic everyone.
Is it a good idea to invite someone who has many core beliefs that are strongly opposed to yours to lead such an important event?
Is it insulting to the folks who got you elected to invite someone they disagree with so strongly in such a prominent role?
Your intelligent comments and insights are welcome below.
Is it a good idea to invite someone who has many core beliefs that are strongly opposed to yours to lead such an important event?
Is it insulting to the folks who got you elected to invite someone they disagree with so strongly in such a prominent role?
Your intelligent comments and insights are welcome below.
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| December 22, 2008 11:36 PM |
We must consider context; we must consider what we knew about Barack Obama before in order to decide if this is a betrayal. We must consider the possible results.
One of the things we learned because of the scandal with Rev. Wright is that Sen. Obama is ultimately more concerned about the good a religious leader does overall than the opinions that leader might state and cultivate.
One of the things Sen. Obama received the most grief about from his opponents on the campaign trail was his willingness to sit down with dangerous leaders without precondition.
The main argument I heard Sen. McCain make against this strategy was that it validates these leaders and the very worse things they have said. Many liberals disagreed, saying it was this total-rejection and no-compromise attitude that got the U.S. to where we are at internationally today.
What President-elect Barack Obama has done by inviting Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer should not surprise us, because it is in line with everything we have heard from Sen. Obama on the campaign trail. He is more concerned about the good that he can do by working with Rick Warren -- a man who is concerned about rallying the evangelical base to work on issues of the environment, and area where we desperately need unity -- than the areas in which they disagree. They still disagree, but President-elect Obama recognizes that there will be people in the world we disagree with and we must learn to work together.
My concern, along with that of many liberals, was that inviting Mr. Warren to speak in this platform legitimized his hateful messages against the LGBTQ population of this country. It was only in realizing how much this paralleled Sen. McCain's concern about his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without making him take back every horrible thing he'd ever said against the U.S. or the Jews that I was able to take a wider perspective.
Our country is horribly divided. It does not help us move forward as a nation if we are in a stand off, unwilling to discuss anything with the other side unless they become entirely like us. It is easier to stay in our ideological bubbles if we shun all those who are unwilling to agree, but it is much more difficult to move forward.
It may be idealistic to think we can dialogue more openly and that such dialogue will change the way we interact and soften our opinions, but it's exactly the kind of thinking that made President-elect Obama so popular. This is a divided country; let's take hope from the fact that President-elect Obama is already opening up the conversation.
| Asker's Rating: |
Permalink | Report
Reply
bluejway
January 21, 2009 01:26 AM
Evangelicals have offended and hurt many by their misuse of power over the past 8 years, and their power has misused them. But Rick Warren stands out as an exception in many ways. I disagree with him, but in Obama's America, everyone has a voice. And it seems wise that our President chose this voice instead of others. Whether we like it or not evangelicals a big part of American life, part of the mosaic. And I think Warren is one of the more sane and decent voices from that segment of our culture. Obama was indeed wise to choose him.
Tip bluejway for this comment
Report
Other Answers (16)
December 22, 2008 11:05 PM
This is a brilliant move by Obama. Obama needed to stick to the party agenda to get elected, now that he is elected he is set out on creating a dynasty.
He owns the middle, and America is the middle. America isn't going to be defined by a left or right from this year forward.
He is creating a new political philosophy, one which makes judgments based on what American needs both now and in the future
Source(s):
my opinion
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 22, 2008 11:16 PM
Yes. I say this as someone with little good to say about Rick Warren, too. Barack Obama will be Rick Warren's president just as he will be yours or mine.
He represents a significant portion of this country, and it's a sign of respect for the electorate that he was chosen, in spite of some of the hatred one could argue he represents (specifically towards gays). Some people with similar views as Warren even voted for Obama (Maybe not many as a percentage, but probably millions through the whole country).
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 22, 2008 11:21 PM
G'day Jasoncalacanis, Thank you for your question.
The invitation to Rick Warren has upset a lot of people on the left.
However, it is a reach out to people in the Midwest and South especially social conservatives who voted for Obama due to the state of the economy.
It is also consistent with his campaign message as he recently stated:
“It is important for Americans to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues … . That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign´s been all about; that we´re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we … can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/22/davis_warren/
Joe Biden explained it this way:
"Barack Obama said you've got to reach out. You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.
We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise."
It is part of Obama's strategy to recover the so-called Reagan Democrats who supported the Democrats on economic issues but disagreed on social issues. This is an important swing group who supported George W. Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Presumably, Obama thinks that the liberals will be happy with his economic, health and welfare programs to accept a reach out to social conservatives.
Regards
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/biden_on_rick_warren_invitatio.php
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 22, 2008 11:39 PM
I think it's a little strange, and it lends legitimacy to Rick Warren's constituents. One thing in Bush's method that was strategically correct and moved more people towards his view is not lending legitimacy to views he thought were off the mark. That's one way he was able to shift the electorate so far to the right. I think Obama should not have lent Rick Warren's constituents' views any legitimacy by bringing him to give the opening prayer. He should have brought in a preacher that he feels lives God's word and holds what he feels are moral values as paramount. I don't mean Jeremiah Wright, because he knows where Wright stands now. I mean a preacher that supports the poor, workers, etc, and is noncontrovercial.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 22, 2008 11:43 PM
I think Obama should have chosen the religious leader that is most important to his own personal spiritual life. Unfortunately, following this logic, that person was probably the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright's extreme extra-biblical beliefs disqualified him a long time ago. I think it's a shame that this decision has been so politicized by Obama, the media, and special interest groups. Obama chose a celebrity like Warren to gain favor with the Christian right. The media jumped all over it to fill time on the evening news. Special interest groups are using the choice as leverage to advance their own agendas.
Why can't we focus on the invocation itself rather than the person who's giving it? It is a dedication of the upcoming presidency to the service of God. In that light, the person who gives the invocation is not as important as what is said in that invocation.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 22, 2008 11:43 PM
Our new president is attempting to accomodate everyone... and the choice of Rick Warren appears to be a kind of pandering to the evangelical/fundamental types which were so devoted to Bush/Cheney. As a more traditionalist, I might have preferred someone with a more conservative (and shall we say "tasteful") religious demeanor, but Mr. Obama has won me over in other areas of policy and preference, so I don't mind the Warren thing. Religion has played a ridiculously disproportionate centric role in politics over the last eight years and in the coming years, I hope it will be less seriously regarded as we grapple with many, many more demanding and critical political issues of the moment, such as the management of two horrible wars and a crumbling economy.
In short, I don't mind because it doesn't really matter to me, as much as do other much more crucial and impending issues.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 22, 2008 11:59 PM
Okay how about the Atheist point of view. If God did exist I would image that such things as pride and emotion would be easy to be put aside to hear someone from an opposing viewpoint lead prayer to God for the Nation..
But than again asking to lead prayer in the hope to commit sin by killing ones enemies always did seem damn lacking of logic and common sense. Two Bush Presidents did such illogical things.
Rick Warren leading prayer is no more insulting than two Bushes leading payer to ask to be allowed to commit sin in killing ones enemies in war.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 23, 2008 12:11 AM
Yes. In order for President-elect Obama to set forth his presidency on his own terms he should invite someone that has a large group of support while at the same time present a controversial opinion. Obama has silently stated that he is going to go about his presidency without worrying about how the electorate feels. Bringing Rick Warren in also invites all the moderate Christian groups that did not vote for Obama to the stage. This is his olive branch. All the voters that oppose the choice of Rick Warren will have forgotten about his appearance as soon as Obama is sworn in.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 23, 2008 06:42 AM
Here is a link to Rick Warren's video explaining his position on recent discussions. http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=1720
Report
December 23, 2008 12:14 AM
It would be very easy to say this is pandering to the right, but I think this kind of inclusive move is interesting because it's the opposite of the divisive politics practiced by the right. It's not "taking the moral high ground", rather acknowledging that people can do good things, like helping the poor, while also preaching hatred against gays. I think he's going to spend some time fighting his own party, and I hope this helps defuse the situation a little after the polarization of the past 8 years.
I personally would have been fine with him saying, "We're not going to have an official inaugural prayer."
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 23, 2008 12:55 AM
A 2001 statistical report on religious and nonreligious worldviews called the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), states that of all religious groups in america 75% of them fall under the Christian banner. If Pastor Warren or another Christian pastor is not invited to speak the religious majority will not be properly represented. The majority has no monopoly on hate on intolerance. Interolerant speech can come from any group or individual. Before a genuine claim of Christian interolerance can be made the group making the claim should ideally be viewed as intolerant themselves. Obviously this is not the case, because to put it quite simply, the gay and lesbian community are intolerant of Pastor Rick Warren and all Christians on the whole. To be fair this intolerant view is somewhat tempered by the fact that some Christian groups promote gay and lesbian relations inside the church community.
It is clear that Obama has reached across the divide and extended a hand to the Christian community as a President of all Americans should do from time to time.
Source(s):
Instructional Systems - Teaching about religion with a view to....Diversity
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm
Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 23, 2008 09:15 PM
Good point, except that there is a great diversity of Christian pastors, many less controversial, so you can't use the "Christians need to be represented" argument against some of the specifics of the situation.
Report
December 24, 2008 03:14 AM
The preacher does not have to be from the majority religion any more than the President has to be from the majority race. Warren is specifically intolerant in his sermons; there are quite a few tolerant Christian preachers but he is not one of them. The President has to be American but the benediction does not have to be from an American; religion is deliberately international in scope. Does the bible he is swearing in on have to be made in the USA? Obama has chosen one from England. Of the world class holy men living, the Dalai Lama is the only one whose reputation extends across religious boundaries. He would have been a more unifying choice.
Report
December 23, 2008 02:03 AM
To claim that hearing all views advances diversity when selecting someone who deliberately opposes diversity is disingenuous. There were countless religious leaders that Obama could have picked whose speeches consistently advocate inclusiveness. Instead, Obama has gone with a political maneuver. I am disappointed. He should have gone for the best available, as he has in many (but not all) his cabinet picks. I would have recommended the Dalai Lama, who is currently the most widely respected holy man worldwide.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 24, 2008 02:07 AM
Hold on. I challange this response. The best is the Dalai Lama?????? Are you kidding me. Millions upons millions upon millions of people do not consider his view on morality or the world for that matter a serious view. On the other side millions probably do consider him to be the best. This is the point he is not the single most favored representative to speak at the inaguration. Not to mention the fact that he is from another country. Look, however right or wrong the best available speakers for this event are from America as this is an american event for an american president.
On the subject of diversity... I would contend that oppossing diversity is in and of itself a diverse view among many views and Pastor Waren's views fall easily into this category as any americans' would. You really need to check your feelings at the door if you want to have a genuine discussion about these kinds of topics. To not check those feelings is disengenuous.
Report
On the subject of diversity... I would contend that oppossing diversity is in and of itself a diverse view among many views and Pastor Waren's views fall easily into this category as any americans' would. You really need to check your feelings at the door if you want to have a genuine discussion about these kinds of topics. To not check those feelings is disengenuous.
December 23, 2008 09:13 AM
I say the following as an atheist. At least Obama didn't invite his own oersonal spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is is far more extreme and fringie than Rick Warren will every be. Rick Warren by contrast is no different than the vast majority of Christians in the US - which makes him rather normal. Jeremiah Wright on the other hand is an America hating racist.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Are you as glad as I am that Mahalo is deleting obviously racist questions?
Celebrate Mahalo Answers 1 Year Anniversary by Nominating your "Answer of the Year"
Conservapedia - "I reject your reality and substitute my own."?
How old do you have to be to ride on a roller coaster or is ridership strictly determ...
Celebrate Mahalo Answers 1 Year Anniversary by Nominating your "Answer of the Year"
Conservapedia - "I reject your reality and substitute my own."?
How old do you have to be to ride on a roller coaster or is ridership strictly determ...
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- shay14, December 14, 2009 05:14 PM
- ecoshaylee, December 14, 2009 05:12 PM
- vincepiatz, December 14, 2009 05:08 PM
- toooony123, December 14, 2009 05:08 PM
- anthonycarrera, December 14, 2009 05:06 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
