First the Creation Museum, now this: Ark Encounters Theme Park

Megan Carpentier's take on this is ... well, not sure what it is. All I know is, I couldn't stop laughing for a while. Check it out. Click on title of this post for the original Raw Story piece (and corresponding links). And next time you're in Kentucky, you can enocunter it in person! sj


Top 5 suggested attractions for the Ark Encounters Theme Park
By Megan Carpentier
Wednesday, August 10th, 2001

Between a 30-year property tax break, a county development grant and a 10-year package of state tax incentives, the Ark Encounters theme park seems set to open on time and under budget in 2014. The project, which is partially owned by the same people that brought us the Creation Museum, promises visitors a full size ark, a replica of the Tower of Babel (no word as to whether it will be felled regularly) and a petting zoo.

But what else might be in store? We had some ideas.

1. Can You Spot Your Daughter-In-Law?
Fun for the extended family! Inspired by the story of Judah, Tamar and Onan in Genesis 38, female visitors are invited into a room and given historically-accurate prostitutes' clothes. Once veiled, they are placed with similarly-dressed re-enactors by a shrine and encouraged to hit on their male relatives. Those who manage to escape with their father-in-laws' belts win (a.k.a., avoid a public burning)! In a comedic note, any men caught masturbating are struck by God's Lightning (TM).

2. Die Like An Egyptian
Inspired by the plagues God sent to torment the Egyptians in Exodus 7-11, visitors must make their way through an obstacle course that includes: swimming a river of "blood"; traversing a range filled with frogs, flies, lice, locusts and dead livestock; being sprayed with a substance designed to induce hives in all that encounter it (lancing the boils at the end got too messy!); a trail on which they are pelted with balls of ice as thunder crashes overhead; and a pitch-black room the leads to the exit. Eldest sons are then chloroformed to simulate death and the entire family is de-loused before exiting into a "desert paradise." (Please note: Jewish guests will be led straight to the desert after a brief wading excursion.)

3. When Is It Rape?
In this girl's-only exhibit, women are schooled on the finer points of Deuteronomy 22. After surviving ritualistic shaming for the sin of wearing pants (Deuteronomy 22:5), ladies are offered a range of dresses and skirts for purchase before continuing on to the Two Doors Of Decision. Women who choose one door are led to a field (22:25); those who choose the other are led onto a historically accurate street (22:23 and 28); all women are then "discovered" by a strange man who will attempt to put them in sleeper holds. Those who scream get to advance to the "wedding chapel" with their assailants, where they are reunited with male relatives; those who don't are pelted with rubber "stones" and forced to exit the park. Childcare services will be provided to families whose daughters don't pass, so they can continue enjoying the attractions while their daughters think about what they've done.

4. Wrestling With Angels
One of the most popular attractions at Ark Encounters, male guests are encouraged to doff their clothing to wrestle with the park's "angels" in a secluded room, away from friends and family, to experience the joy that Jacob did while wrestling an angel in Genesis 32:24-30. In order to preserve the verisimilitude of the experience, guests are paired exclusively with superhumanly attractive young men in the best physical condition, oiled so as to make it more difficult to win the wrestling match, and led to darkened rooms designed to look like a riverfront beaches. The match is ended when the "angel" touches the hollow of each guests' thigh: guests are encouraged to limp back to their families as Jacob himself did.

5. Cast Away
As Ark Encounters is no common theme park, the exit itself is an encounter with our Biblical past. Like Adam and Even before us, guests -- because who among us is not a sinner? -- are cast out from the park at the end of each day, as recounted in Genesis 3. Forced to walk over super-heated pavement three miles over a field filled with thorns and thistles, with dust and dirt whipped into the air with industrial fans, our guests will finally reach the parking lot three miles from the gate.

Get a grip, people. Do just a smidge of #$%^*(@ homework!

from Atlantic's Daily Dish (image via Mark Shea)...sj

It's easy as pie to generalize to millions of people the crimes of a few. We Catholics have had it done to us. And we can have it done to us again. So we should be bloody cautious about insane schemes to do it to 18 million fellow citizens.

The grotesque excuse "But the the first amendment is dead, and Islam killed it. There is no 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of religion' with the threat of Muslim violence hanging over your head" is rubbish. Cancelling the rights of 307 million people because you are, by your own admission, afraid is neither patriotism, nor courage, nor Christian fortitude. It is cowardice. And it is extra-special cowardice when you are ready to cancel your most precious national heritage because you are afraid of a speck.

another late night rant about another "powerful catholic leader" I can't stinking stand.

this is really unbelievable. I mean seriously. If I remember correctly, 52% of Catholics voted for Obama; that's what REALLY has these extreme christians going. From HuffPo, last Friday, w/ my first thoughts in italic...sj

WASHINGTON — A powerful Catholic leader on Friday accused President Barack Obama of pushing an anti-life, anti-family agenda and called Notre Dame's invitation for him to speak scandalous.

Sad but true. He is powerful. His ilk, although fading fast from mattering, and dying off slowly but surely, are nothing if they're not powerful. These "powerful catholic leaders" influence a lot of people. By and large, they're not all that compassionate; they're not terribly bright either. But they are powerful. And they make things happen. Many, many, many people out there listen to "powerful catholic leaders," such as this guy (and the pope), and follow them. And when the pope says on a trip to Africa (a country that is imploding w/ more death than you can imagine, w/ AIDS and lack of education being a major culprit), that "condoms won't stop the spread of AIDS, and may actually help spread it," it doesn't matter that it's a 100%, absolute, proven, factual lie. What matters is these people listen to him. They can't help it. They're BELIEVE in him. How could the Pope be steering them wrong?! So they stop using condoms, and more people die, who otherwise, would not (with proper education, based on facts and science). Thanks, Pope! Now If that's not anti-life, I don't know what is!

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the first American to lead the Vatican supreme court, said Catholic universities should not give a platform, let alone honor, "those who teach and act publicly against the moral law."

Moral law? What a euphemism that is. I think it breaks down to what "one ought or ought not do." Look, no one who thinks we were all born sinners, and that some of us will live forever in heaven after we die, and the rest of us are going to hell when we die, is gonna dictate to me ANYTHING. Please. There is no moral law in the real world. And extreme christians wonder why the rest of us get so offended that they're church is polluting our state? Didn't we break away from England for this nonsense?

Notre Dame has asked Obama to deliver the commencement address on May 17, an invitation that has drawn criticism from a number of Catholics. The university has said the president will be honored as an inspiring leader who broke a historic racial barrier.

"The proposed granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our president, who is so aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda is rightly the source of the greatest scandal," Burke said to applause from the crowd at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

I love those in charge at Notre Dame University. Love them. It's too bad they have to put up w/ this religious leader who is just flat out lying (too bad for all of us), when he says that Obama is "aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda." That's is an outright lie. No, he is not.

Obama supports abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. He also repealed a policy that denied federal dollars to international relief organizations that provide abortions or abortion-related information. And he backs legislation that would prohibit state and local governments from interfering with a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

Beautiful; you go dog! That's why we hired you! But seriously, supporting women's rights, and funding research that SAVES lives, is good, right?

Burke called the confirmation of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, "the source of deepest embarrassment for Catholics."

Christ. The deepest? Is it really deeper than the "embarrassment" that Catholics feel when their church leaders, priests, cardinals and bishops coerce little boys into all forms of sex, and/or rape them outright; by the HUNDREDS, perhaps thousands? Cracka, please!!

Burke, who formerly led the Archdiocese of St. Louis before leaving for the Vatican, has made headlines in the past. In 2004, he said he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights as part of public policy.

Man, he's a real charmer. Yes, public policy is what matters in this country, and it's how we govern. We don't govern with religion! Again, isn't this why we left England?

In 2007, Burke indicated he would do the same to then-Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. He also protested singer Sheryl Crow's appearance at a benefit for a Catholic children's hospital over her support for embryonic stem cell research. In January 2008, Burke called on Saint Louis University, a Jesuit school, to discipline college basketball coach Rick Majerus for publicly supporting abortion rights.

What does the Vatican want this guy for; their entertainment coordinator? Doesn't he have real work to do?

Burke said if Catholics are not willing to stand up for the church's teachings, "we are not worthy of the name Catholic."

Whatever, dude. Bottom line is, more and more Catholics are not willing (that's why the church's numbers are fading); in fact, they're deeming the Church's teachings (and leadership) not worthy. Why? Because they're seeing things more clearly these days; things that actually matter in their everyday lives, are trumping things that may or may not happen in their "after-lives."

I wish I could be there this Sunday to join the fight against this "powerful catholic leader" (a fight, HE started). But I'll have to settle for C-Span.

The Hamas 'Peace' Gambit

I don't often agree with Chuck Kraut, but I do when it comes to Israel's never-ending war with all the enemies on their border. To say there are many layers and a plethora of complicated issues when it comes to that region (Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Gaze, et al.) would be a gigantic understatement; all sides have at least a few good points. But there is one thing that is pure and simple: surviving. When the bottom-bottom line is just an "us or them" choice, then the end surely justifies the means. That's why the euphemism "disproportionate response" (which gained traction thanks to an irresponsible media a few years ago, when Syria/Lebanon/Hezbollah/Iran rained rockets on Israeli civilians) doesn't work, and is useless in situations like this. One, because there are no rules in war. Period. And two, because of the word "response": if you're dumb enough to provoke a response in the first place, you lose the right to complain about the response; whatever it is. - sj

The Hamas 'Peace' Gambit
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 8, 2009

"Apart from the time restriction (a truce that lapses after 10 years) and the refusal to accept Israel's existence, Mr. Meshal's terms approximate the Arab League peace plan . . ."-- Hamas peace plan, as explained by the New York Times

"Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"-- Tom Lehrer, satirist

The Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they're offering a peace plan with a two-state solution. Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide -- Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate.

There is a phrase for such a peace: the peace of the grave.

Westerners may be stupid, but Hamas is not. It sees the new American administration making overtures to Iran and Syria. It sees Europe, led by Britain, beginning to accept Hezbollah. It sees itself as next in line. And it knows what to do. Yasser Arafat wrote the playbook.

With the 1993 Oslo accords, he showed what can be achieved with a fake peace treaty with Israel -- universal diplomatic recognition, billions of dollars of aid, and control of Gaza and the West Bank, which Arafat turned into an armed camp. In return for a signature, he created in the Palestinian territories the capacity to carry on the war against Israel that the Arab states had begun in 1948 but had given up after the bloody hell of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Meshal sees the opportunity. Not only is the Obama administration reaching out to its erstwhile enemies in the region, but it begins its term by wagging an angry finger at Israel over the Netanyahu government's ostensible refusal to accept a two-state solution.

Of all the phony fights to pick with Israel. No Israeli government would turn down a two-state solution in which the Palestinians accepted territorial compromise and genuine peace with a Jewish state. (And any government that did would be voted out in a day.) Netanyahu's own defense minister, Ehud Barak, offered precisely such a deal in 2000. He even offered to divide Jerusalem and expel every Jew from every settlement remaining in the new Palestine.

The Palestinian response (for those who have forgotten) was: No. And no counteroffer. Instead, nine weeks later, Arafat unleashed a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis.

Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who's been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortar rounds at Israeli civilians.

If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions -- social, economic and military -- to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.

Apart from being reasonable, Netanyahu's two-state skepticism is beside the point. His predecessor, Ehud Olmert, worshiped at the shrine of a two-state solution. He made endless offers of a two-state peace to the Palestinian Authority -- and got nowhere.

Why? Because the Palestinians -- going back to the U.N. partition resolution of 1947 -- have never accepted the idea of living side by side with a Jewish state. Those like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who might want to entertain such a solution, have no authority to do it. And those like Hamas's Meshal, who have authority, have no intention of ever doing it.

Meshal's gambit to dress up perpetual war as a two-state peace is yet another iteration of the Palestinian rejectionist tragedy. In its previous incarnation, Arafat lulled Israel and the Clinton administration with talk of peace while he methodically prepared his people for war.

Arafat waited seven years to tear up his phony peace. Meshal's innovation? Ten -- then blood.

Miss USA and the "B" Word

by Emma Ruby-Sachs - Huffington Post

In the Miss USA contest, Perez Hilton, celebrity blogger extraordinaire, asked Miss California what she thought about gay marriage. Her answer, supporting "opposite marriage," earned her both cheers and boos from the crowd and likely cost her the Miss USA crown.

It also spurred a video response from Hilton calling Miss California a dumb b****.

Hilton apologized for using the b-word, then retracted his apology and now even the BBC is covering the newest tensions surrounding gay marriage in America.

But no one is talking about the b-word that should be used to describe Miss California: bigot.

A bigot is one who is (according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary) "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

To take a state institution like marriage and quarantine it from same-sex couples despite the complete lack of evidence that such a restriction is rational or in the best interests of the citizens of the state is intolerance.

The basis for the marriage restriction that many put forward (although Miss America didn't even have the wherewithal to go this far) is that gay marriage constitutes a threat to religious freedom. However, no equal rights initiative has contemplated ordering religious institutions to recognize same-sex couples.

Unfortunately, Miss America is not the only bigot in America's public life.

We could list a large number of Republicans, Rudy Giuliani for one, and a number of Democrats.

Even President Obama holds the intolerant and bigoted view that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Sure, he couches it with talk of equal rights under the law, but has, so far stood behind civil unions as an alternative to marriage - a plan that would create the same kind of separate but equal legal scheme rejected by Brown v. Board of Education.

Miss California, like many who share her take on the marriage issue, was careful to talk about her "opinion" and "beliefs" and the way she was raised as if this excused her intolerance. Barack Obama talks about tradition and belief as well in defense of his own position.

But the fight for equality is not just an exercise in name-calling. And it is not a polite exchange between friends about what to eat for dinner. There is no room for preference or belief when it comes to legally enforceable discrimination that is imposed on the entire population

The unequal treatment of LGBT Americans creates real casualties and ongoing disastrous effects for many citizens. We don't want to re-insert Perez Hilton's chosen b-word back into accepted public discourse, but we must begin to call the opposition to equality what it is: bigotry.

Sometimes, you just have to say, "Whaaaa.....?"

Some dude in western Maryland (which might indicate something in itself) has decided he doesn't like it when Food Network folks like Alton Brown or Jamie Oliver tell aspiring chefs to use kosher salt in recipes. His solution?
Blessed Christians Salt!
.

..It's sea salt that's been blessed by an Episcopal priest... the company also hopes to market the salt through Christian bookstores and as a fundraising tool for religious groups.

Yet another thing to convince sincere religious folks to part with a little extra cash. This guy must be some kind of tool to think that there's anything religious associated with kosher salt. Kosher has to do with the way food is prepped, not 'blessed' by a rabbi. Kosher salt is the ultimate organic food item; in fact, salt itself is kosher because it occurs naturally, you don't have to process it. To be kosher, all a rabbi does is certify that the processing that does occur avoids violation of Biblical dietary restrictions.
So what's the real reason?

"The fact is, it helps Christians and Christian charities," he said. "This is about keeping Christianity in front of the public so that it doesn't die. I want to keep Christianity on the table, in the household, however I can do it."

Right. So, how many Jewish friends ya got, pardner?

Godlewski makes his aim clear: "There's no anti-Semitism. I love Jesus Christ and he was a Jew."

Got it.

If the salt takes off, Godlewski plans an entire line of Christian-branded foods, including rye bread, bagels and pickles.

link
Whatever.

Statement from spacejace (see post below this for context)

Look folks, sometimes it just comes down to surviving. Sometimes a thousands-year history of religious warring and idealogical battling (along with who actually "started it") takes a back seat to living or dying. This is what the Israelis are facing as we speak. FACT: Hamas - also known as the "Palestinian government" - earlier this month, unprovoked, launched a barrage of missles into the Israel civilian population. That is a fact. We're not debating that.

I strongly believe the very good Palestinian people wish their government had not done this. The Palestinian people are just as sick to death of all the death as Israeli's are. Palestinians didn't vote for this government like we vote for ours. There were a litany of things beyond their control involved in the last Palestinian election, but suffice it to say, they didn't have much choice; they were strong-armed and lied to, among other things, and the outcome was never really in doubt. If the Palestinian people or the "Palestinian Authority" could remove Hamas (and the other terrorist factions actually running the country) they would. I sincerely believe that. Perhaps they'll be able to take a more active role in the future. But it's important we give ve the Palenstinian people the benefit of the doubt.

So, where does this leave us? it's simple, really. Very simple. As simple as 2+2=4. I'll explain:

1. Bad people (Hamas, Hezballoh, Iran, others) who want to cause chaos, terrorize and inflict death on innocent civilians in Israel launch hundreds of missles to achieve those goals (let's not forget: Iran is [f]actually suppying the aforementioned with money, weapons and resources because they have stated outright - nothing ambiguous here! - "all of Israel must perish!")
2. Israel, wanting to stop the indiscriminate killing of their people - and who have a lot of firepower on their side - decide they need to stop the bad people from doing this.
3. So they launch an offensive (wishing sincerely they didn't have to) to stop those people, since NO ONE else wants to, or is caple of doing so (including the Palestinian people, who want peace).

See? Simple.

Lots of people will die. Good people, bad people, innocent people; all kinds of people. People from many different countries, from many different terrorist factions; people from all sides.

At THIS PRECISE point in time, it's not about a palestinian state, religion, who started it way back when, and any other myriad of dynamics involved and unsolved. I can assure you in due time, a peace process addressing these issues will be discussed and implemented during an Obama administration, led by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (you go grrrlfriend!); but for now, it's about surviving (by the way, why haven't more people noticed that the Bush administration 100%, absolutely ignored this problem for his entire 8 years as President? Bush literally couldn't have cared less). Israel is fighting back to save their people. They are targeting ONLY the terrorists and quite honestly, I am AMAZED at the precautions Israel is taking (and has taken) to avoid civialian deaths (the exact opposite of what Hamas/the Palestinian Government does when attacking Israel); it's unprecedented. Research the precautions Israel takes and the techonology they use to do this on your own; you'll be amazed, I assure you.

I've often said that Israel has shown great restraint over the last couple of decades in their dealings with Palestine. The fact is, if Israel did not care about the Palestinian people, they could take care of the problem once and for all by decimating the entire country fairly quickly, a couple of months actually. They have chosen not to do that for as long as I've been alive. If I hear one more analyst or writer talk about a "disproportianate response" with regards to Israel's military action (this happened often when Hezballoh/Lebanon decided to indsicriminatley send missles to kill civilians into Israel a couple of years ago), I don't know what I'm gonna do. Listen: there is no such thing as a "disproportianate response" in war folks. I got news for you: when it gets down to bottom-bottom lines like "live or die," there are no rules. None.

It sucks for the innocent Palestinian people.
It sucks for the innocent Israeli people.
The irony is, this is what Hamas wants.

The killing and madness continues. Loop SO not closed....

Statement from Shimon Peres

Israel's President Shimon Peres, On the Attacks in Gaza (several days ago)


President Peres:
"It is the first time in the history of Israel that we, the Israelis, cannot understand the motives or the purposes of the ones who are shooting at us. It is the most unreasonable war, done by the most unreasonable warriors.

The story is simple. Israel has left Gaza completely, out of our own free will, at a high cost. In Gaza there is no single Israeli civilian or soldier. They were evacuated from Gaza, our settlements, which called for a very expensive cost. We had to mobilize 45,000 policemen to take out our settlers from there. We spent $2.5 billion. The passages were open. Money was sent to Gaza. We suggested aid in many ways - economically, medically, and otherwise. We were very careful not to make the lives of the civilian people in Gaza difficult. Still I have not heard until now a single person who could explain to us reasonably: why are they firing rockets against Israel? What are the reasons? What is the purpose?

And I must say also that the phenomenon about Israel is the restraint of the army and the unity of the people. The army waited and waited; the Palestinians asked for a ceasefire, and we agreed. They themselves have violated the ceasefire. Again, we didn't know why, until it came to a point where we were left without a choice but to bring an end to it. The operation was planned carefully and the army was true to its principles: namely, to be precise in its targets and careful not to hit civilian life. There is a problem because many of the bombs were stored in private houses. We have contacted the owners of the houses, the people that dwell there, and told them leave it. You can't live with bombs. We have to bring an end to the source of the bombs.

Israel doesn't have any ambition in Gaza. We left out of our free choice. We have never gone back to the idea of returning to Gaza. It's over. But we cannot permit that Gaza will become a permanent base of threatening and even killing children and innocent people in Israel for God knows why. I feel that in our hearts, we don't have any hatred for the Gazan people. Their suffering doesn't carry any joy in our hearts. On the contrary, we feel that the better they will have it, better neighbors we shall have. Now that Hamas is turning to the Arab world for help, the truth is that the Arab world has to turn to Hamas for the help of Hamas. If Hamas will stop it, there is no need for any help. Everything can come again to normalcy. Passages: open; economic life: free; no Israeli intervention; no Israeli participation in any of the turnarounds in Gaza.

As a nation, we feel united. As a nation, there is wholehearted support for the army, the way they handled it, their restraint, their discrimination, and their responsibility. The great winner can be reason, and reason will lead to peace. We are very serious, in a serious mood. Many of our children are still in the shelters, and we would like them, like the children of Gaza, to breathe fresh air again. This is the story, and whoever asks us to stop shooting - they have to change the address. Let them turn to Hamas and ask them to stop shooting, and there won't be shooting. Thank you very much."

color me confused...

Below is an article from Salon on Obama's extremely surprising move. VERY rare are the times I can't get my head around something. Now is one of those times.



How the hell did Rick Warren get inauguration tickets?

Barack Obama knows liberals are upset he picked the conservative evangelical preacher to pray at the inauguration. And he doesn't care.
By Mike Madden

Dec. 19, 2008 |

For more than two years, cozying up to Rick Warren has been one of Barack Obama's favorite ways of showing evangelical Christians that he might not be so scary, after all -- and for just as long, palling around with Obama every once in a while has been Warren's way of trying to show more secular-minded people that he's not so bad, either.

So about the only thing less surprising than the outrage that news of Warren's selection to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration is prompting among gay activists, liberals and Obama supporters generally is probably Warren's appearance on the program in the first place. Obama and Warren have often used each other to demonstrate that they'll be willing to listen to people they disagree with -- and yes, also to let everyone know that they'll be willing to anger their friends. This isn't one of those political controversies that pop up out of nowhere without warning; whether they want to admit it or not, it seems Obama's advisors brought on this fight with his own supporters knowing full well what was coming.

Having Warren speak at the inauguration might make more sense for Obama, now that he's been elected, than going to Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in August in search of evangelical votes did from a campaigning standpoint. When the ballots were counted he only did marginally better among white evangelicals than Gore and Kerry; the idea now, apparently, is to signal that Obama will be a president for all Americans, whether they voted for him on Nov. 4 or not.

Except that Warren, by this point, isn't just the purpose-driven friendly face of evangelical Christianity anymore. He took sides, very publicly, in favor of California's Proposition 8, which overturned the state's gay marriage law. "About 2 percent of Americans are homosexual, or gay and lesbian, people," Warren said in a widely circulated video (and in a virtually identical e-mail to his congregation) before the election. "We should not let 2 percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years. This is not just a Christian issue, this is a humanitarian issue." Prior to that, his late summer Civil Forum, at which he interviewed McCain and Obama, was seen by many liberals as an ambush. Instead of sticking to questions on areas where Warren truly has broken from some religious conservatives, like climate change, the importance of alleviating poverty and preventing HIV transmission, Warren drew Obama and John McCain into a discussion of old-school social conservative hot-button issues: the definition of marriage and whether life begins at conception. Days later, he turned around and blasted Obama's answers on abortion rights, comparing being pro-choice to denying the Holocaust.

But Obama was determined to defend his pick Thursday, and he set out the pro-Warren talking points himself, when a reporter brought it up at his now all-but-daily press conference in Chicago. "A couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion," he said. "Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about -- that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

Translated out of press-conference-speak, though, that basically means: "I know you're upset. Too bad." Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama's inauguration committee and a senior advisor during the campaign, told Salon later that picking Warren "was not a political decision," which is usually the surest sign that something was exactly that. Obama aides wouldn't go into the decision-making process that led to Warren's selection, but Douglass admitted they predicted some of the fury it caused ahead of time. "People don't go into these kinds of decisions unaware that there might be some criticism, but on the other hand, the overriding goal, again, was this message of inclusivity," she said.

The problem is, many liberals, and gay activists, especially, are wondering exactly who was being included. "It's a symbolic role," said Brad Luna, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. "[Warren's] job there is to kind of represent the spiritual totality of our nation. When that sort of person is put there, it definitely makes our community stop and think, 'Wow, are we part of the fabric of this inclusive new day, as we thought?'" The Human Rights Campaign issued an open letter criticizing Obama's choice on Wednesday. The fact that Obama, too, sees Warren's role as symbolic only made things worse. "We certainly know that Obama disagrees with Warren on gay rights issues, and we know that saying the prayer is not the same as setting policy," said Peter Montgomery, a spokesman for People for the American Way. "We certainly have great hopes for positive change in the Obama administration. The question is really elevating, to this place of singular honor, someone who has so recently trashed part of the community."

Making matters worse, the Obama team evidently decided not to alert anyone who was likely to be upset about the pick ahead of time. News of Warren's involvement in the inauguration came out of the congressional committee working on the inauguration instead of from Obama's own inaugural committee, a wholly separate entity. At least initially, aides for Obama's inaugural committee said the decision had come from Congress, not Obama. In fact, that wasn't the case at all. "That was solely the choice of the president-elect," said Gil Duran, a spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the congressional committee. Obama's staff sent explicit orders for whom to include in the inaugural ceremony up to Capitol Hill, since Congress is, technically, in charge of that part of the day. "Sen. Feinstein obviously disagrees with the views of Rev. Warren on issues that affect the gay and lesbian community," Duran said. "However, Sen. Feinstein respects the president-elect's prerogative to select a cleric to deliver the invocation." (That one doesn't need any translation -- Feinstein's office was politely, respectfully, throwing Obama under the bus.)

Warren's spokesman, A. Larry Ross, told Salon Obama had contacted Warren to invite him, not the other way around. In a statement, Warren said, "I commend President-elect Obama for his courage to willingly take enormous heat from his base by inviting someone like me, with whom he doesn’t agree on every issue, to offer the invocation at his historic inaugural ceremony." But so far, say both Obama aides and his critics, there hasn't been much of a similar attempt to reach out to key allies who are upset about the pick and patch things up.

Obama hasn't even taken office yet, and it's already clear that he doesn't hold grudges (file Warren, Rick, somewhere behind Lieberman, Joe, on the list of people Obama has refused to seek revenge against for campaign-related slights). He's also determined to carry his post-partisan rhetoric from the trail all the way into the White House, and he seems to believe he can lead the country to a new united, consensus-driven politics. But first, he may need to find a way to convince everyone else on his side that that approach is the right one.