Should Obama have Picked Rick Warren for Inauguration?

On January 20, Barack Obama will become the new president of the United States, but the upcoming inauguration is already making headlines. Scheduled to give the invocation speech is evangelical minister Rick Warren, whose comments comparing gay marriage to incest and beastiality have made him a highly controversial figure. Will Obama's choice to ring in the new year unite America, or further fracture an already divided country?

I don't care for Rick Warren, but V Gene Robinson was also there. So, it was a balance. The sad thing was that the television coverage did not broadcast Robinson.

Nothing bad ever happened, just said for us to support our new president, which is not bad.

It has seemed to me for a while now that Obama is taking a page from the Lincoln rulebook in taking actions that unite enemies rather than to perpetuate their divisions. I think a great many agree, if Obama absolutely had to pick a Christian to insert into an official government function, Rick Warren is probably not a shining example of the alleged "religion of love and peace" that is Christianity. Nevertheless, I believe it is Mr. Warren's controversial views that argue his selection for this role. Perhaps he will be a statement that, although we Americans disagree about much among ourselves, in the least, we all stand united in our feelings about liberty for the all - our highest value.

In any event, the trappings of religion do not belong in this event in any official capacity. There is no harm in Barack Obama mentioning his "god" or even for others there to bow their head in prayer if they wish, however, rather than swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States with one's hand resting on a divisive document such as the christian bible is a contradictory message. Far better is it to swear on the Constitution which is the supreme law of our nation - not the christian bible, not the christian god, not christian principles or laws.

Those who are genuinely mature enough to fill leadership roles, at least in the United States, more than likely realize that one's language and actions must avoid showing preference for or denigraton of any set of values or practices other than those supreme American values of inalienable individual rights and mutually guaranteed liberty to exercise them. We ought surely to recognize that most americans practice some religion or another and the value that are those practices, however, our language and actions must remain purely representative of ALL peoples of the United States regardless of their other values, their other beliefs, their other practices. We are not united in our religions but we ARE united in our value of liberty for all. Our government officials ought always in their official duties and responsibilities express unity and refrain from official insertions of divisive viewpoints. I doubt seriously that Rick Warren's selection is in recognition of religion in general or even of a specific religion. That would be an act of division in light of the fact that "god" belief isn't universal among Americans who wish to be united. No, I believe his selection is to send a message of unity which is a right message to send for a President who hopes to undo eight years of growing division.

Obama is a politician using the "Force" of the White Christian right to validate the "Force" used by his Black friend and mentor the Rev. Wright. By picking Rev. Warren to speak from the podium on inauguration Day, Obama is leveling the playing field of Religious Force and vindicating the previous hate filled rhetoric of Rev. Wright. The hate spewed by Rev. Warren makes the White Christians no better than the hate spewed by Black Muslo-Christians led by Rev. Wright, which bring a sense of fair play and parity to the dumb and dumber of American society.

Like I said, Obama is a politician and probably the smartest one we have seen in many years. Remember he suckled at the breast of the Daily machine in Chicago and this one-upsmanship is pure Daily politics.

Perhaps Obama should consider the following excerpt from a book entitled "Power vs. Force" by Dr. David Hawkins; it may prove beneficial to him and the country.

"Politicians, operating out of expediency, rule by force after gaining their position through the force of persuasion... Statesmen represent true power, ruling by inspiration, teaching by example, and standing for self-evident principle. Statesmen invoke the nobility that resides within all men and unifies them through what can best be termed the heart. Although the intellect is easily fooled, the heart recognizes the truth. Where the intellect is limited, the heart is unlimited; where the intellect is intrigued by the temporary, the heart is only concerned with the permanent."

Finally,consider that "Force" requires conter force to exist. "Power" simply is and stands alone in the universe. Be Powerful!


I just made a long call to the Family Research Council in Washington DC, I was interested in possibly supporting them, I agree on many of the positions they claim to represent. I am setting here very disappointed, to use mild comparisons they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. For you non Christians they may be people who have hidden motives and are not who they claim to be. It is impossible to determine who or where there funding comes from. For all we know they could be funded by interests in China who wish to have much more control over the USA. The Fact is we just don’t know who the money comes from or if they have hidden motives. Do any of you know exactly who there money comes from? Please don’t use the Evangelical Council as a resource to find more on this subject, you will get only general meaningless data from them. How about it Family Research Council, give us a list of your top twenty contributors and there amounts.

Super Expert