For those of you not up-to-date on the recent controversies, President Barack Obama decided to have Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church do his invocation during the January 20th inauguration. Sadly, this decision has been relentlessly criticized by many Democrats without cause, and such criticisms have been reduced primarily to ad hominem attacks on Warren himself.

The first question you must ask is whether Obama’s decision was “wrong”. I would argue it was not. Rick Warren is not a fundamentalist. In fact, he remains one of the most moderate and open-minded individuals within popular Christianity; even hosting a fair forum with both 2008 general election candidates without ever taking sides. Any remark of extremism and/or comparisons to the likes of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson reveals simple ignorance. This takes us to some of Warren’s infamous quotes: Did you hear that Warren called homosexuality equal to incest and pedophilia? In fact, Warren only argues that sodomy is equivalent to homosexuality in the context of them both changing the 5,000-year-old definition of marriage.

Although Warren is by-no-means the most politically correct or salient speaker, his comment remains factually correct. Warren also comments later, via an off-the-cuff youtubescue video, saying that he by no means believes incest and homosexuality equal. Thus, to argue his prejudice against gays using one comment out of context, while simultaneously disregarding his clarification of that comment later, seems illogical. I can understand why homosexuals may disagree with Obama’s choice; obviously they would much prefer a pastor who believes the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexuality, but the outrage shown by so many people remains unwarranted. Warren has also been charged with the crime of comparing abortion to the holocaust. Although taken out of context as well, the main problem with this argument is that it forgoes the main premises of pro-life advocacy.

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.” The context shows that the holocaust was used only as a popularly understood event of mass murder; such an analogy could easily be interchanged with many others. In addition, most pro-lifers believe that abortion IS murder. Although one may disagree with such an assertion, the analogy above simply defines a holocaust as mass murders, and thus abortion is like a holocaust and ought to be stopped. Once again, you may disagree with him, but there is nothing extreme or logically fallacious with his comment. Once again, although politically incorrect, the remark remains factually correct if taken from a pro-life viewpoint.

Accepting all the points made above, one may still disagree with Obama’s choice of Warren, but to argue that it was “wrong” or to be particularly outraged would be too strong of a response. The question then remains whether this was politically wise. I would personally say it was. Although I can see why many would disagree, Warren is probably the most popular moderate evangelical leader in the country.

If Obama needs a pastor (Wright won’t do), and wanted to reach across the aisle, Warren undoubtedly is the best choice. As seen over his presidential campaign, Obama is clearly shrewd. But how shrewd? Shrewd enough to lean away from his party to make himself more favorable to evangelicals particularly? I think so. In the end, you must admit that this issue, once Obama takes office, will be completely forgotten by liberals. They will go back to worshiping the ground he walks on once he shows he can at least properly invade countries without warrant (a remark on President Bush’s incompetence). Evangelicals, on the other hand, are still wary of Obama and feel lost in today’s Republican Party. I would argue that the Democratic outrage regarding this “issue” only better serves Obama’s strategy, since Obama now looks like he is a moderate, cares about evangelicals, and will even stand up to the “far left”. Since evangelicals are the only ones who may remember this event, why not concoct such a strategy? Regardless of whether it was planned or not, this could turn out well for the President.

In the end, “Warren-Gate” is not newsworthy. In the absence of any real news, the media enjoys creating drama in their own image. Homosexuals and Democrats can disagree with the decision, but don’t act like this is a big deal when people around the world are dying from crimes against humanity (I haven’t heard this much outrage about Darfur)! This petty bickering and inability to form priorities remains one of the foremost problems facing our political system. We just elected an African American Democrat as President during a financial crisis and we’re really spending time on this? Despite being a big supporter of Obama’s, I’m all for keeping our politicians accountable. However, this borders on the absurd, and remains quasi-hypocritical. We can’t ask that our politicians work with opposing parties while excluding those who have different opinions! It’s ironic how intolerant we viewed conservative Christians when they ridiculed Warren for inviting Obama to his Church, and yet we see no hypocrisy in this situation? As Obama has already pointed out in his talking points, Warren has done much for social justice issues as well as AIDS/HIV.

Rick Warren is not an extremist, nor is he intolerant. He simply disagrees with most Democrats on some social issues. I seriously question who is being more intolerant in this situation. Conservative Christian moderates like Rick Warren ought to be encouraged. Obama is acting in a bipartisan manner, like he said he would, while still legislatively pursuing the Democratic issues he promised. And we wonder why politicians lie to us?