Compare/Contrast

I guess the Obama people must feel like they got what they wanted out of the Rick Warren invocation, but from my vantage point it was a wooden and erratic address. Outside of the parts where he was quoting Scripture, it was hard to even understand his point half the time. When he started rambling about how God was "compassionate and merciful to everyone... and you are loving to everyone" it didn't even seem like it was written or thought out at all, despite the fact that he read the whole thing without making eye contact with the crowd. He looked hurried and rattled, and I have to think that the mass outcry against his appearance had to play a part in that. Either that or he's a star on a small stage who didn't translate to the step up in class.

For comparison's sake, check out the amazing work of the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who spoke of justice and charity and aid for the least among us. I'd say it was no contest.

And now, Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance.

And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family. Let us take that power back to our homes, our workplaces, our churches, our temples, our mosques, or wherever we seek your will.

Bless President Barack, First Lady Michelle. Look over our little, angelic Sasha and Malia.

We go now to walk together, children, pledging that we won't get weary in the difficult days ahead. We know you will not leave us alone, with your hands of power and your heart of love.

Help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors, when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid; when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.

Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen.

The point that those who Digby refers to as the Religion Industrial Complex want to avoid is that there's no need to reinvent the liberal relationship to faith. It already exists in the application of many religious teachings, in the notions of peace and justice and equality and tolerance, and in the common effort seen in the civil rights and the global peace movements. The religious right has hijacked these principles for the purposes of authoritarian extremism, and what is sometimes depicted as the "religious left" would rather accommodate those extremist views. It's a false choice.

And it didn't hurt to here a little nod to non-believers up on that platform today. For a second I actually thought I lived in a country where church and state were separate. Not bad.

Rick Warren

(Welcome NYT readers! This was kind of an immediate snap judgment, for a more considered view of the Warren invocation, go here.)


First of all, how dare he even mention Martin Luther King. Second, those portions which were not direct quotes from scripture were a mess. He got little more than polite applause and the complete mess he made of the invocation showed that what applause he got wasn't earned. And his presence kind of snapped me out of the spectacle of the whole thing, realized that we still have differences, we still have a lot to fight for, and we still have a long way to go.

Hoping For A Bank Shot

We're at the part in the Rick Warren controversy where some "good liberals" like E.J. Dionne come out of the woodwork to defend the mistaken decision because, I guess, Warren and his cadres might spontaneously alter their own deeply held beliefs, and then how awesome will everything be?

Liberals who see Warren as a garden-variety conservative evangelical defined primarily by his opposition to gay marriage accuse Obama of selling them out. Gays and lesbians enraged by Warren's strong opposition to gay marriage in last month's California referendum charge Obama with pandering to white evangelicals and fear the president-elect has gone out of his way to offend them in order to curry favor with straight conservatives.

But a more benign view on parts of the religious left casts Warren as the evangelical best positioned to lead moderately conservative white Protestants toward a greater engagement with the issues of poverty and social justice, and away from a relentless focus on abortion and gay marriage.

I mean, this is just a fantasy. I know that Dionne thinks Democrats can crack this Da Vinci Code and get evangelicals to focus on different issues than they historically have, and that may be true at the margins, but for the most part, religious white Protestants care about gay marriage and abortion because that's been the sum total of their political engagement for decades. To ask them to subsume that is to ask them to subsume their personal ideology, and in some respects their morality. I just think it's very naive to believe that will change. Yesterday the Pope called fighting homosexuality as consequential as protecting the rainforest. The E.J. Dionnes of the world would say that I should be thrilled that the Pope cares about the rainforest.

The major political issue that Warren has involved himself over the past half-decade is Prop. 8. That's just a fact. He spent no political capital on extending unemployment benefits or increasing the minimum wage. I appreciate the thought, expressed by Melissa Etheridge, that if gay people just talk to someone like Warren, they can open his eyes, but while I think that is true with the vast apolitical or low-information sections of the country, it's not likely to work with an evangelical leader or his flock.

I fall more along the lines of Katha Pollitt:

To understand how angry and disappointed many Democrats are that Barack Obama has invited evangelical preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural, imagine if a President-elect John McCain had offered this unique honor to the Rev. Al Sharpton -- or the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. I know, it's hard to picture: John McCain would never do that in a million years. Republicans respect their base even when, as in McCain's case, it doesn't really return the favor.

Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters -- feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community -- by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead [...]

In a news conference Thursday, Obama defended the choice of Warren: "It is important for the country to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues." That's all very well, but excuse me if I don't feel all warm and fuzzy. Obama won thanks to the strenuous efforts of people who've spent the last eight years appalled by the Bush administration's wars and violations of human rights, its attacks on gays and women, its denigration of science, its general pandering to bigotry and ignorance in the name of God.

I'm all for building bridges, but honoring Warren, who insults Obama's base as perverts and murderers, is definitely a bridge too far.

Hear hear.

Wherein I Thank The Lord For A 9 to 5 Job

Boy, I guess I hadn't realized how much of a positive impact not seeing the national cable news shows during the day has had on my life. It's been nearly a year since I've been around during the day with the shoutcasts on in the background, and the editorial decisions they make on what is news just fascinates me. On this day, with the economy continuing to crumble, commercial real estate now looking for a bailout, and the incoming Administration's thoughts on both the size of the economic stimulus and the doubling of forces in Afghanistan coming into focus, the big stories are... Republicans like Peter King said bad things about Caroline Kennedy and Fourthbranch Cheney said bad things about Joe Biden? Wow, it really is like junior high school in media world. They're all frustrated theater directors, I guess, and they want to construct human drama using soap opera techniques instead of the consequential issues and actions that impact people's lives.

Nevertheless, it was good to hear the name "Joe Biden" on any cable news show, considering that he'll become the second in line to the most powerful job in the world. And it was even better to hear some of his views and responsibilities in that role. For example, he's going to be heading up a task force aimed at increasing the ranks of the middle class, which I'm fairly certain based on the policies of the last eight years was not a priority.

As vice president, Joe Biden will oversee an Obama administration effort to find ways of building up the ranks of the middle class, that ambiguously defined segment of society most Americans identify with.

The task force will include four Cabinet members as well as other presidential advisers, the Obama transition team announced Sunday.

The goal is to recommend proposals to ensure the middle class is "no longer being left behind," Biden said. The proposals could include executive orders and legislative plans.

"Our charge is to look at existing and future policies across the board and use a yard stick to measure how they are impacting the working and middle-class families," Biden said in a statement released Sunday. "Is the number of these families growing? Are they prospering? President-elect Obama and I know the economic health of working families has eroded, and we intend to turn that around."

The fact that progressive economist Jared Bernstein has been named Biden's chief economic advisor will be a great aid to this effort, and it's a very encouraging sign at a time when all we have are signs. So is the fact, chief to the cable shoutcast musings, that he fully rejects the unitary executive concept popularized by Bush/Cheney, and how that has played out in practice with respect to Guantanamo:

The vice president-elect said he would “restore the balance” to the office, and he offered his own critical assessment of Mr. Cheney, saying the vice president’s recommendations to Mr. Bush on the war and counterterrorism issues were “not healthy for our foreign policy, not healthy for our national security.”

“His notion of a unitary executive,” Mr. Biden said, “meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power, you know, goes to the executive, I think is dead wrong.”

Mr. Biden said that he was still committed to closing the American prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that he remained critical of the Bush administration’s surveillance and detention programs, saying, “we have created, not dissuaded, more terrorists as a consequence of this policy.”

However, the news isn't entirely glowing. Biden uses the foolish "looking forward, not backward" construction when answering whether he supports prosecuting Bush Administration officials for war crimes, when of course only deterrence from committing those crimes will provide a bulwark to ensuring a future without them. He said that "The questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed…is something the Justice Department decides ... that’s a decision I’d look to the Justice Department to make,” and hopefully that means he'd stay out of any DoJ investigations or indictments, but let's just say I'm not hopeful.

And his response to the Rick Warren controversy was similarly unappealing:

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.

And I would say to the gay and lesbian community, they have nothing to worry about. Barack Obama, every aspect of his life, every aspect of his public life, and every commitment he's made relating to equality for all people, will be things that he will stick with and that they should view this in the spirit in which he offered the opportunity to -- to Mr. Warren.

I eagerly await seeing Obama and David Duke appearing on stage together, in the spirit of reaching out.

Of course, MSNBC's Mike Barnicle told me I'm in the minority on this argument based on my geography, saying on Hardball today that "If you take Cambridge, the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Georgetown, Santa Monica and San Francisco out of the argument, there is no argument." Of course, it's just an axiom of faith that alienating millions of key supporters is a universal good. That's how the media reported it on the few occasions when Bush moved against conservative orthodoxy, as on the Medicare prescription drug bill (at least on its face) and immigration reform, right?

Yeah, I don't remember seeing that either. In the Beltway you only get points for kicking the LEFT.

Why Invoke?

We're in the phase of the Rick Warren scandal where people dutifully collect all the soundbites of things he's said over the years. And while sometimes this tends to take people out of context, I don't think the media had a problem applying that standard to Jeremiah Wright, so here goes. Warren thinks that gay people are just immature and lack character and if they could only sublimate their desire like, say, a rapist who doesn't assault every woman who walks down the street (which he compares to HIMSELF), or a violent man who doesn't punch everyone he sees, then they could join civil society. As a result, Warren BANS unrepentant gays from membership at his church. And he's apparently sponsored ex-gay "recovery" sessions at Saddleback. And there are probably a dozen other things, but these are the ones that struck me.

Now, the idea that liberals have to accommodate someone like this at the inauguration because we have to be "inclusive," but Rick Warren doesn't need to accommodate a damn thing, is obviously disappointing and maybe shows you where the Obama campaign's head is at. I also understand that this is that thing called politics, and plenty of other execrable fellows are going to be traipsing in and out of Obama's White House, although unlike The Editors, I think you can answer the question of whether this will help Obama with white evangelicals (hell to the no; he got 25% in 2008 after appearing with Warren on stage, offering expanded faith-based initiatives and creating a whole "Matthew 25" movement. This is tribal. It ain't happening).

However, the comment over the last couple days with which I identify the most is clearly from bmaz.

Why is any of this, Warren, Lowery, or any other religious figure, an official part of the inauguration? If a religious aspect is desired for private parties later etc., fine, but why should overt religion be sanctioned as part of the official initiation of a Presidency? No matter how it is configured, it is going to be offensive to many groups inherently; i.e. those whose religions are snubbed, and those such as the LGBT community, for instance in relation to Warren. Probably some groups somewhere will be similarly put off by Joe Lowery; and, of course, the non-believers and/or atheists don't like any of it.

"America" should not have a preacher. If individuals wish to consider religion vis a vis their government, that is most excellent, but it should be and by individual choice only. God is not for a nation to possess, nor claim the mantle of; that is the province of the individuals in the nation to do, or not do, on their own.

Seven percent of the country does not believe in God. They aren't organized or a political force by any means, but they are Americans, and they are certainly not "included" in this civil ceremony inaugurating a President. What's more, 17% of Americans say that religion is "not very important" in their life, and 57% don't attend church weekly. Are they factored into this inclusive inauguration, with its opening invocation and closing benediction? I see absolutely no reason for this to be part of a Constitutional handover of power.

But I'm probably in the minority. However, doesn't that mean that I should be given a platform and that others will have to "agree to disagree" with me?

Meanwhile, the Courage Campaign is proposing a debate between Warren and Reverend Eric Lee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Todd Beeton has the details:

We can not ignore Rick Warren's fervent support for Proposition 8 or his mobilization of thousands of evangelical Christians to enshrine discrimination into our state constitution.

Harvey Milk did not ignore John Briggs in 1978, when Briggs sought to pass Proposition 6 -- the infamous "Briggs Initiative" that attempted to ban gay and lesbian teachers, and anyone who supported them, from our California's public schools. Milk challenged Briggs to debates across the state.

Sign the petition. Let's have a debate. Maybe they'll even put an atheist on the stage!

Obama: We're Going To Agree That You Disagree With Me

The President-elect's justification for choosing Rick Warren to the deliver the invocation at his Inauguration is kind of a mess.

Let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.

Obama is playing it very coy here. If this was mid-May and he stood with Warren at a conference on reducing poverty in the Third World, THAT would be an example of America coming together and finding common ground. Giving Warren a platform not tied to a particular issue just elevates him to the bipartisan face of religion in America, and gives him cover from the leader of the Democratic Party. And what's unsaid is that the compromises and calls to "agree to disagree" only get invoked when dealing with the left. It's seen as a political power play to kick the hippies in the teeth, never the other way around.

*** When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to.

Destroying your credibility with your base - always awesome. That shape-shifter Jonathan Alter was on MSNBC right after Obama's remarks saying the same thing, that the "era of Democratic fealty to interest-group politics is over." Nice to know that civil rights are just the issues of another one of them "interest groups."

If these Beltway chatterers really think that evangelicals are going to come around to Obama, by the way, they're crazy and they don't know how to read polls. Church-goers in general moved to Obama in 2008, but not evangelicals - they stuck with their tribe. When you see the Family Research Council tossing out press releases knocking Obama's Education Secretary pick for wanting to create a "gay high school," you can recognize how stupid it is thinking that "making nice with social conservatives" will bear electoral fruit. And I know it's only important if someone in DC says it, but lots of us were protesting the Saddleback Forum in August.

The Obama Administration talking points on this one are that the inauguration is "open and inclusive," and Warren's good on poverty and AIDS prevention and the environment, and hey, there's going to be an LGBT Marching Band, and Rev. Joseph Lowery, a pro-gay preacher, is delivering the benediction. But that misses the point entirely. This is about giving agency and bipartisan cover to someone with loathsome views on gays, on the pro-choice movement, and on the assassination of a foreign leader. There is no way to rationalize this.

UPDATE: I agree that the idea that Rick Warren gave protesters water and donuts kind of doesn't make up for stripping away their fundamental rights. And Jane Hamsher has some more good thoughts.

Neither Kinder Nor Gentler

The news that anti-gay bigot Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama really sucks. Not necessarily because I think the invocation is such a great platform - quick, name the last ten people to do it! - but because of the likelihood that Warren will be tapped for other responsibilities when Obama becomes President, and will subsequently become the face of religion in America. And while I don't have a problem working with pastors, even those in the evangelical movement, on the common ground issues like AIDS prevention and poverty, Warren is not the one that Democrats should be elevating. He's a snake charmer who is just as extreme as a Falwell or a Robertson. Here's PFAW's release:

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

I'm sure that Warren's supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church. But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.

Liberals just aren't going to see eye to eye with Rick Warren. There's no compromise to be made. This is a guy who recently agreed that Iran needs to be "taken out" in language that is not discernible from a mullah. This guy does not need to be made the kinder, gentler face of the evangelical movement, in a cynical play for support that will not be forthcoming. It's a big mistake.

Getting Medals Instead of Giving Them!

In case you thought Rick Warren was a new kind of moderate evangelical who is not an adjunct of the Republican Party, at Saddlebck Church today he will be presenting George W. Bush with the International Medal of PEACE for his work on HIV/AIDS prevention. Bush has earned some plaudits for combating HIV, particularly in Africa, but I hardly think that's what this is about. This is about giving George W. Bush the International Medal of PEACE.

He deserves this medal about as much as... well, people like George Tenet and Paul Bremer and Paul Wolfowitz and the other crew to whom Bush has handed out medals.

As The Nose Grows

So John McCain wasn't in a cone of silence during the Saddleback Church forum. He showed up at the site in the middle of Barack Obama's session. And McCain referred to the cone of silence in the beginning of the question period.

And you'll love his campaign's response to this:

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

The great Dana Gould has a joke asking if you've ever gone up to someone casually and gotten WAY too much information in return. "Hey, do you know what time it is?" "I'm not GAY!"

That's what this reminded me of.

This did make the New York Times, so maybe we'll start to even up the ticky-tack nonsense here. And the "noun-verb-POW" track record is growing.

What Digby Said

I briefly considered heading to Saddleback Church to take a look at this Rick Warren forum with Sens. Obama and Clinton, but thought better of it. Typically in these things they just stick you in a room to watch TV anyway, so it's not much of a difference. Also I expected that this would be the result, aptly stated by my pal Digby.

The Saddleback congregation applauded Obama very nicely. But as I hear this California evangelical audience cheering McCain far more wildly for everything from offshore drilling to gay marriage to taxes, while applauding every tired old stump line like it's the first time he's said them, I really have to wonder whether this "outreach" is really going to add up to anything.

Absolutely. California fundies are far to the right of your normal fundies. And so when McCain says he has a 25-year pro-life record and he favors a Constitutional amendment for gay marriage, that's the ballgame. In addition, they are with him on taxes and spending and offshore drilling and how "wars of aggression are not acceptable" unless we wage them and all the other gimmicks that conservatives have fallen for since the 1960s. This is tribal and it doesn't matter who has the D next to his name.

What I do think is that the 3-minute segment on those social issues might be pretty good to use to a mainstream audience, as evidence of McCain's very readical conservative vision.

UPDATE: Jesse said everything I wanted to say. However, one addition: I think the "when does a baby get human rights" question will be a new toy for the media to play with. David Gregory already used it twice this morning.

Tomorrow In the OC: Obama, McCain, Rick Warren

Southern California actually becomes the center of the Presidential universe tomorrow afternoon, as Rick Warren's Saddleback Church hosts John McCain and Barack Obama at a forum. The candidates will not answer questions at the same time (though both will briefly appear on stage together), but they will have an hour a piece to share their views.

It's likely that both fans and critics will be watching closely when Warren plays host to the two presidential contenders at his church complex in Lake Forest, home to 22,000 weekend worshipers.

The presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees won't debate during the Civil Forum on the Presidency. But they will make a brief joint appearance, their first of the campaign, and Warren will interview each separately about the Constitution, poverty, AIDS, human rights and other subjects.

"America has a choice. It's not between a stud and a dud this year," Warren said. "Both of these men care about America. My job is to let them share their views."

Warren may represent the softer face of evangelicals, but he still holds beliefs that hew strongly to the family values conservatism you would expect. In fact, he says that he would have trouble voting for an adulterer. I wonder which of the two Presidential candidates he's obliquely referring to?

WARREN: John Edwards and others like him (emphasis added) have lost the trust of America because they lied, and fundamentally beneath every affair it’s dishonesty, its deceit, its deception. They’re lying to God. They’re lying to themselves. They’re lying to their wives and they’re lying to the public. How do you trust someone who’s constantly lying? You can’t. That’s why it is a myth to say their personal life doesn’t matter. It does matter -- all of leadership is built on credibility.

TAPPER: Would you have compunctions about voting for someone who had cheated on his wife?

WARREN: Absolutely I would. Absolutely I would. Because if you can’t keep your faith to your most sacred vow – “’til death do us part” -- how in the world can I trust you to lead my family? My government? My nation?...Absolutely I would. I think people first need to ask forgiveness and then earn trust back over time. Can trust be re-earned? Absolutely but it takes time.

I got my credential request in a little too late, but I am going to head down to survey the scene and give some kind of report.