Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Some people are trying to say, "It's okay, he's chosen Joseph Lowery for the benediction, and he's pro same-sex marriage. So that balances it out."

Fvck that bullsh!t. "Hey, I invited this guy who advocates for the KKK, but I also invited a Rabbi so we're cool, right?"

Fail.

[Alex]

I'm primarily annoyed that at what is essentially a civic ceremony putting into office our leader prayer is even viewed as appropriate.

So having anybody up there irks me in a way, the specific choice just layers onto that.

[Tom]

I have just sent the following message to... well, whomever it goes to, through change.gov.

I am very upset about President Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. My wife and I gave our time and money and energy to help elect Barack Obama president, but as hard as we worked for his election, we worked equally hard to defeat proposition 8. I understand and agree with the importance the President-elect has placed on reaching out to those with whom we do not agree, but it still is possible to reach out in one direction without reaching away from the other, and I wish that he would have taken such an option in this case.

[flippyshark]

public Tom mojo - that's pretty well how I feel about it - disappointed and really hoping this decision will be rethought.

[JWBear]

I heard the news on Stephanie Miller this morning.

[Snowflake]

Well, I did my bit and followed Tom's lead. I do not know if anyone will see it, or if it will make a damn bit of difference. But, Prez-Elect Obama wants people to disagree, and I do and voiced it. There are bigger issues that he is facing, but this is a big issue to me and people I know and love and respect. So I have no problem letting him know, even if he never sees the emails. If enough people send a note, dollars to donuts, he will see it.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm a little at odds with the "disillusioned" argument, although I understand and agree with the outrage, because I also strongly disagree with this Pastor's views.

First, I've never been under the illusion that Obama supports SSM because he has always made it quite clear that he does not (with the caveat that he also does not support a Constitutional amendment to ban SSM.) Then again, I do not think that is why Obama chose this pastor.

I clearly remember Bush coming into office and stating that he was "a uniter, not a divider." It was a good line at the time but the problem was that, once he came into office, he proceeded to build an impenetrable wall of idealogical purity around him. If you disagreed with anything, you were forever on the outside of that wall. And I simply don't want to see that mistake repeated, even if I would happen to be on the inside of that wall. Obama has made it clear that he intends to show respect to all views, even those he disagrees with, and if he is able to do so, it will be the polar opposite of what we have faced for the last eight years. The thing is, you cannot just talk about it, you actually have to do it. You have to show the other side that, even when you disagree, it does not mean that the opposition must be silenced.

The sad and harsh fact is that this pastor represents millions of people, who happen to agree with him on this issue. If Obama wants to show that he truly represents ALL Americans and not just those who agree with him, he isn't going to get that point across by only working with people who progressives happen to approve of. And in this instance, it isn't even a matter of working with this pastor, it's simply a gesture that shows that Obama stands by his word.

I think a lot of people have the expectation that, by Obama winning, the liberals were going to now be able to tell the other side, "F*ck off, we're doing things our way now." But I'm of the opinion that this really isn't any different from what Bush did, and that isn't what I'm looking for in a leader. I voted for Obama because that is part of the change that I wanted to see. And it is only logical that, as a result, I'm not going to agree with everything that he does. That's the downside of compromise - whoever actually decides to do it is going to piss off a lot of supporters.

The good thing is that, unlike some of Bush's actions, this particular gesture holds no weight as far as policy goes. I would rather that a pastor give an invocation that not only will not even mention SSM, but is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That's far better than Obama appointing someone to his cabinet, for example, whose lifelong mission is to overturn Roe V Wade or eliminate stem cell research. I'm more interested in those that actually have power, than someone who I'm opposed to being allowed to recite a short and, in my opinion, relatively meaningless prayer. Personally, I'm against the whole idea of a religious invocation in the first place, in regards to what amounts to a Government ceremony, but it is clear that prayer is going to remain a part of the process for a long time.

I see this as a relatively empty gesture, but one that demonstrates to the other side, "You are not going to have your beliefs silenced." I think overall that it was a pretty smart move on Obama's part, because it doesn't compromise any of his positions, but still throws a bone to the religious right of this country, who still comprise a greater segment of the population than many would like to believe. Maybe, just maybe, it is a good first step towards showing that he does indeed walk the walk.

And lastly, it should be noted that Obama also chose Joseph Lowery to deliver the closing benediction, a man who has stood for tolerance and civil rights his entire life. While he isn't exactly a gay activist, he is a far cry from what Rick Warren espouses.

So no, I'm not disillusioned by this. And I do understand the outrage. I completely disagree with Pastor Warren's views regarding gay marraige, and I find his lies dispicable. But I also don't think that Obama chose him because of his stance on gay marriage, but rather because he is a powerful representitive of the other side of the political spectrum whose support Obama is going to need if he hopes to get anything substantial done.

And now I'll don my asbestos undergarments.

[flippyshark]

I've added my own two cents at change.gov - apparently, they are being swamped with comments - hope someone is listening.

Looks like some pro-lifers are also cheesed about Warren's appearance. Interesting.

[Strangler Lewis]

It may be ceremony, but it is constitutionally mandated ceremony, and the fluff that surrounds it can be a good predictor of how the president will govern. It was, as I recall, with the Reagans.

Here, I submit, he is throwing a bone just for the sake of bone throwing. It need not be thus, and it is not encouraging.

[mousepod]

I'm not saying that it doesn't annoy me, but why is everyone surprised? Wasn't Warren the guy who held the "Faith Forum" and sat down on TV with both McCain and Obama? Obama capitulated to the religious right then, just as he is now.