Were there “invocations” when the Adamses (Pere and Fils), Jefferson, Madison, et al were inaugurated? Does anybody know for certain? I certainly don’t, but I can’t imagine Thomas Jefferson or James Madison holding still for any Christian prayers at their inaugurals. They were at the very most deists, not theists, and went to great lengths to make sure that our Constitution was strictly secular. (John Adams and John Quincy Adams were Unitarians…and so is Mike Gravel. He was my first choice during the primaries.)

*sigh*

Liberals’ unceasing need to win conservatives’ approval is not “change.” It is the definition of Clintonism and so a one-line description of the political history of the last 28 years. Making nice to them now will just repeat the cycle. It simply does not work.

Rick Warren does not deserve to clean Obama’s shoes. Putting him on the stage does irreparable harm, advances nothing.

I think the bigger question, and what I meant to get at with this post, is what do we want? Do we want Warren and his followers to see and appreciate our POV or do we want to punish them for where they have been so far by pushing them even further away? Do we want more of what we’ve had or are we ready to start talking to each other again? Warren seems inclined, based on his past invitations to Obama to address Saddleback and removing anti-gay people rhetoric from the church’s web site, to at least start to listen. Can we stop shouting at him now?

My sense is that the collective gay political class expects very little from Obama. Certainly, times have changed from the Clinton years when even a gay appointee (other than the AIDS czar) was controversial, so we expect him to appoint out people without comment, as he has done. And, unlike Bush, he won’t stop pro-gay legislation and he may even sign some of the bills, if they make it to his desk. (We’ll see.) But there’s no outright sign that his heart is with us — that he cares — and, as we saw in his silence on Prop 8, he rightly fears retribution from the right if he is too supportive. That’s fine. We get it.

But elevating Warren is harmful because Warren’s rhetoric contributes to the culture of bigotry and violence toward gays. I’m doubt liberals would be so sanguine if Obama had chosen a true opponent — Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, for example — to speak, or that conservatives would be so dismissive of our outrage if he’d chosen Jeremiah Wright.

I guess this is one of those issues in which where you stand depends on where you sit.

What I see from the left is winner take all, the right can go to hell. Now who is being the bigot? the leader of the free world is being gracious in victory. I also don’t recall Obama endorsing gay marriage, either, only says he is a champion for gay rights. Have the marriage supporters even bothered to ask Obama how he feels on this issue?

Granted Rick Warren has positioned himself between the hardshell, rock-ribbed Republican revalationaries and the out-stretched hand of the Democratic nominee. But Wallis, very much an outreacher himself, would be a better symbol, if less of a celebrity.

Warren may have ambitions to play Billy Graham to the new administration. But the myriad of non-evangelicals who voted for Obama would be a lot more comfortable with a deeper, more nuanced person, or better yet, spectrum of clerics. Warren as just one of a line-up would be fine.

Even at the inauguration, why not a rainbow of invocators — southern evangelical, northern mainstream Protestant (Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, etc), Catholic, reformed Jewish and modern Muslim? Divide up the time five ways.

The Warren choice will be universally perceived as pure politics, not as genuinely ecumenical.

Personally, I’d liked to have seen Muhammad Ali or Colin Powell give some kind of invocation…as Elaine notes above, why does it have to be a traditional religious group representative?