Why Rick Warren's acceptance of Obama is more important than Obama's picking of Warren.

[babylonsister]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=77a790f5-d349-4437-a322-6056770fb75f

Obama's New Pastor Problem? by Alan Wolfe
Why Rick Warren's acceptance of Obama is more important than Obama's picking of Warren.
Post Date Saturday, December 20, 2008



In reacting to Barack Obama's decision to invite Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural, the left has been focusing on Obama's decision to offer, while the right has been focusing on Warren's decision to accept.

The right has it right. There are two facets of American evangelicalism that ought to be worrisome to conservatives. One is that evangelicals are breaking out of the comfortable counter-culture they have established for themselves over the years. Historically, they tended to live in their own communities, listen to their own music, shop in their own book stores, and send their children to Christian schools. But now, in part because living amongst people much like themselves helped them gain confidence and connections, a considerable number of evangelicals find themselves holding high-paying jobs and wanting the best for their children. Warren's Saddleback Church, located in the exurban reaches of Orange County, is emblematic of this change; its members include large numbers of upwardly-mobile professionals fully engaged with the world. It is not easy to turn down Harvard for Wheaton College, let alone Biola (formerly the Bible College of Los Angeles).

Warren's decision to accept an invitation from a liberal president is as clear a symbol of the entry of evangelicals into mainstream culture as one can imagine. In the conservative Christian subculture, liberals are treated with scorn. In the real world, they control the White House and Congress. How many evangelical preachers will be able to demonize Obama once Mr. Evangelical himself has blessed him? By opposing Warren's choice with such vehemence, the left seems determined to drive evangelicals back to the world of victimology and conspiracy-mongering. This is not wise.

The other trend in American evangelicalism that should worry conservatives is that, for all their talk of reading the Bible literally, evangelicals are slowly becoming more comfortable with changing their positions on political issues, including hot-button ones such as abortion and gay rights. Evangelicals frequently change their views. They were once firm opponents of slavery who then endorsed segregation and now confess to the sin of racism. They supported religious freedom only to move in the direction of supporting a church establishment even though some remain strict separationists. They will never accept abortion (although they may be open to anti-poverty measures that reduce their frequency). But they could, given their strong commitment to marriage, eventually endorse marriage among gays. (Many younger evangelicals already do.) The more they emerge from their subculture and meet real gay people, including married couples, the sooner they will do so. Warren himself, although he has positioned himself as an alternative to such hard-right activist as James Dobson, is conventionally conservative in his views on social issues. But he knows as well as anyone that the future of his faith belongs to the more open-minded.

Warren's decision to accept Obama's invitation comes shortly after the resignation of Richard Cizek from the National Association of Evangelicals for supporting same-sex unions. Although the left may not realize it, Obama's election will lead the more extreme right-wing Christians to purge their ranks of people such as Cizek--and Warren. Maybe we should encourage them to do so, for this will weaken them politically by drawing them even further from the center. But the better course is to help redraw the political map. This is what both Obama and Warren are doing. They are smarter than their critics on both sides realize.

[Xipe Totec]

1. "They are smarter than their critics on both sides realize"

No argument there.


But the real question is: Who's interest are they looking after.

Who will they throw under the bus in order to remain in power?

Will Roe v Wade be next?

Or immigration reform?

Universal Health Care?

What will be the next clever triangulation?

[babylonsister]

2. They can disagree without being disagreeable, per Obama.

And come on, you really don't think he'd try to get rid of Roe v. Wade or universal healthcare, do you? I surely don't.

[Xipe Totec]

7. Well, I didn't expect the Warren debacle either

Now I'm not so sure.

Are you certain that Obama will appoint defenders of Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court?

Or will he throw another bone to the conservatives by appointing another Scalia or Alito?

[babylonsister]

8. Gimme a break. nt

[Xipe Totec]

9. Scary thought isn't it. n/t

[babylonsister]

11. No, extremely unrealistic. nt

[Xipe Totec]

14. Unrealistic? Why?

Politics is all about numbers.

Now that he's President-Elect for ALL the United States, the largest constituency is more important than ideological purity.

Does he get more votes in 2012 by supporting the conservative agenda, or the progressive agenda?

Can he neutralize opposition from the Republicans by co-opting their agenda? Palin, particularly?

If Obama does not see a cost in drifting to the right, he will continue to drift to the right, looking for the best political position for 2012.

Our job is to let him know, that our support is contingent and not absolute.

Our support must never be taken for granted.

[babylonsister]

16. Because he's not suddenly going to switch to a pro-life platform, just as

he doesn't want another conservative SCJ anymore than we do. The man does have some integrity, which you seem to be overlooking. Did you even read this article and get to its meaning?

[Xipe Totec]

17. He doesn't have to switch platforms

Would you disagree with this position:

"Shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has, and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. He promises that, in appointing judges, he will not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity. A President should have confidence in the judicial philosophy of those he is appointing to the bench."

That was McCain's position on judicial appointments, by the way. Nothing there about overturning Roe v Wade, is there? Yet, we all know the implications.

As far as integrity is concerned, That is demonstrated by actions and consistency.


Trust, but verify.

[babylonsister]

18. And here's a two-fer for you to dwell on, from 2007.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx

Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with "empathy." Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts' character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. "He loves his wife. He's good to his dog," he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

[pnorman]

25. "Are you certain that Obama will appoint defenders of Roe v Wade to the Supreme Court?"

Think BIG while you're at it! What if Obama is secretly planning to reinstate the Dred Scott Decision! What then? Hmmmm?

pnorman
"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as "moral indignation," which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue"-- Eric Fromm

[prostock69]

19. It would be political suicide if he even tried to. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. I don't really care what the right wing thinks. I care that I thought we had a Democratic president

That is what I care about.

[babylonsister]

4. We know what you care about. You are vested in dumping on Obama

for whatever reason and have proved that repeatedly. If it's not ranting about rethugs in his admin, it's this. I wish you'd go find an anti-Warren thread to dump in because this isn't one.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I'm interested in seeing this Warren phobe out of the inauguration. It's an insult to his base nt

[babylonsister]

6. Baloney. You are interested in dumping on Obama. Quite obvious. nt

[NJmaverick]

12. I am part of the base and you don't speak for me

I am proud of Obama's efforts to unite the Country, as he pledged

[pretzel4gore]

10. exactlymon!

all anyone needs to hear from rightwingers is the 'crack' of baseball bats across their noggins. Lookit the damage they've done, right out in front. Imagine if the reactionary right had been held accountable for their support of nazism/fascism pre WW2, or their constant efforts to undermind home grown democratic movements in a hundred countries (see Iran '53 or Australia '76 or Chile '73 not to mention helping Saddam seize power in Iraq in the 70's etc!)...the fact is (pick any number) $ trillions have been wasted because the rightwing wanted control (does ANYONE really think the brutishness of the USSR's leaders or China's oligarchial tyranny was the reasion for our ruling twittery's anti communism? If so, I've got some seafront property i'd like to sell) and even if the nickel they gained due to scheming cost the world economy $100 dollars they gladly accepted the tradeoff- providing they had their nickel and everybody else had zero! Reactionaries think with russ limbah humbug's asshole, and that's a fact

[NJmaverick]

13. Surprise! You got a President of the UNITED States, not just a President for Democrats

I guess you are going to miss that sort of destructive and decisive behavior, after Bush is gone.

[alarimer]

15. These people just need to go away.

Back to their little enclaves. Let them be marginalized, nobody wants them around anyway. They only care about sticking their noses in places it does not belong. They certainly shouldn't be IN the Democratic Party, destroying it from within the way they did the Republicans (for which I am glad actually). Narrow-minded, bigoted, homophobes. Who needs them? I don't.

[roseBudd]

28. I disagree I think they are brainwashed but could easily become liberal ...

Most of the conservatives I tangle with on the MSM site I use to promote Obama and attack the Republican party are mean stingy white men.

They are happy to have the pro life voters because they need those votes but they have no reason to ever care enough about anyone other than themselves and their immediate circle.

But evangelicals, as evidenced by the younger ones becoming interested in social justice issues and the environment should be a demographic we go after.

No matter how good I feel about the younger voters sticking with the Democratic party & the GOP having blown it with Hispanics I do not feel safe going in to 2010 much less 2012

[CitizenPatriot]

20. well, this is what I've been trying to express

but he said it so much better than I.

Weaken them politically. That is the goal. They won't go away if you cut them off. Didn't work on the Taliban and it won't work on them. Insulation allows hate to breed. Humanize liberals to them, humanize Obama, humanize gays, and suddenly the hate loses some of its power.

The Freeps are up in arms over this. They're so pissed that Warren would stand next to baby-killing Obama. I ventured over there for the first time in my life after I did a google search on Warren and Prop 8. Needless to say, it was a big hit to take and I'm still recovering.

Remember when Sarah Palin refused to stand on the stage next a senator who was pro-choice?

[babylonsister]

21. It makes sense to me. I cannot stand Warren either, but knew there

had to be a reason Obama went this route.

[OhioChick]

22. K&R

:kick:

[yowzayowzayowza]

23. Obviously we should be ostracizing 'em and ...

callin 'em bigots:

But they could, given their strong commitment to marriage, eventually endorse marriage among gays. (Many younger evangelicals already do.) The more they emerge from their subculture and meet real gay people, including married couples, the sooner they will do so.

WE MUST SHUN THEM!!!11!!!1


ETA: :sarcasm: :kick: Recommended.

[yowzayowzayowza]

26. One sanity...

:kick:

[GeorgeGist]

24. On this issue, Alan is talking nonsense ...

just like Rick and Barack.

[roseBudd]

27. It just occured to me the only way we get health care is if evangelicals are with us...

and I mean that in the sense that Republicans don't care a bit about the uninsured. If someone poor dies for lack of medical care they just don't care.

But evangelicals can not be so cruel.

[Recursion]

30. Warren is willing to work with Obama on health care, climate, change, and poverty

That a lot of this board is too pharisaic and pure to dirty their hands by dealing with a sinner like Warren is sad, but Obama is fortunately wiser than we.

[dweller]

29. lesson 1 in silk purse stitching from a sow's ear

from mr. wolfe.


i look forward to lesson 2, removing a mote from my eye with a homestyle prefrontal lobotomy and an icepick,
dp

[BabbaTam]

31. Thanks for you insight

I really appreciate your take on this issue. I didn't understand what was going on and read several posts, including that of the moderator. This comment really she some light on the issue for me. Thanks again.