Liberals Can be Guilty of Misplaced Anger Too.

I've been reading plenty of angry commentary about President-Elect Obama's choice to have Rick Warren provide the invocation at his inaugural. I've even heard angry muttering on liberal leaning talk radio (such as it is). Their ire comes from Warren's position on Roe v. Wade, on the LGBT community, and several other issues that social liberals and conservatives argue about constantly. While I disagree with Warren's positions on these issues, I have to ask those people who are upset about Warren's invocation of Obama's inauguration to calm down and keep it in perspective.

Firstly, this would be a graver issue if Warren were somehow associated with Obama's incoming administration in some capacity, as a spiritual adviser or something similar. Warren is only giving the opening prayer which will last no more than two minutes.

Secondly, many people feel Warren's invocation will provide him a large platform to speak about this, that, and the other. Historically speaking, many people feel that Obama's inauguration speech will be on par with FDR's in 1933 ("The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.") and JFK's in 1961 ("Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."). Based on that, I would like to ask those who angrily disagree with Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inaugural this question: who gave the invocation for the 1933 and 1961 inaugurations of FDR and JFK respectively? Consequently, how did those opening prayers help shape their policies in their administrations?

The invocation simply asks God to watch over the proceedings and the new administration. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a platform to further a political agenda, nor is it a place for someone to imbue dogma into the new president's policy. The sooner people realize that Obama, not Rick Warren, is the focus of the festivities on Inauguration Day, the happier they will be.