Abnormal Interests

There is no one that conservative evangelicals recognize as one of their own who isn't as you've said.

Interestingly, some conservative evangelicals are quite displeased with Warren because he seems so "liberal" to them.

Such, I'm afraid, is life.

On top of that, Obama and Warren are friends. They seek each other out and talk about matters of mutual interest. They share a number of policy goals.

Let's be honest. Democrats, theocrats, and charlatans. These words belong together. After all, Jackson and Sharpton, Wright and Pfleger, self-identify as the first and are reputed to belong to the latter two categories.

Warren, on the other hand, no longer sees himself as a waterboy of the Republican party. He may still be a theocrat and a charlatan, but he no longer practices plantation politics.

A small step up, perhaps, from his august colleagues on the right (Pat "What a great guy you are, Al [Sharpton]" Robertson) and the left (Al "Pat, we can unite on this [million-dollar ad contract] Sharpton).

Calvin,

I worry that you are correct but as you will see in my reply to John, my worry actually goes well beyond evangelicals when it comes to their being theocrats.

John,

I'm not all together sure what you are getting at. Your observations, as far as I do understand them, about Jackson, Sharpton, Wright and Pfleger, a list that could be greatly expanded without much effort, seem true enough. They are all theocrats and some may or may not be charlatans. I'm not sure what your reference to Democrats means in this context. Within an officially secular political system, theocrats tend to affiliate with whatever political party or persuasion that best matches their view of the will of their god or gods. My real worry is that all committed theists who believe in a god or gods that they associate with moral requirements will be theocrats. For that reason, I actually think theists should not participate in the inauguration (or any other government related activity) in their role as a theists. Of course, I would not exclude them in their role as citizens if they were capable of making that distinction. I think Obama himself makes that distinction quite satisfactorily. I really don't care all that much what people think privately or even what express in their role as private citizens. Official behavior does bother me. And a presidential inauguration is official.

But we are stuck with a tradition that involves some religions trappings with our presidential inauguration that goes all the way back to Washington's first. By act of Congress, the Chaplain of the Senate read prayers at Washington's first inauguration, from the Book of Common Prayer no less, at St. Paul's Chapel in New York. And that is where I would prefer it done, in a church, if it must done at all. Or let the new Presidents do their own praying as Eisenhower did. Clergy also gave an invocation (Henry K. Sherrill), another prayer, (Abba Hillel Silver) and benediction (Patrick O'Boyle) at Eisenhower's first inauguration. From Washington's second inaugural to FDR's first, prayers were held inside the Capital and from then on outside the Capital. In failing to grant Michael Newdow injective relief in Newdow v. Bush et al. (2005) the US District Court for The District of Columbia all but wrote the practice into law. Within the context of what was before him, I think Judge Bates was correct in his ruling. (While I tended to agree with him on moist issues, I actually have little use for Newdow's tactics. I think he has too often done more harm than good)

The tradition of inaugural prayers will no-doubt continue until some new president elect thinks them unnecessary on political grounds or useless on personal grounds. I'm sure Obama thinks them both necessary and useful.

My real problem is with Warren. Dispite many commendable opinions, He is a self-confessed bigot towards a significant segment of our population; a bigot who justifies his bigotry on religious grounds and actively attempts to impose it on others through legal process. I also have friends who are theocratic bigots. While I more or less tolerate their views in private, I sure wouldn't give them a public forum where, even if they avoided expressing their bigotry, their bigotry would be easily inferred.

I am a very big supporter of Obama. I look forward to his Presidency. It will take a lot more than this one miscue to change my mind. But this was a miscue. The good news is that no one will remember who gave the invocation at his inauguration. At Nixon's second inauguration, four clergymen offered prayers and see how much good that did him or us. I bet you can't name any of them. No, that one gave a sermon later in the day. I suppose he prayed too but not at the inauguration ceremony itself.

I guess I should be happy that Obama is only having two people pray, but does one of them really need to be a divisive bigot whose bigotry he seeks imposes on others?

Duane,

Thanks for an amazing quantity of detailed information.

I think it's clear that you and Obama do not see eye to eye on Warren. You look into Warren's eyes and see a terrible bigot (you never say it, but I assume that's because he does not support the idea of gay marriage).

Obama looks into Warren's eyes and sees someone he trusts not to backstab him. A valuable commodity in the world of politics.

For the rest, let's be realistic, an awful lot of people will remember that Warren gave the invocation at Obama's inauguration.

Not least in Africa, where a lot of people know Warren first hand, and only wish they knew Obama first hand.

No John,

It is not because "he does not support the idea of gay marriage." He can have any ideas he likes. It is because he actively and vigorously campaigned, on ideological grounds, against a right that had already been extended and of which thousands has already taken advantage.