Should Barack Obama have invited Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer?

This is an incredibly difficult question. Initially, I was very upset about this, but I've given it a lot of thought. We must consider context; we must consider what we knew about Barack Obama before in order to decide if this is a betrayal.

We must consider the possible results. One of the things we learned because of the scandal with Rev. Wright is that Sen. Obama is ultimately more concerned about the good a religious leader does overall than the opinions that leader might state and cultivate.

One of the things Sen. Obama received the most grief about from his opponents on the campaign trail was his willingness to sit down with dangerous leaders without precondition. The main argument I heard Sen.

McCain make against this strategy was that it validates these leaders and the very worse things they have said. Many liberals disagreed, saying it was this total-rejection and no-compromise attitude that got the U.S.To where we are at internationally today. What President-elect Barack Obama has done by inviting Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer should not surprise us, because it is in line with everything we have heard from Sen.

Obama on the campaign trail. He is more concerned about the good that he can do by working with Rick Warren -- a man who is concerned about rallying the evangelical base to work on issues of the environment, and area where we desperately need unity -- than the areas in which they disagree. They still disagree, but President-elect Obama recognizes that there will be people in the world we disagree with and we must learn to work together.

My concern, along with that of many liberals, was that inviting Mr. Warren to speak in this platform legitimized his hateful messages against the LGBTQ population of this country. It was only in realizing how much this paralleled Sen. McCain's concern about his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without making him take back every horrible thing he'd ever said against the U.S. Or the Jews that I was able to take a wider perspective.

Our country is horribly divided. It does not help us move forward as a nation if we are in a stand off, unwilling to discuss anything with the other side unless they become entirely like us.It is easier to stay in our ideological bubbles if we shun all those who are unwilling to agree, but it is much more difficult to move forward. It may be idealistic to think we can dialogue more openly and that such dialogue will change the way we interact and soften our opinions, but it's exactly the kind of thinking that made President-elect Obama so popular.

This is a divided country; let's take hope from the fact that President-elect Obama is already opening up the conversation.

Although I disagree with some of his principals, if you look at the core of the man I can see why Obama chose him. 1. S book has sold more than 20 million copies over the past two years and is the best-selling hardback in U.S.2.In 2004, he met with 15 Senators, from both parties, who sought his advice and heard his plan to enlist Saddleback's global network of more than 40,000 churches in tackling such issues as poverty, disease and ignorance.

3. Many believe that Warren, 51, is the successor to the elder Graham for the role of America's minister.4. Rick Warren said Saturday that he loves Muslims, people of other religions, Republicans and Democrats, and he also loves "gays and straights." 5. Obama has invited Joseph Lowery, a Methodist minister and civil rights leader who supports same-sex marriage and gay rights, to deliver the benediction.

So, considering that there is a balance, yes it is fair.

It would be very easy to say this is pandering to the right, but I think this kind of inclusive move is interesting because it's the opposite of the divisive politics practiced by the right. It's not "taking the moral high ground", rather acknowledging that people can do good things, like helping the poor, while also preaching hatred against gays. I think he's going to spend some time fighting his own party, and I hope this helps defuse the situation a little after the polarization of the past 8 years.

I personally would have been fine with him saying, "We're not going to have an official inaugural prayer.

G'day Jasoncalacanis, Thank you for your question. The invitation to Rick Warren has upset a lot of people on the left. However, it is a reach out to people in the Midwest and South especially social conservatives who voted for Obama due to the state of the economy.It is also consistent with his campaign message as he recently stated: “It is important for Americans to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues … .

That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign´s been all about; that we´re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we … can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. €? foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/22/da... Joe Biden explained it this way: "Barack Obama said you've got to reach out.

You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country. We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been.

And he's made good on his promise. " It is part of Obama's strategy to recover the so-called Reagan Democrats who supported the Democrats on economic issues but disagreed on social issues. This is an important swing group who supported George W.

Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Presumably, Obama thinks that the liberals will be happy with his economic, health and welfare programs to accept a reach out to social conservatives. Regards http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/biden_on_rick_warren_invitatio.php.

Our new president is attempting to accomodate everyone... and the choice of Rick Warren appears to be a kind of pandering to the evangelical/fundamental types which were so devoted to Bush/Cheney. As a more traditionalist, I might have preferred someone with a more conservative (and shall we say "tasteful") religious demeanor, but Mr. Obama has won me over in other areas of policy and preference, so I don't mind the Warren thing. Religion has played a ridiculously disproportionate centric role in politics over the last eight years and in the coming years, I hope it will be less seriously regarded as we grapple with many, many more demanding and critical political issues of the moment, such as the management of two horrible wars and a crumbling economy.In short, I don't mind because it doesn't really matter to me, as much as do other much more crucial and impending issues.

To claim that hearing all views advances diversity when selecting someone who deliberately opposes diversity is disingenuous. There were countless religious leaders that Obama could have picked whose speeches consistently advocate inclusiveness. Instead, Obama has gone with a political maneuver.

I am disappointed. He should have gone for the best available, as he has in many (but not all) his cabinet picks. I would have recommended the Dalai Lama, who is currently the most widely respected holy man worldwide.

No. The guy is too controversial. He should un-invite Mr. Rick Warren.It's not too late.

Yes, because even though some people might not agree with him on everything he has a lot to bring to the table. I don't believe it is fair to discredit people because of their religious views.

I think it's a little strange, and it lends legitimacy to Rick Warren's constituents. One thing in Bush's method that was strategically correct and moved more people towards his view is not lending legitimacy to views he thought were off the mark. That's one way he was able to shift the electorate so far to the right.

I think Obama should not have lent Rick Warren's constituents' views any legitimacy by bringing him to give the opening prayer. He should have brought in a preacher that he feels lives God's word and holds what he feels are moral values as paramount. I don't mean Jeremiah Wright, because he knows where Wright stands now.

I mean a preacher that supports the poor, workers, etc, and is noncontrovercial.

Yes. I say this as someone with little good to say about Rick Warren, too. Barack Obama will be Rick Warren's president just as he will be yours or mine.

He represents a significant portion of this country, and it's a sign of respect for the electorate that he was chosen, in spite of some of the hatred one could argue he represents (specifically towards gays). Some people with similar views as Warren even voted for Obama (Maybe not many as a percentage, but probably millions through the whole country).

Yes. In order for President-elect Obama to set forth his presidency on his own terms he should invite someone that has a large group of support while at the same time present a controversial opinion. Obama has silently stated that he is going to go about his presidency without worrying about how the electorate feels.

Bringing Rick Warren in also invites all the moderate Christian groups that did not vote for Obama to the stage. This is his olive branch. All the voters that oppose the choice of Rick Warren will have forgotten about his appearance as soon as Obama is sworn in.

This is a brilliant move by Obama. Obama needed to stick to the party agenda to get elected, now that he is elected he is set out on creating a dynasty. He owns the middle, and America is the middle.

America isn't going to be defined by a left or right from this year forward. He is creating a new political philosophy, one which makes judgments based on what American needs both now and in the future.

I think Obama should have chosen the religious leader that is most important to his own personal spiritual life. Unfortunately, following this logic, that person was probably the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright's extreme extra-biblical beliefs disqualified him a long time ago.

I think it's a shame that this decision has been so politicized by Obama, the media, and special interest groups. Obama chose a celebrity like Warren to gain favor with the Christian right. The media jumped all over it to fill time on the evening news.

Special interest groups are using the choice as leverage to advance their own agendas. Why can't we focus on the invocation itself rather than the person who's giving it? It is a dedication of the upcoming presidency to the service of God.In that light, the person who gives the invocation is not as important as what is said in that invocation.

Okay how about the Atheist point of view. If God did exist I would image that such things as pride and emotion would be easy to be put aside to hear someone from an opposing viewpoint lead prayer to God for the Nation.. But than again asking to lead prayer in the hope to commit sin by killing ones enemies always did seem damn lacking of logic and common sense. Two Bush Presidents did such illogical things.

Rick Warren leading prayer is no more insulting than two Bushes leading payer to ask to be allowed to commit sin in killing ones enemies in war.

By being the president of the U.S. He is already breaking all the "rules". This shows courage and humility, he makes choices and doesn't care of what people think.

I say the following as an atheist. At least Obama didn't invite his own oersonal spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is is far more extreme and fringie than Rick Warren will every be. Rick Warren by contrast is no different than the vast majority of Christians in the US - which makes him rather normal.

Jeremiah Wright on the other hand is an America hating racist.

A 2001 statistical report on religious and nonreligious worldviews called the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), states that of all religious groups in america 75% of them fall under the Christian banner. If Pastor Warren or another Christian pastor is not invited to speak the religious majority will not be properly represented. The majority has no monopoly on hate on intolerance.

Interolerant speech can come from any group or individual. Before a genuine claim of Christian interolerance can be made the group making the claim should ideally be viewed as intolerant themselves. Obviously this is not the case, because to put it quite simply, the gay and lesbian community are intolerant of Pastor Rick Warren and all Christians on the whole.To be fair this intolerant view is somewhat tempered by the fact that some Christian groups promote gay and lesbian relations inside the church community.

It is clear that Obama has reached across the divide and extended a hand to the Christian community as a President of all Americans should do from time to time.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.