Web Letters: What's the Matter With Rick Warren?

I agree, with an exclamation point (although I don't use them, as I am over 12). Let's be honest, Glenn Greenwald has it right, liberals projected onto Obama what we wanted to see and dismissed what was obviously there. Obama is a savvy politician and not the Second Coming. He isn't any different, aside from the hue of his skin, than all his predecessors... and to think he would be, just based on that superficial aspect, is stereotypical racism actually, as Clarence Thomas would agree. The pick of Warren is akin to the "get over it" statement to Hillary supporters, mostly women, when they felt unheard. He knew he could, because what?--Hillary supporters would go with McCain? Yeah, sure. In spite of some freaky Florida retiree, we may be women, but we aren't brain dead. Similarly with the gay vote, who are gays going to support in spite of this outrageous slight (and I believe it is also to women as well as gays)? Well, nobody. The lesser of the evils is always something one can bank on. Yes, we'll get the lesser of evils, how could any (elected) politician be more evil then Bush/Cheney? But we won't get real "change." Just more Democratic compromise.

sandra tellers

San Francisco, ca

Should a law be passed that all women should be called "men"; all blacks, "white"? We could handle the equal rights problems more simply this way.We could call the people who oppose this change in definition bigots (and ourselves, truthful?). By law, we could change the definition of any or all our words to accomodate all the single-issue zealots. We could, by law, change the definition of the word "holocaust" to include abortions and prosecute the mothers for war crimes. We could all move to Wonderland, and by law change its name to "Reality." If the substance of a human right granted to a supplicant is the same as that he sought, why change history by ignoring the fact that it was once something else, someonces else's privilege? Preserve the word, and you'll remember where you were. Does anyboby know if George Orwell was gay? Please reply and tell me.

He would be powerful support in an argument.

Jack Whorton

New Orleans, LA

We need to get beyond ideology if humanity is to continue to advance. I think that's what President-elect Obama is trying to do.

Jesus is supposed to have said that it's easy to love our friends, but that we also need to love those with whom we don't agree. JFK said, "We must never negotiate out of fear, but we must never fear to negotiate." And, as the saying goes, only Nixon could go to China.

Tony Ettwein

Kalamazoo, MI

To win the revolution for same-sex marriage protection rights, lesbian women and gay men should marry, get the benefits and obtain equal government protection now. In the meantime, we make the statement gays and lesbians are a vital force of the citizenry and won't be repressed by the political machine that makes "gay" the new bigotry focus. This "we're out, wer'e here and deal with it" has been obliterated by the religious right and the political establishment. I wouldn't tell a young adult gay or lesbian person to come out to anyone--except people who really love and respect them. Persecution invited is for those who want to be flogged and made fun of. Game's over. The world does not suffer from too much love. Stay strong, go forward, upward. Just a thought.

jonas michell

Portland , OR

I am deeply offended that the President-elect has invited Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inauguration. I've heard all the arguments about inclusiveness, walking hand-in-hand, respect, etc. and let me say, this isn't about gay marriage--it's about honoring a so-called "man-of-God" who preaches divisiveness, who dares to claim that other people's loving values are wrong, sinful, etc. and who presumes to speak for God against me and my friends who are loyal, loving and honorable citizens. Isn't this exactly what infuriated us about George Bush and his lack of separation of church and state for his own political purposes? Obama hasn't even made it to the White House and already we're getting more of the same! I can't believe he would be so insensitive to a whole group of Americans who supported him energetically and devotedly. Like McCain's VP choice, this is a token gesture he's made for political purposes to win over a minority that he fears, at the expense of his loyalty to those he considers marginal, even though they supported him! Like McCain, he could have made any number of better choices, in this case, of religious leaders who would have been truly inclusive and would have helped him with his efforts at healing a divided country. Instead, he's shown bad judgment, poor taste and no loyalty. I'm not just outraged, I feel completely betrayed! So it is going to be business as usual, change we no longer can believe in! We're not even married and the honeymoon is over!

John Sheehan

New York, NY

I agree with Mr. Pasco's sentiments. There's something vulgar about the fact that during the election Obama repeatedly vowed to continue the killing of Palestinians, Afghans, Iranians and other Third World undesirables, but it took an association with a homophobic pastor for most liberals to declare any outrage.

Don't get me wrong: Obama's choice of Warren is worthy of outrage, but so are many other things Obama supports that the liberal intelligentsia have blissfully ignored.

You can read more here.

Steven Salaita

Blacksburg, VA

I generally agree with the article's disgust with Warren's selection, but I do have a couple of points of separation concerning the author's depiction of the left-religion relationship.

"Vocally opposes gay marriage"--but not civil unions; believes that marriage is not a public institution but a private church ceremony.

"Beneath the sheep's clothing lurks a culture warrior wolf"--that may be the case when looking at some of the pastor's stances; however, to negate the potential for common ground between the left and the church is to cede the whole of the believing public; which is stubborn as an electoral tactic and as a culture-war-maneuver is as incendiary as the most wrongheaded, racist rants emanating from the right's cultural caldron of pigheadedness.

Granted, his statements in 2005 to Larry King were offensive and of the worst kind. To fire, as he did in the statement, directly across in the bow is rhetorically effective in constructing a paper tiger. Yet, it leaves untouched the heart of his position: his support for civil unions. This discussion should be less attuned to rabble-rousing statements to focus on the reality of public opposition to gay marriage and their support of civil unions. As progressives, our values determine our acts and supporting rationales; should we not be engaging each other in debate concerning these alternatives and their practical ability to successfully secure the rights and privileges of the gay/lesbian community?

Though he may be a right-winger, some of his positions reflect progressive values; e.g., his support for equal rights for straight and gay couples. This is not a wholesale denial of right-wing idiocy but it does show the changing nature of the right: it coming around, slowly, painfully, and never fully to our side.

Now, I am not trying to defend Warren. I simply would like to see progressive inclusiveness that has granted the left the high moral, practical and tactical ground in the past.

Bradley James Schaffner

Pittsburgh, PA

Ah, yes, here we go again. The liberal/progressive circular firing squad commences. As a longtime liberal/progressive, I thought it would at least take to January 21 before our self-destructive ignorant egotism exposed itself.

But Sarah Posner and several of the intelligent, yet tone-deaf writers on this blog have missed the point of Obama from the moment he entered this race (and perhaps from the moment he entered public life).

He is not a doctrinaire liberal/progressive, he is a pragmatic liberal/progressive in the tradition of FDR and, dare I say it, LBJ (without the Vietnam War, I hope).

He has changed the tone of American politics (although many of you haven't gotten the message yet). Now he turns to the substance: allowing everyone to state their views and have a place at the table.

Yes, he will make decisions doctrinaire liberal/progressives won't like very much. But he will make many more decisions that we will like and, more important, that the country as a whole will accept and approve.

By the end of his first term, I predict that in addition to restoring our place as the moral leader of the world, and putting our economy back on track, that gay marriage will be a fait accompli, if not in every state, in a majority of the nation.

As one astute reader pointed out, Rev. Joseph Lowery will give the benediction. His views on gay marriage, equal rights and his religious background speak for themselves, and it is intellectly dishonest for Posner to blithely ignore his presence.

After all (other than Billy Graham and perhaps Maya Angelou), can anyone name anyone who has given the invocation and benediction at any inaugural? Come on, people, we liberal/progressives like to think we're smarter than the average person. It'd be nice if we acted that way.

Paul Schwartz

Wyckoff, NJ

This is a very delicate balancing act. How does one go about being inclusive of those who are exclusive? What kind of tolerance is due to those who are intolerant? I don't have the answer, but I'm not sure Obama is hitting the right note here.

The goal of building bridges with rvangelicals is praiseworthy, but Obama shouldn't foster and/or condone other forms of exclusion. Being everyone's president doesn't mean pandering to parochial or majoritarian prejudice.

I'm willing to accept Obama is genuinely seeking to reach out. But shouldn't he also reach out to other faiths: What about a Jewish prayer? A Muslim prayer? Where are the Buddhists, atheists etc.?

Peter Shoemaker

Columbia, MD

What is important is that there be an open dialogue, and to understnd that neither side on any of the social issues is going to miraculously disappear. Both sides have legitimate points that need to be considered, and whenever possible, compromises should be found. Making every issue into an "all-or-nothing" federal issue can become a recipe for a new civil war.

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, PA

"Now it has officially gone too far," Ms. Posner tells us. It had not "gone too far" when Obama voted for those billions for more war, or announced he would target more Afghans for death or voted for Patriot Act II or announced his support for other violations of constitutional protections (see FISA wiretaps). Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

While concern over Warren is not misplaced, it serves as a great example of selective outrage, entirely predictable from a writer for the decidedly conventional Nation.

John Pasco

New Britain, CT

What's the matter with Sarah Posner? Where does she get the idea that "Democrats" reached out to Rick Warren? Is she too afraid to put the onus of the blame right where it belongs--on Obama? where the blame belongs for myriad other bad decisions made before he even puts a toe over the threshold of the White House. I'm a Democrat, and I never wanted to reach out to any evangelical, I never wanted to have Robert Rubin or Larry Summers decide my new economic agenda. I never wanted to have Eric Holder--a man who defended Chiquita Banana Corp. in their hiring of hit squads in Colombia to eliminate pesky workers who wanted to organize for a better wages and living conditions--be my attorney general. I don't particualrly want Mr. Vilsack to be using his state's or any other state's grain to make fuel for cars instead of feeding the hungry. Time to call it what it is, Sarah.

Ruth H. Strauss, MD

Los Angeles, CA

I personally find Warren to be pretty repulsive. However, fellow progressives chill out! My god, have you already forgotten that Barack Hussein Obama is a black man with a funny name? A full third of this country believes he is the Antichrist and will remove the American flag and replace it with... gasp... the black national flag. Have you not heard about the dramatic increase of hate crimes throughout this country, a direct result of the fact that our new president is black?

Obama is keenly aware of these things, and he is keenly aware of how they will impact his ability to actually be a great president. He has a deep understanding of what he needs to do to navigate this reality--a reality that most white progressives don't even understand.

Warren's pick is about trying to get this 30 percent of our country to stop perpetuating hate crimes/comments. It's about getting them to consider, even for a second, that maybe he's not the Antichrist after all. Obama will have such an easier time implementing various reforms if this 30 percent calms down a bit.

Furthermore, the reforms that he is going to implement will be impossible if all sides are not at the table and have a say. Transformative change, which he's always discussed in an open and intelligent way, does not come from ideological left just telling everyone that this is how it's going to go. I would love it if this were so. I wish we were all kings and queens of this world and just tell conservative wackos to get with it. But just ramming through your opinions will just piss people off and not get us anywhere. Obama knows this. Take comfort in his very progressive voting record. Take comfort in the fact that this is a progressive and brilliant man who knows how to get things done in a moderate world among people who don't pay attention.

My God, the man isn't even yet president and the reactionary left is already freaking out. Please stop!

For at least a year.

Amy Potter

Portland, OR

Sorry your toes hurt from the treading, but what did you expect? Obama to spurn the religious right and declare it not a part of America?

That would kind of defeat the idea of unity. Somehow, I got the impression Obama was big on that issue...

Matt Stephenson

Chapel Hill, NC

Our"scrappy senator" seems to be trying to please the people who will work the hardest to defeat him. I think Rev. Jeremiah Wright put it best: "When you become part of the established administration of this country I'm coming after you because you will be part of a system that grinds people under your boots". A great metaphor for what is happening in this country is A.C. Thompson's article on New Orleans in the January 5 issue of The Nation. I can see many in the Obama administration working their hardest to sabotage his every move. Does he have a death wish?

JAMES PINETTE

Caribou, ME

Ms. Posner should back off on being judge and jury for what Rick Warren and Obama's intentions are. David Spero said it correctly. Obama is appointing and giving recognition to pragmatic leaders who can pull this country together.

In using her label of fundamentalist she groups all of the religious right into the unintellectual category. Those of us with faith in a loving almighty God who have attended liberal colleges and done post-graduate work see through Ms. Posner's erroneous conclusions. Faith is a matter of principle and not a strategy or an agenda that is blindly carried out. Ms Posner will polarize those good people from the right & left.

Garret Law

Corbett, OR

The obvious choice for the invocation would have been Jim Wallis, the most visible face of progressive evangelicalism, founder of Sojourners and author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It and The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post–Religious Right America.

Wallis is a strong voice who believes that addressing poverty is one of the central issues of our time, particularly for those of us who call ourselves Christians.

Here's what he said in an interview with Krista Tippett on PRI's Speaking of Faith:

"The biblical notion is that the truth about a society is much better known from the bottom of that society then from the top. We did this experiment way back a long time ago, as young seminarians, we found every passage in the Bible about poor people, about wealth and poverty, oppression, all that, and we found several thousand verses. It was the second most prominent theme in the Hebrew scripts, the Old Testament. And in the New Testament, the Synoptic Gospels, the first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, one of every 16 verses. In Luke, it was one of every seven verses. And we took the Bible and we took a pair of scissors and we cut out of the Bible every single reference to poor people. And when we were done, the Bible was in shreds. It was full of holes, falling apart in my hands. I'd take it out to preach. I'd say, 'Brothers and sisters, this is the American Bible. It's just full of holes.'

"I still have that old Bible now, full of holes, ripped to shreds. What's happening now, Krista, is our Bibles are being put back together again by a new generation. This isn't about politics or a liberal or a conservative. This is about the integrity of the word of God. There's nothing as basic as this, how we treat the other, the vulnerable, the poor, the enemy. The one who's not at the table is the one we're going to be judged by."

Elsewhere in the interview, Wallis says about the "new generation" of progressive evangelicals, "This new generation cares much more about the 30,000 children who died today globally because of totally unnecessary poverty and preventable disease, cares more about those three dozens kids than they do about gay marriage amendments in Ohio. They really do."

You can see the full transcript of the interview or listen to the program.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Obama will tap Wallis or another progressive religious voice to offer a closing prayer to "bookend" his inauguration. I'll probably be disappointed in that hope--just as I've been disappointed by the Warren pick and some of the cabinet picks.

Paul Williford

Fort Walton Beach, FL

When it comes to Obama, Disappointment, with a capital D, just comes with the territory. Virtually all of his cabinet appointments to date have been incredibly disappointing, with a few minor exceptions. As someone who worked actively for a real progressive Democrat, I am not at all surprised at the depth of Obama's sell-out. I just wonder how long it will take for the stars to fall from the eyes of his many naïve supporters, including MoveOn.org, who celebrate his "progressive" agenda. Where, I'd like to know, do they manage to find any evidence of it?

It's depressing enough to have to live in California where gay friends and relatives are now second-class citizens. But to have a Prop 8 champion officiate at Obama's swearing in just adds salt to that very fresh wound. Thanks again, Barack, for never failing to disappoint.

Alec Johnson

Eureka, CA

My niece is an evangelical. She became one in high school because they were the people in her rural Oregon school who seemed to have a serious agenda, as opposed to hanging out and drinking. Her younger sister came to the same school three years later and started a "Peace Club." They get along fine.

The point is that my evangelical niece sends me stuff about the evangelical literature she gets, and there really is a difference between Rick Warren and a lot of the others, such as Dobson. There are some who want to kill everyone who disbelieves, but Warren is not one of them.

Including Warren as one of a number of speakers might be a way of helping the moderate-to-progressive evangelicals get a foothold. Obama promises to have LGBT speakers and others at the inauguration. That's his way, including as many as possible. I wish there were another way, but the Christian right are the right's shock troops. And people can change. If Obama can get some of them on his side, that's a big help.

David Spero

San Francisco, CA

The hope of election day will quickly fade into disillusionment and a cold wind of cynicism will blow hard throughout the progressive grassroots that started the Obama movement if Barack Obama continues to elevate people like Rick Warren, who stands, stridently, against the most important freedoms progressives have been fighting for. As a pro-choice, straight female who totally supports gay rights, including gay marriage, I am deeply disappointed in President-elect Obama's choice. With thousands of moderate and liberal clergy to choose from, it is troubling to realize that the new leadership has chosen to placate the religious right, instead of challenging their power.

Cheri DelBrocco

Memphis, TN

I don't get this.

First, I do not care who anyone chooses to love and, honestly, this nonsense about religion is... well, nonsense.

But the intellectual dishonesty is amazing. We spent the last eight years amazed at the narrow-minded "my way or the highway/I am glad I am not popular" approach of Bush. Now we want Obama to behave like this... from the left?

Personally this invocation to Zeus/Santa Claus/God divinity is a waste of time. But who should he have invited? Rev Wright?

The majority of the population needs religion to get through the day, so I say more power to them--but let's not get distracted from the real issues.

Obama was elected to deal with some pretty ugly economic issues--we need to concentrate on that.

Joy Cassell

Orlando, FL

Earlier this month, Mr. Obama "saluted" President Bush as he was awarded the "International Medal of Peace" by Mr. Warren. See the second video on the Raw Story page for Obama's remarks.

Justin Kapacinskas

Kewanee, IL

Thank you for analyzing Obama's early pre-presidential choices with an eye towards objectivity. Most of the media are salivating at Obama's choice of rock-star cabinet picks, while the right-wing media is desperately trying to paint him as another corrupt politician.

Nevertheless, Obama's choice of Rick Warren for the inauguration must be condemned. It is an insult both to secular liberals as well as religious liberals. Why couldn't he choose a religious leader known for their inclusion of a wide variety of beliefs? By choosing Rick Warren he is reinforcing the incorrect presumption that to be spiritual or religious you must be a fire-breathing, Bible-thumping evangelical.

Christian Olsen

Crownsville, MD

Sarah Posner brings us the obligatory knee-jerk "choice and gay rights über alles" view of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. That Rick Warren is giving the invocation for the Obama inauguration is no slap to progressive clergy or bow to the religious right. It is simply another deft and appropriate symbol that the President-elect is a centrist who intends to govern from the center, both politically and ideologically.

Barrack Obama's election was determined by the moderate center of the electorate, many, if not most, of whom are not pro-choice and are not supporters of gay marriage. Moderate Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats (yes, Ms. Posner, there are multitudes of us whether you like it or not) need not rush to their Bibles to rationally consider that human life begins at conception--which I would argue is a more logical approach than considering that human life begins when a fetus is theoretically viable outside the womb, just because seven male Supreme Court justices with no medical training unilaterally imposed this arbitrary standard on the public some thirty five years ago.

If not at conception, then exactly what day does human life begin, Ms. Posner? Because if we are to abort these defenseless near-beings on the day before, it is of ultimate importance that we know this date of ascension to humanity with all certitude. Unfortunately, no medical science nor religous theology can definitively answer this literal life-or-death question. Hence it seems not so preposterous that, given the finality of abortion, persons of good will, intelligence and with good conscience may consider it prudent, if not imperative, to err on the side of conception... thus precluding the possibility of abortions being nothing more, or less, than homicide.

What Ms Posner conspicuously fails to report in her diatribe is that the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights leader and same-sex marriage supporter, is providing the benediction at the end of the event. Maybe this omission should come as no surprise, because to report such a balance would douse the cultural warfare fire that Ms Posner attempts to ignite.

With the Rev Warren providing the invocation and the Rev Lowry the benediction, President-elect Obama stands just where the American people want him--in the middle.

Kyle Johnson

Chicago, IL

Why is "Christan-bashing" so popular now?

Just because R.W believes the Bible to be true to the last word, he is unfit to do this. As you said, it is traditionally a "Christian" pastor who does this, and R.W. exemplifies the true meaning of what it is to be a true believer of Jesus Christ. He, R.W., does not back down from or apologize for anything in the Bible. He has said in the past that it is not his job to persuade you to become a Christan, it is his job to tell us what the Bible says. Let us take a look at the percentages of who R.W. represents. More than 80 percent of Americans profess to be a Christian, and how many profess to be gay? Less than 2 percent. What better choice than R.W. to do the job?

Richard Ash

Orange, CA

President-elect Obama's choice of the doctrinaire and bigoted Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration would not be a problem if all Christians were right-wingers and we needed to placate them or face armed revolt. But there are so many progressive Christians out there. If Obama wanted to reach out to evangelicals, he could have chosen the Reverend Jim Wallis, a bridge builder if there ever was one, and a man whose religious views are close to Obama's own. And I still wish there could be a reconciliation between Obama and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, in private if not in public. This man is an unjustly maligned progressive and also a bridge builder.

I believe Barack Obama makes a serious tactical blunder when he simply accepts the right wing's image of himself as a left-winger and tries to counteract it by associating himself with right-wingers. As president, Obama should repudiate the notion that he belongs to the left at all. He belongs to the center. He needs to reinforce this image by associating himself not only with people to his right but also people to his left. That way, he can govern between them. But if all of his associates are to his right, he has only one way to go.

During the Clinton years, it was our misfortune to be governed by a president whose reputation always appeared to the left of his actual policies. A more successful president--even one who explicitly governed as a centrist--would implement policies to the left of his reputation. But Obama will not become a successful centrist of this kind if he lets the Christian right draw the lines on the playing field, rather than boldly redrawing them himself.

Eric Paul Jacobsen

West Saint Paul, MN

Rick Warren may be the right choice after all.

Coming from my perspective, that of an evangelical right-winger, I would have presumed that progressives would be happy about the choice of Rick Warren performing the invocation for our new president.

In your article, you ridiculed his pro-creation, sanctity-of-life and sanctity-of-marriage views, but with respect to Pastor Warren, these views are among the few to which I subscribe. I object to his self-improvement-centered evangelism and his Calvinistic doctrine disguised as mainstream Christianity. Pastor Warren is opportunistic, irreverent, non-traditional and molds his beliefs to serve his purpose. In other words, he is a progressive.

President-elect Obama has impressed me greatly with his knack for selecting people that don't sit well with either extreme. His tactics, however, don't strike me as those of a centrist--he is not looking to find compromise in his selections, he appears to simply be looking for the right person for each position. This thoughtful process will necessarily upset ideologues of every stripe.

Mr. Obama is a leader, that much is clear. Let's hope that he turns out to be the best leader we've had in a century--our country is surely in need of it. Leaders don't make ideological choices, they make the right choices. Since so many people seem to be unhappy with the choice of Pastor Warren, he is probably the right man for the job.

My sincere hope is that extreme progressives and conservatives alike become sorely disappointed with their new president, as he seeks to serve America's needs instead of pandering to its politics.

Jeffrey Gackenheimer

Danville, IN

How can you fault Warren's claims when they are consistent with the Bible? Anyone claming to be Christian must believe the Holy Bible is the infallible Word of God. It is the primary reference source for Rick Warren, along with us other Christians, who happen to read it and believe it.

Dwain Wheeler

Tenino, WA

Dear Sarah Posner, I strongly disagree with your take on Rick Warren. You write about inclusion, yet are not willing to include. You rail about choice, but despise choices made that differ from yours. I am a progressive, I am pro-choice and pro-life. Obama has run on a theme of our being one country, not red and blue states, not us and them. Your whole article is filled with ridicule and derision for a president that supports your basic positions. Tone, which you referred to, is very important in the marketplace of ideas. Warren stands by his convictions but is open to others. Leadership that can help unite a nation will ultimately be a blessing to all of us, straight and gay, believers and non-believers. Would you have Obama have an openly gay, ordained abortion doctor give the invocation? Come on. Let all that pray, pray for compassion, understanding, and humility. And if Obama wears a cowboy hat and asks Sean Hannity to speak, then, then I will have you continue your rant. But calm down a bit.

Clay Wallace

Boise, ID

In her quest to vilify religious conservatives, Ms. Posner has cast Rick Warren as a extremist firebrand that only represents a fringe minority. This could not be farther from the truth. Warren's stance on gay marriage was showcased in this article, as if he is a hate-monger. Recent Newsweek polling shows that approximately 55 percent of Americans are not comfortable with legally sanctioned gay marriage.

Barack Obama has never condoned slander, and would not endorse this kind of liberal extremist slander. The fact that a person who holds views the complete opposite of evangelicals can be elected President of the United States should prove that America is not controlled by some vast right-wing conspiracy.

Joe Price

San Angelo , TX

As an admirer of Jesus, and a believer in the change Obama promises, I am disappointed and saddened by the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugeral invocation. There are so many more authentic representatives of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Rick Warren and his ilk inspire millions to pray: "Jesus, save us--from your followers."

Maureen Carlson

La Conner, WA

The tone of Ms. Posner's article indicates to me that you know little about Rick Warren and that you are writing about him from the left edge of the political spectrum. A more balanced article would also indicate to me that you had "done your homework" regarding Mr. Warren while still maintaining your political views.

I urge you to investigate Mr. Warren, his theological base and his organization. I predict that you will find a realistic, down-to-earth, godly man who is making the world a better place than how he found it. You will find no political scandal, no hypocrisy, no Elmer Gantry.

Your article is based upon the political premise that President-elect Obama chose Warren simply to curry favor with a segment of the political right wing. Realistically, there may be some merit to that view. But a Christian President-elect choosing a Christian minister to offer a blessing at the inauguration might well be based upon a sincere effort to seek divine providence and to spread the word of Christ to an increasingly godless country (and world). When a Jew is elected president, and that time is overdue, one would expect him or her to ask a noted rabbi to invoke a blessing upon our leaders and our nation.

To my mind Rick Warren being asked to participate in the inauguration is more theologically based than politically motivated. Just as it would be in the future when a Jew and perhaps then a Middle Easterner were to ask God's blessings from his or her theological point of view.

John Parkhurst

Rye, NH

I was very interested in the story about Rick Warren and very saddened by it.

George Scott, the chaplain at Punahou School, would have been a wonderful choice. He is the chaplain at Obama's high school in Honolulu and would reinforce the idea that his upbringing was Christian; he is black; and he is a wonderful person.

George Scott would make a better statement about Obama's religion than Rick Warren, as Punahou is a UCC school. (I am not a member of the UCC, but did attend Punahou.)

Midi Cox

San Diego, CA

It is great to see Obama looking to guys like Rick Warren.

Obama always has struck me as a decent guy with lots of smarts and good points.

He needs someone like Rick Warren to help him convert to authentic Christianity, as opposed to the ersatz carnie-barker gimcrack version that provides palliatives to consciences darkened by advocacy of grotesque evils like abortion.

Good choice, glad to see the pseudo-Christians getting uneasy.

The less they like Obama, the better I think he's doing.

Rick DeLano

Redondo Beach, CA

Sarah Posner is quite correct to point out why Rev. Warren is unacceptable to progressives and people who believe in the US Constitution--the separation of church and state. Obama was the first politician that I supported with monetary contributions, hoping that he would be different. I am deeply disappointed.

Michael Weisberg

Gainesville, FL

What's shocking to me is the continued shock at the ongoing litany of the new Obama's transgressions against the progressive world. Obama has already backed away from his promises to tax windfall profits by the energy industry and restore taxes on the wealthiest members of society. He has chosen either false "in name only" Democrats to be in his cabinet, or outright Republicans. In fact, his entire cabinet is a laundry list or thousand-word-picture of what has gone wrong with the Democratic Party over the last thirty years. He has not so much as addressed the progressive grassroots base that brought him to power since accepting the nomination; it's as if we've ceased entirely to exist on earth.

And, yes, he is genuflecting in front of the rightist evangelical base of the Republican Party, a group he is now doing more to embrace than his own power base. Obama is not just making "worrisome" signals about where he intends to go with his administration, he is sending very alarming and clear signals that he is more a President for Rick Warren or Robert Rubin or William Kristol than he is for any progressive.

For progressive media, the shock needs to end--and get through the subsequent denial--to get to the justifiably angry response that Obama deserves. He isn't just pursuing a regime of Clintonesque "triangulation," he is simply stabbing the progressive world in the back and walking away smiling.

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA