Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 12/18/2008 3:00 pm

Firestorm Reactions to Obama's Pick of Anti-Gay Rev. Rick Warren Role in Inauguration

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
Obama and Warren shake hands
in Saddleback Forum in August © AP

A firestorm of criticism from liberal and gay-rights activists has followed ever since Obama announced Wednesday that Pastor Dr. Rick Warren will give the invocation at the Inauguration. 

Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life and other books, preaches conservative Christian issues at his large Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA. He stresses about climate, poverty and AIDS in third-world countries. But it’s his outspoken opposition toward abortion and gay marriage that has many human-rights activists, lesbian and gay activists finding Warren’s presence at Obama’s inauguration a slap in the face.

Today, Obama is defending his actions saying that disagreeing is what "America is about." SwampPolitics reports Obama saying:

We’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak. Dr. Joseph Lowery who has deeply contrasting views than Rick Warren on a whole host of issues is also speaking during the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented … Because that’s what America is about.

Click here to read the full transcript.

While Obama is saying that we should all hold hands in harmony and live in peace among our "contrasting views" … his selection of Warren is upsetting human-rights groups. The Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual rights organization in the U.S., sent a letter to Obama, urging him to reconsider and calling the invitation "a genuine blow." The letter states that Warren was a proponent of Proposition 8. (The proposition, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, passed with 52 percent in November.)

"By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table," says the letter by Joe Solmonese, president of the group. "We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination."

"Rick Warren has not sat on the sidelines in the fight for basic equality and fairness. In fact, Rev. Warren spoke out vocally in support of Prop 8 in California saying, “There is no need to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease two percent of our population … This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." Furthermore, he continues to misrepresent marriage equality as silencing his religious views. This was a lie during the battle over Proposition 8, and it’s a lie today." 

Click here to read the full letter.

Kathryn Kolbert, president of the equal-rights group People for the American Way, called giving Warren this honor a "grave disappointment."

"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," Kolbert said in a statement. "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." Click here to read the full statement.

309 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Kathleen Oliver
Hi, Beverly. I’ve recently been trying to get a grasp on conservative Christian (i.e., Rick Warren, et al.) attitudes toward the Constitution and individual rights. Turns out, they are just as interested in having rights as anyone. In fact, they apparently feel that their exercise of religious freedom gives them the right to discriminate at will. E.g., ‘we have the right to expel gays from our schools, because we can’t tolerate sinful people in our presence’ and ‘we have the right to refuse to rent the housing which we own to unmarried couples for the same reason’ and ‘our church-run adoption services have the right to discriminate against anyone we please’ and ‘we have the right to take government money in support of health-care and education services and yet to discriminate in employment offerings (in which we disperse these funds belonging to tax-payers) in any way we choose’, etc. ‘If we weren’t allowed to do such things, our inherent right to religious freedom would be infringed upon …’ Freedom to discriminate is now deemed to be a ‘right of conscience’! [ Here is an example of a case of this kind: http://www.articlearchives.com/government-public-administration/governme… ] (Adopting a religion does not automatically grant an individual license to violate building codes, but it should, some people argue, grant the individual license to violate any equal housing statute!) … But when it comes to rights for other people, the tune of the conservative Christian changes completely; “rights” suddenly lose their sacred character. Then it becomes ‘appropriate’ that “rights” should be made subservient to the simple majority vote of the mob. (And if pesky constitutions get in the way, well then, we’ll just change the constitution …) In this view, even constitutions themselves should be made subservient to the simple majority of the mob (irrespective of the provisions contained within those very constitutions to the contrary). [ This matter is described in detail half-way down over here: http://www.wowowow.com/cl/150550 ] If this pernicious view takes root, the “rights” that exist in our future might be limited exclusively to those which have been granted by the mob in the last election cycle. On Friday, notably, the State of California declined to defend Proposition 8 in court. The authors of the state Constitution, the Attorney General of California said, did not intend “to put a group’s right to enjoy liberty to a popular vote.” Well, either I am mentally challenged (which is, sadly, probable), or else trying to cling to both of these stances [my rights are sacred, but those of others, not so much] at the same time is logically challenged … and an egregious example of self-serving run amuck. I don’t object to consorting with the Rick Warrens of the world, but if they promote a double standard, they should at least be called on it.
By Kathleen Oliver on 12/20/2008 7:56 pm
beverly linens
Kathleen, I decided 60 years ago that organized religions were clubs used to intimidate and control people. It is all about power. I was 12 sitting in a Community Church when a new minister stepped up to the pulpit. He was replacing a wonderful pastor who had been teaching me and others that the Bible was a tool to learn how to become better Christians, not as a tool of judgement. That new Pastor screamed at me that my only salvation was to submit. It didn’t matter what I did or how good a Christian I became, salvation would come from submission. The one thing I knew for sure, even at the age of 12 I wasn’t going to submit to anyone. Nothing he could say, could convince me any man/woman could speak for God. Nothing in the last 60 years has convinced me any different. I personally don’t know if there is a God or not. I hope there is, for no other reason than all these people who believe they are so right all the time, can finally know how wrong they’ve been all these years and maybe they’ll be standing outside heavens gates looking in at the people who went forth in love.
By beverly linens on 12/21/2008 11:07 am
Kathleen Oliver
Sadly, Beverly, nothing in human history has done more to give God a bad name than has religion … and in this infamous accomplishment we Christians have excelled beyond all others. << If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. [I John 4:20, NIV] >> Thankfully, there appears to be no support in the New Testament for foisting our beliefs onto others or for using coercion or repression of any kind. As far as I can tell, these are purely human inventions. If Christians ever disavow such practices, that will be a glorious day.
By Kathleen Oliver on 12/21/2008 12:13 pm
Kathleen Oliver
Beverly, your observation brings to mind a telling anecdote. Jesus, of course, was murdered by the religious leaders of His day. On the 6th of October, 1536, William Tyndale was burned at the stake by the religious leaders of his day. [ http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12/Page_47.html ] What was his “crime”? Tyndale translated the New Testament from the Greek and much of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into English. (Tyndale’s work was foundational for later editions, including the KJV.) Tyndale wanted the common people – even the plowboy – to have access to the scriptures. And why did the churchmen consider this to be a “crime”? Because it undermined their authority and power of control … the very abuse which you have highlighted. Once we begin to operate “in God’s name”, there is apparently nothing which human beings would not do … and this is the very thing which makes Islamic Fundamentalism so terribly frightening. And to me, at least, there is nothing so frightening in the world (or in world history) as governmental power in the hands of religious authorities. So (to return to our theme) should we be alarmed and dismayed when Obama embraces those who, like Rick Warren, seek to establish their religious positions in civil law? If Obama were on record that he wants to keep the business of government and of churches separate, then I would welcome the dialog between the two as positive. But as it is (apart from the practice of inclusiveness) I’m not sure what Obama is thinking.
By Kathleen Oliver on 12/21/2008 1:25 pm
gulliver fourmyle
wow—-how did i find that? ‘excess-religiosity’ is not a good indicator of an open mind, nor a sane one—-sad, but true—-in the animal kingdom even mammals seem to be 10% ‘queer’—-the story of sex is one weird deal—-to forget all but the Words of Christ may not be easy—-it does simplify things—-
By gulliver fourmyle on 12/20/2008 1:29 am
HA BIBI
Gully my dear, True Christianity is not a religion…It is a way of life! I myself want no part of religion as religion is full of man’s dictates which is nothing more than, open ended opinions peppered with ideaologies. Just give me the word of God, period. :)
By HA BIBI on 12/20/2008 4:52 pm
gulliver fourmyle
well, ‘belief-system’, whatever—-even ‘John:22’ leads to ‘The Tree of Life.’ as Dante’ has the supreme power as ‘The Multi-Foliate-White Rose of the Empyrium’—-or Moses asking The Burning Bush, ‘Creator what are you?’ and not take it literally? ‘I am that i am’? . i meet a burning bush, that carves in stone the laws of ethics straight-talk reply, that people wonder of, ‘I am that that i am’? in math that’s i=i—-hard to take? well, that’s the Bible—-no easy deal—-i’ve found ‘the word of god’ arrives as my headlamps out, when i should stay put—-
By gulliver fourmyle on 12/21/2008 12:06 am
Char Star
This country was founded on religious freedom, Elaine. Not everyone believes in the Bible, nor in Jesus Christ. Why do you insist on forcing everyone to follow YOUR religious beliefs? That is why the so-called “Christian Right” is wrong.
By Char Star on 12/24/2008 10:56 am
HA BIBI
show me one person here who was forced and has signed on to my beliefs. You’re full of unfactual statements.
By HA BIBI on 12/24/2008 1:01 pm
Char Star
Your wit & powers of logic never cease to underwhelm, Elaine. Ask your muslim husband what I mean. He’ll explain it for you. So,
By Char Star on 12/24/2008 1:28 pm
HA BIBI
He’s muslim , I’m Christian….No conflict! What’s your point?
By HA BIBI on 12/24/2008 1:46 pm
Buh- Bye
One does not become an “inclusive” role model by honoring those who practice exclusivity.
By Buh- Bye on 12/23/2008 11:10 am
Kathleen Oliver
Sometimes I think precisely this myself. But I’m a pragmatist: I’m happy to advocate whatever might work. As far as I know at present, setting a good example is the most powerful teaching method there is. Besides, to fail to practice the very thing I’m calling on others to do (such as being tolerant and inclusive) is tantamount to cutting the legs off of my own argument. And there is another problem which, it seems, cannot be avoided. Our own freedom of speech is only secure so long as we protect the freedom of speech of those with whom we disagree; our own freedom of religion is only secure so long as we protect freedom for those who are not like us, etc. The bottom line for me is this: rather than shutting people out, I’d rather challenge them to defend their positions and hear them out — how else am I ever going to learn anything? … In practice, though, I have such difficulty getting straight answers that the dialog seldom gets very far. Thus everyone remains stuck, myself included.
By Kathleen Oliver on 12/23/2008 2:48 pm
Kathleen Oliver
<< One does not become an “inclusive” role model by honoring those who practice exclusivity. >> There are pros & cons to every issue … at least 2 sides … tradeoffs. An significant factor in this case: any PROmotion of people like Rick Warren is equivalent to a DEmotion of people like Jerry Falwell [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28620-2001Sep14 ] and Pat Robertson [ http://www.wowowow.com/cl/149844 ]. I can’t help but think of this particular aspect of the matter as being a wonderful thing.
By Kathleen Oliver on 12/23/2008 3:49 pm
Susan B
Yes, if we can only get over ourselves and admit that the values of organized religion — and sexual orientation — are personal, not universal. And above all, they should not be legislated, “Including the ones I myself hold dear.” Right on, Kathleen!
By Susan B on 12/24/2008 3:47 pm