My take on the Rick Warren fiasco

I understand all the fuss about Rick Warren delivering the invocation at next month's inauguration (which, by the way, was a choice made by Congress, not by President-elect Obama ... although one presumes he might have exercised some control over such decisions). But I think Warren is a singularly bad choice.

I would have suggested Donnie Davies myself.

Lyrics are here. You can thank me later.

You gotta have faith ... or not

Tonight, the two major party presidential candidates are going to appear together for the first time during the '08 campaign (yes, only for a handshake). And, as you undoubtedly know, the appearance will take place at a southern California mega-church, as part of a "Civil Forum" on faith led by prominent evangelical pastor Rick Warren.

It's a political reality today that, despite the constitutional strictures against the establishment of religion, faith remains a key component of any presidential race. But what puzzles me is how Huggy Bear continues to garner some 60% of the support of evangelicals.

Here, let me explain. Let's say you're an evangelical Christian, and you see two candidates.

One, "Candidate A," has been a loyal member of his church for over 20 years. He has what for all intents and purposes appears to be a solid marriage, with two young daughters and a close-knit extended family -- he even took time out from his campaign to visit his elderly grandmother. He doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve, but it's clearly an important part of his life -- important enough that he's talked regularly about some adaptations of Drunky McStagger's "faith-based initiatives." He's respectful of all people and especially of his wife and family, whose privacy he guards quite scrupulously. Candidate A concedes some drug use in his younger years, but today his only vice seems to be a stubborn, albeit not excessive, smoking habit.

"Candidate B," on the other hand, is an admitted adulterer who carried on an affair with another woman while still married to -- and cohabitating with -- his first wife, who waited patiently for him while he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam only to be dumped soon after her husband's return. As for his second wife, an obscenely wealthy heiress, Candidate B has called her a "cunt" and even offered her as a contestant in an often-nude "beauty contest" for motorcycle enthusiasts. He's publicly told "jokes" about rape and about the physical appearance of a teenage girl whose father was president of the United States. And he was mixed up in the "Keating Five" savings-and-loan scandal to an extent that to this day hasn't really been determined. He claims to be a churchgoer, but he rarely if ever discusses his faith, in marked contrast to the man whom he hopes to succeed as president.

Remember now, you're an evangelical Christian. Which candidate do you prefer -- A or B?

I wish Christian faith weren't a prerequisite for the presidency these days. But recognizing at least that it's still extraordinarily important, isn't it odd that the fundies like Candidate B better?