Now that would have been “change we can believe in.”
Other than the obvious political posturing and pandering that’s woven into the fabric of the historical moment, why does the inauguration of a president require the inclusion of the clergy to conduct a ritual? No chance of it ever happening of course, but just imagine if that part of the ceremony had been left out altogether…
I’d certainly rather have seen the fallout from that, rather than the dismal spectacle of Obama’s transition team defensively defending his “shrewd” decision to give Pastor Rick Warren a speaking spot at the inauguration.
Open & Inclusive Update: Warren thinks abortion a “holocaust” and urged his flock to vote for Prop 8. He compared gay marriage to incest and polygamy and pederasty, and when asked if he really thought those things “equivalent to having gays getting married,” he replied, “Oh, I do.”
Update2: Lee Stranahan at the Huffington Post makes a good point about the “mighty small politics” practiced in America these days. He writes: “I don’t understand how anyone who listened to Obama during the campaign would be shocked that Obama lets Warren give the invocation. It’s vintage Obama. It does not signal agreement with Warren’s political positions, some of which are clearly at odds with Obama’s. Warren isn’t making policy or even giving a sermon., He’s saying a prayer and then possibly dancing later at some inaugural parties. If anything, it’s the possibility of this dancing that should be deeply troubling to all Americans.” Indeed.