Yeah, echoing hatred of the song "Daughters" -- just awful.

On the other religion topic, I was wondering if there was someone you guys saw who would have been a better choice to give the invocation, who would have still appealed to the across the aisle demographic Obama's trying to reach out to? I know you're not supposed to be the experts on pastors in a religion you don't subscribe to. But if it helps for perspective at all, I had heard lots of what Rick Warren had to say about lots of topics, and I hadn't heard the views that were problematic until they came up here. So if it helps any, that particular message has not (IME) been a huge part of his overall preaching.

I can't think of one. Warren, I feel, is possibly teachable. The rest, not so much.

In reading other sites, several evangelical types were gobsmacked that Obama was having him at the Inaugeration and they actually paused to re-think they're gut reaction to Obama.

The choice still hurts, but I do believe that Obama is a big picture guy and he does want to make real change. There are so many things on his plate to accomplish and he won't be able to do it without cooperation from Those Other Not Us people. I feel hope for the first time in so long. It is a beautiful thing.

I'm sorry it hurts you that Warren is there. But we can't continue the policies of rewarding only the people who agree with us.

Political disagreement is different than hate speech. There are plenty of people on the political right who have not publically equated homosexuality with bestiality and abortion rights to the Holocaust. And it does a disservice to the many sane conservatives out there to imply that reaching across the aisle means bypassing them entirely in favor of the radical fringe.

Well, I wish he'd picked an ordinary pastor, not Right-Wing Rockstar Gay-hater Guy. There's accomodating and there's being a sucker. Like I can't imagine McCain winning and inviting a Wiccan moon-priestess for our benefit.

That's my question, though -- is he the radical fringe (and, therefore, not representative of a large chunk of people)? And who would be a better choice for that side of the aisle?

(Actual questions, not rhetorical. I'm asking, not making a point.)

And it does a disservice to the many sane conservatives out there to imply that reaching across the aisle means bypassing them entirely in favor of the radical fringe.

So much this.

Like I can't imagine McCain winning and inviting a Wiccan moon-priestess for our benefit.

Yeah, but McCain was running on the hope of vast untapped reserves on the far right. So his whole pitch was "yucky lefties -- don't we hate 'em?"

That's my question, though -- is he the radical fringe (and, therefore, not representative of a large chunk of people)?

I don't think he is. He makes *my* blood run cold, because I spent 4 years in a church like his (though not 20,000 members; try 60). But I'm not the average American. I think that the average American sees him, his mega-church, and gazillion books, as totally mainstream.

t edit These mega-churches, in their warehouse-like facilites, like Saddleback and Mars Hill, are really the big thing in Christian churches now.

And I think that a lot of people attend them but don't agree with everything the pastor/church says. Which doesn't make Warren's bigotry *right,* but it makes me understand how people can see him as mainstream.

That's my question, though -- is he the radical fringe

Yeah, I'm kind of thinking the fringe makes up a big chunk of the blanket. Or else the blanket has come unraveled.