I don't think you can be proven wrong. This inauguration, and what preacher shows up in particular, is just not too big a deal with too big an impact. Not trying to be snarky... really just supporting your right to your view. I think you will always think this was a bad call, due to what it "says," but there's no way you'll be proven wrong on it. It would be like proving someone wrong if they said "you should not wear that blue polo shirt -- looks bad on you." This decision would warrant all the national fuss if Warren was appointed to any sort of position of influence or policy relevance.
Some more potential fallout over the Rick Warren http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28439786/ From AP Warren’s inauguration prayer could draw ire Evangelicals typically pray in Jesus' name, and that's raising questions President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation drew one kind of protest. Whether the evangelical pastor offers the prayer in the name of Jesus may draw another. At George W. Bush's 2001 swearing-in, the Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell were criticized for invoking Christ. The distinctly Christian reference at a national civic event offended some, and even prompted a lawsuit. Warren did not answer directly when asked whether he would dedicate his prayer to Jesus. In a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press, Warren would say only that, "I'm a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray." "Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements nor political posturing. They are humble, personal appeals to God," Warren wrote. His spokesman would not elaborate. Will he pray in Jesus' name? Evangelicals generally expect their clergymen to use Jesus' name whenever and wherever they lead prayer. Many conservative Christians say cultural sensitivity goes way too far if it requires religious leaders to hide their beliefs. "If Rick Warren does not pray in Jesus' name, some folks are going to be very disappointed," Caldwell said in a recent phone interview. "Since he's evangelical, his own tribe, if you will, will have some angst if he does not do that." Advocates for gay rights protested Obama's decision to give Warren a prominent role at the swearing-in. The California megachurch founder supported Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in his home state. Obama defended his choice, saying he wanted the event to reflect diverse views and insisting he remains a "fierce advocate" of equal rights for gays. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a United Methodist who is considered the dean of the civil rights movement, said he hasn't yet written the benediction for the Jan. 20 ceremony. But he said "whatever religion the person represents, I think he has a right to be true to his religion." Caldwell, also a Methodist, said no one from the Bush team told him what to say in his 2001 and 2005 benedictions. The Houston pastor said he had "no intention whatsoever of offending" people when he quoted from Philippians and delivered the 2001 prayer "in the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ." In 2005, he still prayed in Jesus' name, but added the line, "respecting persons of all faiths." In the 2008 election, Caldwell supported Obama. Wrong to expect changes? Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, who was a presence at presidential inaugurations for several decades, said it's wrong to expect members of any faith to change how they pray in public. "For a Christian, especially for an evangelical pastor, the Bible teaches us that we are to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. How can a minister pray any other way?" Franklin Graham said. "If you don't want someone to pray in Jesus' name, don't invite an evangelical minister." Graham, who in 2001 stepped in for his ailing father, ended the invocation with, "We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." The lawsuit, which claimed that inaugural prayer was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, failed in federal court. It had been filed by atheist Michael Newdow, who separately sued to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow joins new lawsuit This time, he's joining 17 other plaintiffs, including atheist and humanist organizations, in seeking to remove all religious references from President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration. He wants to remove the phrase "so help me God" from the oath of office, noting that it isn't in the oath set out in the Constitution. The lawsuit also seeks to block inaugural prayers by the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery. Billy Graham, now 90, didn't say Jesus' name during presidential inaugurations, but made obvious references to Christ. At Richard Nixon's 1969 swearing-in, Graham prayed "in the Name of the Prince of Peace who shed His blood on the Cross that men might have eternal life." In 1997, for Bill Clinton's inaugural, Graham prayed "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Some say inauguration is interfaith event Leaders of other traditions with experience in interfaith work said they respected Christians who felt strongly that they should pray in Christ's name. But they argued that a request for some modification is reasonable for a presidential inauguration, considering it's an event representing all Americans. Imam Yahya Hendi, a Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University who travels to Muslim countries on behalf of the State Department, said that at interfaith events, he refers to Allah, or God, as "almighty creator of us all." Rabbi Burt Visotzky, a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the flagship institution of Conservative Judaism, said he invokes "God" for interfaith prayer. "I know that for Christians, Jesus is part of their Trinity," said Visotzky, who has taught at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and at Protestant seminaries in the U.S. "For me as a Jew, hearing the name of a first-century rabbi isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not my God."
I'm 99% certain he will say Jesus repeatedly. If he doesn't, he has no business (as a Christian) leading prayer. I'll be happy not to have any public prayers at the inauguration. People can pray individually or in their own congregations for the success of the presidency.
I don't get why this is such a big deal. The prayer isn't the state honoring a religion, it's a man of faith who's about to take office asking for prayer. He should be free to have whoever he wants lead it, or to not have it at all. It shouldn't offend anyone. If anyone is offended by him having a particular type of prayer at his inauguration, they should vote for atheists in the future.
Honestly I would if their were any with a chance of winning. IMO athiesm in elected office is a bigger glass ceiling than race or gender. That said I'm not bothered by the mention of Jesus in the prayer. That's what you should expect having Christian pastor to give a prayer. I am more bothered by "official" displays of Christian or other religious items where in the power of the state is tied up in that, such as displaying the Ten Commandments in a court room. The inauguration while official the only thing that matters is the oath and while the president is an office the occupant of that office does get some freedom of expression as an individual.
I guess we all realize that this country was founded by Christians who believed in Jesus and Christian principals right? We have come a long way to where it creates a discussion when our President has an OMG Christian pastor speak or pray for him.... It's a major crisis right? If we wanna talk about Obama as a gay rights activist... I think actions speak louder than words.
The founders where Christians in that they considered themselves civilized western men but many of the founders views of Christianity weren't exactly what we would consider Christian today.
I agree, they were far more conservative than todays Christians. They did believe in Jesus Christ and they did use the bibles they had as guides for their lives.
A couple of the founding fathers, in their own words: Thomas Jefferson: I am a Materialist. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great . . . corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. Jefferson believed Jesus to be a great teacher, but not at all divine. Ben Franklin: It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. ... I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that be ought to be worshipped; that the. most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as be left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it. ... When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. ... I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity. It's a much less clear mix than you'd like to believe.
If you believe it to be a 'choice', that I suppose is one angle. If not, and your child turns out to be homosexual, congratulations on f***ing up a kid.
Depends on what makes a person homosexual... if you take it at the meaning of the word, then having sex with the same sex is homosexual, and that is definitely a choice. No point in arguing whether one person happens to be attracted to people of the same sex by birth or not. Who knows why people are attracted to one thing or another? Teaching your children to hate is wrong.
Major, thank you -- amazing how truly independent many of the founding minds were at the time. Just hard to imagine someone of national import saying what Jefferson wrote, for instance, in 2009.
What impresses me about the founding fathers was their ability to somehow respect each other even though they disagreed. Great men.
Totally agree. That was critical to the work at hand. Kind of critical to what we're facing today, if we can pull off the whole respect thing. There's an enormous media and poli-tertainment swarm in our way though. These groups see no $ in a respectful process or dialogue.
