I'm not sure I would have done what Obama did in inviting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. I'm not a Warren fan, to put it mildly. I'm not really even talking about his views on homosexuality. Quite frankly, if that were the only issue to deal with I'd defend the pick strongly. Just because someone holds a few stances that you disagree with doesn't mean that they should be shunned as an outcast, if they're held in good faith. In fact, I've often received good insights from people (like Joe Carter of Culture 11) whose views I often find maddening. This bullshit about disqualifying someone's every idea for believing differently then them should be left to the right wing. All this being said, it isn't clear to me that all of Warren's reactionary stances and rhetoric are held in good faith, and some of his statements (like his call to assassinate Ahmadinejad) are simply indefensible, on any moral or theological ground. And you don't have to shun people who disagree with you, but you don't have to provide them a platform either.
What I don't get is the notion that Obama having Warren deliver the invocation is somehow confers legitimacy on Warren. He's a bestselling author and a hero to millions. He's already plenty legitimate. And it's not as though religious folks decide who should lead them based on what Democratic presidents do. Warren is already legitimate. Engaging him is not the worst thing in the world, and I don't have an objection to him getting a reputation as being more moderate than, say, Pat Robertson because he is more moderate than Pat Robertson, on many issues. Not so much cultural issues, but you don't wish the Christian Right away.
Sooner or later, the left is going to have to come to terms with the fact that Obama really is the guy he said he was. He likes unity, he likes compromise, he likes people coming together. And I'm not any more wild about culture war politics coming from the left than I am when they're coming from the right.
