My mate reminded me that Obama ran (and won) on a platform of inclusion.

I snapped back that Warren, at least this aspect of Rick Warren’s ideology, was the epitome of exclusion.

I was then reminded that Rick Warren represents the beliefs of many, many Americans. And although many of those Americans would never, ever support Barack Obama, nor do they intend to make any effort to insure the success of his presidency, their views should be represented in an “inclusive” celebration.

Now I had him, or so I thought. I pointed out that to me it was like inviting a segregationist to set the spiritual tone of an inauguration during the early 60’s.

I was right I was told. That is exactly what it is like. And that distasteful way of thinking would have represented a large swath of American opinion at the time.

Hmmmpf.

And then he asked, “Would you rather someone like Warren be giving the invocation or sitting in a cabinet position setting policy?” The invocation of course, but still I am uneasy about it because I worry that elevation of people with Warren’s views is a cue to less reasonable and violent homo-phobics who will do things like this.

So, for me at least, inclusion of exclusion really stings. But would “inclusion” mean anything really without that discomfort? And the fact is that Barack Obama has embraced openly gay members in his transition team, and has selected Dr. Joseph Lowery, a civil rights icon who supports same-sex marriage, to deliver the inaugural benediction.

I hope this is how a nation begins to pull together.