Rick Warren and Invoking Teh Inauguration
As you may have noticed, a small war has erupted at the mothership over the nature of the invocation at Obama’s inauguration on January 20, 2009. Specifically, whether or not it is appropriate for Obama to have Rick Warren participate. The general FDL position is that it is not appropriate to have Warren participate because he is a discriminatory bigot, to the LGBT community, and others.
I agree wholeheartedly with this position. But I have a more fundamental question.
Why is any of this, Warren, Lowery, or any other religious figure, an official part of the inauguration? If a religious aspect is desired for private parties later etc., fine, but why should overt religion be sanctioned as part of the official initiation of a Presidency? No matter how it is configured, it is going to be offensive to many groups inherently; i.e. those whose religions are snubbed, and those such as the LGBT community, for instance in relation to Warren. Probably some groups somewhere will be similarly put off by Joe Lowery; and, of course, the non-believers and/or atheists don’t like any of it.
"America" should not have a preacher. If individuals wish to consider religion vis a vis their government, that is most excellent, but it should be and by individual choice only. God is not for a nation to possess, nor claim the mantle of; that is the province of the individuals in the nation to do, or not do, on their own.
Why is this part of the official inauguration? There is no need to have the new government sanctioned by religion from the get go. The new President, President Obama, will serve and represent all Americans, of all stripes, colors and beliefs; excluding and alienating so many at the outset seems antithetical to the spirit, even if not the letter, of Constitutional separation of church and state, equal protection and inclusion.
Invoke the spirit of the Constitution instead of of having an invocation at the Inauguration.
Because American are educated in hypocrisy.
“Wholesomeness and cheerleading”
“Dress code and cheerleaders uniforms”
“Academics and pep rallies”.
Thanks for this bmaz. I have been wondering this too. For all the hoo-yah about Warren – what do you think would have happened if Obama had invited a Muslim cleric or a Hindu priest, or a Wiccan warlock or some athiest guy to say something? This whole thing is nuts and I would rather neither Warren or Joe Lowery spoke/prayed on behalf of various Christian sects. (Remember what happened when someone invited a Hindu priest to give the invocation at Congress!) ((Which should also be stopped by the way!!)
I am sick to death of all this religious litmus-testing of everyone and having all these pastors of whatever faiths having such an influence on our political dialogue.
In fact, I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the separation of church and state was more about protecting churches from the undue influence of the government than the other way around. I just wish these church folks would stop meddling in the government and pay attention to their own stuff – they have plenty of really messy backyards to clean up themselves!
People think about this sort of thing as part of the ritual. The start of a new administration needs some kind of “blessing” that needs something more than “Congratulations, Barack; you’ve just been handed the worst mess in 100 years. Good luck.” An invocation confers a kind of ritual legitimacy, like taking an Oath of Office. Do you also want to dispense with that, and with taking the oath with hand on a Bible?
There’s a lot of Theater involved in an inauguration, and the Invocation is part of that theater. Like it or not, when Bush was inaugurated in 2000 and 2004, it was things like invocations and oaths and such that helped the public accept Bush as President. We didn’t like it, but after the inaugurations, we had to accept it as a Done Deed.
One key to closing the door on the Bush-Cheney maladministration is the inauguration of Obama. Now’s not the time to mess with the formula. Obama’s inauguration, ritually enacted, helps put a nail in the coffin of the Bush-Cheney era.
Bob in HI
so, not having some preacher, minister or other religious figure participate would make the deal less legitimate, or delegitimize it? Really?
We should keep perpetuating the ritual because “Now’s not the time to mess with the formula”? Really? If not now when? Isn’t that the same mantra that was whipped out to continue slavery, segregation and every other form of regressive ingrained discriminatory policy and practice?
Well, I’m willing to stick my neck right on the chopping block.
My biggest priorities are environmental: global warming, pollution, education that relates to both of those… I’m thrilled that Chu will be Sec of Energy, and I don’t personally give two hoots if Obama wants to spend all day long reading from the I Ching, the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita, and whatever else. Whatever it takes to get some new energy policies, that I hope will be a fulcrum to start shifting some of the other aspects of government: DoI, Transportation, HUD… all the people going to work on huge, huge problems are going to need to believe in what they do, believe that they can do it, and have ‘faith’ that change can happen.
I’m not particularly ‘religious’, but I know that faith is at the core of the lives of people that I respect, and who have done remarkable things these past 20+ years while all the rules of government were stacked against them, and all the economic weight went to Wall Street and they got sold out.
Some are ranchers, some are orchardists, some are farmers, some are mechanics, and a couple are surgeons. Personally, I’m not about to begrudge them a prayer, or a moment of silence, or the respect that they deserve for believing in something larger than themselves.
In my own case, the “Moral Majority” hypocrisy really, really got to me — Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Roberts, Ralph Reed, and that pack of sanctimonious creeps can wither and blow out beyond Alpha Centauri for all I care.
But I do believe that Rick Warren ‘gets’ climate change, and I think that he ‘gets’ social justice issues — I think the nation is big enough for Rick Warren and myself. And given the magnitude of the problems we’re facing after the criminal cabal of the BushCheney years, I’m perfectly willing to ‘bury the hatchet’.
Now, I also think the Prop 8 issue was deplorable.
Personally, I’ve cut ties with people that I’ve known who want to make a big deal out of gay marriage. And I’ve done it by looking them straight in the eye and explaining to them in no uncertain terms that when my spouse was very ill land I had tiny kids to raise, I asked my old friend from junior high if she’d be willing to take on the role of raising my kids if anything ever happened to me. I knew that she and her partner would raise my kids and make sure they were well educated and cared for.
That’s shut up anyone who tried to spew a bunch of nonsense about ‘gay marriage’.
THEN I have proceeded to explain to those same ‘anti gay marriage’ folks that I’ve seen a number of gay couples who’ve shown more care for one another’s elderly parents, more consideration for helping out with ill family members, and more willingness to donate to the educations of nieces and nephews than I’ve seen in any number of hetero partnerships.
And if Rick Warren ever has any questions about what I think, he’s free to call me and I’ll tell him the very same thing in no uncertain terms.
Meanwhile, we have BIG problems, and we need to focus on what we can do to address them.
My gay and lesbian friends are part of the solution. But so is Rick Warren.
Onward.
Hear, hear!
Who is advocating denying them this? Certainly not me. I am merely arguing that it should not be part of the formal inauguration. I fail to see how this argument has anything whatsoever to do with the things you want done (and that I want done too). To me, at least, this is a false and unnecessary linkage.
Because they have to do difficult things and make difficult changes; those kinds of things tend to be fueled by what people believe. Some of them express many of their beliefs in Biblical anecdotes and language. For them, the inauguration will have more meaning with an invocation.
They’ve already felt alienated enough; IMHO, they’ll be more engaged if they feel good about the inauguration. So will I, for that matter. With engagement comes (emotional, mental) energy, and that makes change more possible. (God knows, neither Bush ever inspired anyone to change much of anything other than the teevee dial.)
As for Rick Warren, he needs to learn a lot more about hormones, human development, and related issues. (And for starters, he could read Riki Ott’s book about the ExxonValdez oil spill, which was last Sunday’s FDL Book Salon topic, and which addresses the role of hormones in pollutants on reproduction… but I digress.) People are who they are, and I don’t understand how Warren can read the First Commandment (”Do unto others…”) without figuring that it came first for a reason.
But as for an invocation, it’s a huge country. 300 million people, at least. For many of them, an invocation has meaning. Not including it would, in my view, be disrespectful of some people that I know who don’t confuse church and state, but who would find some kind of invocation a good thing. I’m 1:300,000,000.
The slamming people over their sexuality needs to stop. It’s corrosive, dumb, and hurtful.
But I think that for many people an invocation is important. (And some of them may be GLBT.)
Bottom line: global warming and pollutants are important for everyone, no matter their sexuality, their ethnic background, or their finance. If people find an invocation helpful as they finally start to address those things, far be it from me to fuss about it.
Many people would feel more positive with free sex involved too; but that is not necessarily in compliance with the Constitution either. Actually, it would be more in keeping with the Constitution because there is no language or provision of the Constitution directly militating against free blowjobs, while there is such a provision militating against the involvement of religion.
I’ll be honest, I am much more concerned about honoring the intent of the Constitution than I am about bucking up some people that might feel more warm and fuzzy by hearing some good old timed religion buttered into their government. Continued insistence on mixing religion with government propagates fundamentalism in that government. I am tired of this and tired of alienating all the people disaffected by the insistence. It is wrong.
I’m next on the chopping block! This stuff makes me crazy… seriously no one is going to remember this, and it gave Obama a good reason to get out there and say in no uncertain terms exactly what his POLICY is.
John Cole had it right, and he was the first I saw that did have it right:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14795
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=14809
This from the John Cole post
This completely misses my point. Spectacularly misses my point. Cole here not only presumes that there are “times and manners appropriate” to insert dogmatic religion into government, he is willing to engage in relative tradeoffs on the subject. This is a Faustian bargain if there ever was one.
Cole is not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong.
wha?! we’ve had an anti-christian government for the past 20 years? hmm. somehow I missed that.
Oh, and I’m sure that for some this seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Mostly for those who are not reminded every day in some small way that the US government officially does not consider you equal. or even normal.
so thanks.
Actually, rOTL would not be one of those people at all; she was just attempting to be pragmatic I believe.
If you look at the economic rules and regulations put in place since the Moralistic Majority helped put Reagan over the top in 1980, I think that you’ll see a lot of b.s. about ‘Christian beliefs’ that were mostly smoke and mirrors.
There are finally evangelical leaders (Jim Wallis, Rick Warren) saying frankly that things are upside-down. That’s a good thing.
For someone like myself, watching that Prop 8 mess unfold was shocking. It really did drive home the fact that sexuality is still used as a divider, and that people are treated unfairly. But more conflict isn’t, IMHO, going to solve that problem.
What I see solving it — or, more frankly, DISSolving it (in the sense of a solvent) — are more one-on-one interactions between people they know and trust. Back ten years ago, I’d have bitten my tongue on this topic. At this point, I kind of ‘draw the line’ and point out that if we want a decent society, we need to support the ways in which people care for one another, and that includes marriage and/or civil unions.
It may take another few years, but I do see attitudes changing; it’s just that people need to see that it’s not a threat to them, and they need to understand that their willingness to support committed relationships benefits them in the long term. Once they ‘get’ that, they start to turn around.
It takes time, but I do believe that it’s happening.
I found your comment really helpful.
A friend pointed out some years back that ministers are often among the first people to sense when the economy will go south; the collections dry up and people want to ‘hang around’ and talk with them over coffee at odd times. One of the strengths of Alex Gibney’s movie about Enron “The Smartest Guys in the Room” is that it begins by interviewing a minister in Houston from a church quite close to Enron headquarters, and he has some very insightful things to say about society — and particularly about the human cost of Enron’s deceptions.
We are all in the same boat, and wow, do we need to be clear about that fact.
FWIW, what an incredible impact on the world Steve Jobs has had. If I had my life to live over, I’d have moved to SF in the early 1980s.
I’m back after several hours trying to pack for a trip to the mainland tomorrow. I want to make clear that I’m not defending this particular expression of the ritual, but rather I am indeed defending the ritual itself. If you want to take an anti-ritual stance, that is your right.
For myself, I would have thought that if he wanted to pick an evangelical, he would have done better to pick Jim Wallis, who is a known bridge builder, and best-selling author (How the Right gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn’t Get It), although you might not agree with the “Left not getting it” part.
Sorry, I don’t have time for extended debate tonight. I’ve got stuff to pack.
Bob in HI
bmaz, thank you.
This really should be the discussion. It is really the basis for the incorporation of anti-gay bigotry in the laws of our nation.
I could live without the preachers. I would rather have Arlo Guthrie get up and sing his father’s This Land is My Land.
There is no need for the prayers at the actual inauguration. The separate, private prayer breakfast is a much more appropriate forum. Since this is the fifth one they’ve put on, it looks like the private breakfast started with Clinton’s first term.
Had a heated exchange with one of my LGBT peeps tonight about this matter; he’s going on about sell-outs, that it’s not enough to have an openly gay person appointed to a position or that the first openly gay group will participate in the parade.
But he couldn’t answer two questions:
– do you remember who gave the last 3 inaugural invocations?
– how many Asians have been appointed so far?
Okay, he could answer the first one — he didn’t remember. That’s because at best this role should be but a faint footnote in history.
As for Asians, he couldn’t even name Shinseki, because that’s not part of his consciousness, he’s not aware of it (that’s white man’s social capital at work — present even if you’re white-male-gay).
Pointed out that no Buddhist or Hindu was asked to participate in the invocation, either. Not like there aren’t a few of those folks in the world, you know?
Somebody’s going to get their shirt in a bunch and their panties knotted up, no matter what; if somebody’s not torqued off, somebody else will be. In this respect it will be fair.
And unfortunately, tradition will win out over the Constitution at the same time.
If individuals wish to consider religion vis a vis their government, that is most excellent, but it should be and by individual choice only. God is not for a nation to possess, nor claim the mantle of; that is the province of the individuals in the nation to do, or not do, on their own.
Yes, that is my understanding of democracy, of what separation of state and church in democracies has meant since at least the C17. In theory.
We haven’t been very good at getting that idea across to citizens, though.
Most Europeans, even in countries that have established churches, get the problem and are puzzled by the confessional pretzel-knots that U.S. political candidates twist themselves into when interviewers ask stupid questions about their private lives and beliefs. Has it ever occurred to a presidential candidate to tell one of those interviewers just to bug off on the personal stuff?
In my country, this stuff used to be beyond the pale, but as you probably know, we are saturated with American media, so the confessional culture is creeping in here too. We used to be too uptight for public nonsense over religion or sex, although we do have at least some of both here. The ground is shifting, though, and it would be so encouraging to see someone stand up against that shift.
To me, confessional rhetoric is egocentric and shameful. I was raised on the story of the Pharisee and the publican praying in the temple, the Pharisee proclaiming his virtue loudly in public, the publican whispering quietly in a corner, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” Christ was with the publican, and so am I.
Obama has failed us all — and by us all, I mean internationally — by choosing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation, by persisting with that mindless argument about being inclusive … of just about anything?
Beyond that, though, it is a puzzle that one of the first modern republics has not been able to come to terms with one of its founding principles, and the rest of us haven’t either.
This is a very astute observation. We have never really succeeded in separating church and state, but this pre-dates Disney by a long shot. We have a long history of populist religious fervor that spills over into the public sphere and I don’t see it ending soon.
I know what Bob means about the ritual. When I was a kid one of the preachers (it rotated) would usually offer a prayer at public functions of various sorts. As far as I can remember no one got particularly bothered by it, but it was a small town and the preachers/priest had the good sense to keep it short and generic, nothing to insinuate the inferiority of those not belonging to their particular flock.
It seems though in recent years, the belligerence and hatefulness of the religious right towards those of other (if any at all) faiths has taken all the charm out of such blessings. If not having to suffer a bigoted windbag like Warren means giving up a familiar ritual that I have always enjoyed, so be it. I am willing to make that change if that is what it takes for us to continue to strive towards a more perfect union.
I don’t read main page of “mothership” (or the other one either), but can imagine what’s being said. I loathe the religious right, think their hypocracy… not to mention damage to US consciousness in general, is disastrous. I was brought up Catholic, altar boy/lector/”youth mass” (eg: guitar music) director… spent 1st 2 years of HS in seminary, left it after concluding their religious dogma was gobbledy-gook.
Spent a lot of (as in 5 yrs of my life in my early 30’s) studying every scripture, every original manuscript and linguistics of original languages… all of it. In short, my realization that whatever ideals these groups held up, their achieving them was vapid. I wanted to get better… morally, mentally, every which way. My religious experiences, I determined finally, were not useful in this endeavor.
Finally came to determination (w/my family: wife, 2 young boys) it was a waste of time. Left organized religion completely in ‘89, never looked back. The way I see it, I’ve got limited amount of time here… less than 100 trips around the sun. The (Catholic) church took 1900+ yrs to decide that Mass should be conducted in an intelligible language. Same to turn their most cherished “sacrament” (consecration) around so the “brethren” could actually see it happening. Still no women allowed in top level ministry. And don’t get me started on pedophile priests…
Evangelicals just as far off course AFAIC, but in different ways.
So in my determination I just can’t afford to sit around and wait for these guys to move things forward. As much enlightenment as I’ve been able to achieve, as much effectiveness in life… it’s all come after I crossed the starting line leaving most of those folks right where I was 20 years ago.
I’ve been to top of the ladder in achievement several times, had knees cut off and hard to start over. Every time up & down the ladder, I see all those same folks in exactly the same place. How sad.
I’m hugely disappointed in BO… I think he’s entirely missed biggest opportunity I’ve seen in my life time to really change things from a political position, and do so the right way. I feel his “change” mantra snookered me. My expectations have dwindled very low… I’ve said my piece elsewhere here on EW, so I’ll leave it at that.
The one thing that caught my attention in a big way… a flicker of light if you will, was Obama’s interview w/O’Reily and participation in the 2 evangelical conferances. Both were actions I thought he was nuts to participate in… why confab w/the enemy, or “throw your pearls before swine”?
Thing is, at all 3 events but O’Reilly in particular, he very much surprised me. Obama said his piece plainly… he stated his views clearly, no doubt about what he said. He also didn’t argue, didn’t make those guys wrong or rage about pushing ‘em out of policy… didn’t do any of that, just said his piece and let the others say theirs.
O’Reilly has since shut up giving BO a hard time, in fact I’ve seen Bill acknowledge him several times. Same for a number of these evangelical preachers. In short, it was my view Obama had a way & a purpose that diffused the hot point in a way that let more pressing needs, more important issues, just pop up.
If Obama can create a place for these guys to participate in what needs to be done, and do so w/out trying to cut his throat, AFAIC that’s a net plus. If he can get these guys and their groups to begin actively discussing some of pressing issues in more constructive way… even bigger plus. If O’Reilly puts out Obama initiatives in non-critical manner, that’s a lot of FOX viewers w/something different to think about.
I’ve seen some signs this is already happening, on a number of fronts.
So I’m not sure about this… just a couple glimmers that very much caught my attention but certainly I have not adopted as recognition of core BO traits. Only glimmers, only hints. But frankly, it is only this that keeps me paying attention, that gives me a bit of “hope”.
I’ll have to wait and see.
None of this, BTW, is how I’d want to see things done. I’d throw away 90% of his cabinet appointees, rewind a month and start speaking pointedly to what’s wrong and how we got here… create a divide so clear that current crop of libertarian/conservatives, who’ve squandered so much, could never cross w/out massive publicly evident purge and reconstitution.
Never the less, If BO can demonstrate these abilities in his communications and admin functioning, I can see ways that things could change in a big way. And when it’s all said and done, we’re all in this together.
…
In my life, I’ve only met a handful of really great communicators… people who can light up a room and truly set of a spark in people that turns some lights on. This ability has fascinated me for some years now, I look very hard for it. I’ve come to believe, and in fact (for me anyway) identify and practice principles that separate these people from the rest. At the core of it is an ability to acknowledge people. And as I’ve seen it, that means a whole lot more than words. It means a clean, authentic, sincere “I get it” of the person in front of you, and the absence of unstated desires to really make ‘em wrong.
Under these conditions, I have seen many times that a lot of folks will just show up.
Bucky Fuller was one. Steve Jobs another… in a really big way.
I’m a programmer. After Jobs got booted from Apple the 1st time, he started a company called NEXT in early 90s. They produced both computers (servers) but more importantly software development tools. NEXT development tools were quantum leaps… provided ways to build very sophisticated, fast, reliable corporate software systems fast. There was nothing else even close. One guy could do in several days what a team couldn’t accomplish in 6 months. NEXTSTEP development tools were that good.
I was living in SF Bay Area, Jobs did NEXT events all over all the time. I went to every one I knew of, got to the point I’d drop anything to attend. He lit up the room everytime, massively energized people. It was really something. The thing was, when he turned the stage over to others… his technologists, or specialists in this or that, the room always died, the energy disappeared.
Same circumstances, same logistics in the room, same possibilities… but Jobs was the only one who could turn people on.
A few others come to mink… I think both J/RFK had it as well. Werner Erhard for sure. Emerson. A couple preachers I knew over the years.
There was/is something the audience(s) of these people had in common: they were diverse… groups that would not normally co-mingle much less enthusiastically participate together. For me, this kind of stuff is special… really special.
So anyway, apologies for being verbose, but sometimes it seems I need to say a lot to try and get a point across in meaningful fashion.
When you use the term: inclusive, what I’ve tried to explain is something (in my view) more fundamental… phenomena where special people don’t just include others, but have a radiant clarity & wisdom that goes beyond that, light people up.
So again, I’ve seen hints that this may be there inside of Obama. His oratory skills beyond question, but persuading… truly communicating in a way that moves people forward in the right way… I’m hoping.
Or maybe I’m just delusional after 8 yrs of Bush crime spree.
But if indeed this is the case, that Obama’s got that something special, we’ll all benefit… society will benefit. And if it’s not the case, when it’s all said and done Warren’s brief little time in the limelight won’t matter so much, if at all.
‘Cause given mess we’ve been left with, if Obama doesn’t do special things AFAIC, at least as far as a healthy society goes, we’re pretty much fucked.
Thanks for writing that, jdmckay. I really liked reading it, and I know some of what you’re saying.
I also really hope that there may be something of what you describe in Obama. Millions of people in the world do. But what I care about most is democracy, at least when we’re talking public politics. (I’m also a person of faith, but I don’t do the public breast-beating number.)
And to me, on that turf, it just is not good enough to say “I’m going to be president for all the people.” Well, sure, ok — that’s 50 per cent. But he left out the part that really counts: “the people of a democracy.”
Democracy doesn’t just mean voting, full stop. There are a whole set of principles and structures absolutely necessary to building democracy, and sloppy usage about being “inclusive” doesn’t cut it in the face of hard principle like the constitution or the Bill of Rights.
It has unsettled me srsly that a political leader who I thought might start to lead many populations back to that deeper understanding seems to have given it up for what to me is Disneythink.
Way OT, and I should probably save this for the trash talk thread, but it’s good to see that Alan Page is still playing great defence in Minnesota.
Great opinion from Alan Page. Notre Dame, I believe.
Good thing the Minnesotans didn’t elect Wrong Way Jim Marshall to the Supreme Court….
And that is a decent chunk of my point here. It is not logistically feasible to be literally inclusive of all faiths and beliefs; but, by being selectively “inclusive” of one or a few, you are, by definition, excluding the many.
Include everybody by having no religious component.
It would be nice to think that we could see such good common sense in our lifetimes, but …
I think the problem is that North Americans have fallen for sanctimony and sentimentalism so hard, and I don’t know why that happened. Disney?
I’ve gotten to the point that I just about hate religion. All of it. All it does is tear societies apart.
I really like this idea bmaz. But I would modify it slightly… As I understand it there are several performers and whatnot, how ’bout we READ the Constitution at the inauguration? Dust it off a bit, remind people who we are as a nation… We don’t need to read it all at once, break into into parts with music in between. Now that would be an inauguration I could get behind…
Outstanding idea.
I agree, America already has too much hypocritical bible-thumbing in our political process.
All the same, Obama’s inclusion of Warren is brilliant politics – a classic Obama move. BO is a pragmatist. We haven’t seen someone play at this level for a long, long time.
OT: I’m done for the day, but just saw that Waxman has released a very interesting memo about the lies in Bush’s State of the Union speech before the Iraq War.
I have a dumb question . . . one bit of web lingo I don’t get is the use of the work “Teh” . . . can anyone help me?
Not all of it, just the parts that get the press. Martin Luther King was a preacher, and Reverend, ya’ know. There are liberals who practice religion, some of them pretty seriously. But bomb-throwers like Falwell and now his successors get all the press.
I hope the final amen, awoman, is followed with, “Ladies and gents, start your engines.” This is gonna be a F1 administration.
There is a line in the Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur liturgy on how G-d “gives sovereignty to kings but retains kingship”. That would be a reason for the invocation: that the president is not going to be successful all on his own, and that whatever authority he has is a gift. But I cannot say that I would care if there wasn’t one.
That’s lovely.
I’m saying ‘hear! hear!’ as I watch the remarkable, thoughtful, articulate Elizabeth Warren talk with Rachel Maddow: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..6#28304509
Impressive.
If skdadl is still around, I read Jane Mayer’s interview with Maher Arar. Very heartbreaking.
Hi, 4jkb4ia — where did you read that interview? I know Mayer’s article from 2005, but has she written another piece about Arar recently? I’m looking but I’m not finding.
What makes Arar’s story even worse is that it is one of hundreds, and we know it only because, unlike most of the other victims, he actually found some justice. He was pulled out of captivity and brought home, and enough other people spoke out for him that investigations were done, compensation was paid, and legal action continues. It’s important and inspiring that we do that, but I’m sure Arar (who is such a fine young man) would be the first to worry about all the other disappeareds whose names and fates we don’t know.
Merry holidays to Mr Delahunt, Mr Nadler, and the other congresscritturs who have taken up Arar’s cause.
Can we insure this thread is preserved for posterity?
understatement of the year
So he claims. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. But we see how he puts that claim into practice.
This is the point I wish more people were making. Whether its Warren or Billy Graham, these people shouldn’t have official roles in ceremonies like inaugurations.
Didn’t someone call it the “opiate of the masses”?
All I see is a bunch of heathens tryin’ to claim the moral high ground.
There is some good in most religions, but virtually all get hijacked by those trying to justify their own selfish actions.
My mother was set up to be one of the first female leading elders of the Presbyterian Church when my parents received death threats. Whole lotta’ love there.
I say: If you need to live in the magical world, have fun; I’m stuck here dealing with the real world.
Now all that being said: I find the ideas and their history in the “christian” bible fascinating (only by relative ignorance of most of the others). An “eye for an eye” as a plea for moderation in punishment; “turn the other cheek” as a passive aggressive technique to defuse an aggressive situation; “love thy enemy” as the key to just plain getting along (and probably solving most of the worlds problems).
Back in the real world, rather than start controversy, I just bow my head while some idiot speaks in faux 17th century English dialect and think to myself “fucking morons”.
Wow, my first real rant here! I feel much better now.
I think I’ll see if I can find any Wendy-O-Williams and the Plasmatics on Youtube (don’t tell me bmaz..she goes to your church, right?)
Shorter: Name ONE thing that can’t be done easier or better without religion. Excluding hypocrisy. Cartoon fanatasies (unsupported by facts) about how things actually happen don’t count. Just the facts, ma’am. PLEASE.
Humble opinions really aren’t, which is why I don’t have any. They’re like religion, public piety masquerading as humility, but really just a simple-minded grab for attention.
bmaz: of course, you’re stepping right into a unsolvable paradox. For example, under your policy, would you argue that just about anyone _can_ speak at an inauguration _except_ a religious figure?
I find it neither paradoxical nor unsolvable. And I do not for one second say that religious figures cannot speak at the inauguration; that would be unconstitutionally discriminatory and I would never suggest such a thing. I just believe their message when speaking at an official inauguration should be neutral and secular, and that any speech with religious overtones, or that invokes God or religious precepts, should be saved for ancillary private functions.
What about prayers in Congress? We had our first Hindu prayer and the wingnuts went bzerk.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..he-senate/
Were they ever charged? BTW the teh question is still on the table.
Legal minds respond to landmark 9/11 civil suit against Rumsfeld, Cheney
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._1218.html
I’m with bmaz!
Historically speaking, One of the Main Reasons Our Government even exists is to guarantee each of US the Freedom to Choose Our Own Religious Views.
Our Founders fought and died to make certain that State Religion was expressly prohibited in the US Constitution.
Our Country was Created by People who eschewed the Invasive and Warping Influence of State-Sponsored Religious Ideology as an Alienating Oppression of One of Our Greatest Inalienable Rights – the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – as Each of US would define it for Ourselves.
And, so, Our Founders crafted a beautifully made instrument – one that takes into account the human tendency towards Despotism and balances three co-equal branches of Government to Guarantee Individual Safety, Security and Freedom for All.
We should be Loath to ignore the warnings of the Founders. They plastered labels all over the Constitution saying: “If You Want Freedom of Body and Mind – if you want to be Free to be ‘Free’ – then Keep Religion Out of Government!”
Much of the looming struggle with the Ideological Right over Social Control stems from Their Misperception that Our Country is a Christian Nation – it gives them a sense of Entitlement to Impose Their Religious Beliefs on US as the standard for Social Behavior in Our America.
We need to do everything possible to Separate Church and State with clear, bright lines – and Know that the tendency will Always be for Institutional Religion to come creeping back into the picture like kudzu.
If We’re going to have Ceremonial Religion as a part of Public Governmental Ritual, imvho, then those Ceremonies should Make Expressly Clear, and Strongly Re-affirm, Our Committment to Freedom of Religion, and in no way give the Misimpression that We endorse any Religion over another, just the Freedom for Each of US to Choose Our Religion for Ourselves.
That’s the Problem with Warren. “America’s Preacher” looks like an Endorsement of Institutional Christianity as State Religion – made all the worse by Warren’s Divisive Public Hate-Mongering against his fellow Citizens because We don’t Conform to the Social Order of his Religious Views.
Obama may ’say’ that Warren is at the Inaugural to Celebrate Our Diversity, but the Rest of US are hearing the Shouts of the Founders to Watch Out!
Very nice statement RFW.
What bmaz said.
Really well done rfw!
WOW! What an awesome presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PIEGK0IbA4&e
BMAZ, I’m with you on this one. I think keeping religion out of all government events/activities would be better.
Msnbc:
and then?
Websters Dict. Religion: The BODY of PERSONS adhering to a particular set of BELIEFS and PRACTICES. Just one of many meanings for religion. We take religion out of everything, we become zombies. There would be no straight men or women, gays, raciest, politics, teachers, pro players, etc, etc, etc. Oh yeah there would be no human life. HMMM
Who really cares if Rick Warren(yawn-what a BORE)speaks at the inauguration. That’s all he is doing…speaking. HE may think its prayer-YOU may think its prayer-Obama may. I sure don’t. In my eyes Warren is a bit of a right wing fundamentalist nut job, but SO WHAT. He can’t ‘pray’ for me if I don’t allow it. He’s free to speak and unfortunately he represents the views of millions of Americans. If he, and his followers, are labeled as fanatical bigots by people more aligned with the ‘left’, and therefore not fit to address the Nation isn’t that a form of bigotry in itself?
The way I see it, Obama is simply fulfilling his promise to be The President to ALL Americans. We all need to re-think our reactions to other points of view. I in no way align myself with Warren’s, and I agree that he IS guilty of having narrow bigoted points of view… But I would much rather choose to ignore what I don’t like about what he has to say than to be offended. I understand why gays and lesbians don’t like his opinions-but to be offended is a means of validating his claims; that your life-style needs to be somehow defended. You don’t have to defend your right to your life-style, your opinions, your choices, your humanity. You own those and his words are vapor.
Sure it all sounds like idealistic hooey-but maybe one by one we can all stop being offended and labeling others and hating and fighting. Is there a future for us if we don’t? It doesn’t matter who started it, who’s more offensive, who’s a bigot or an abomination. Those are all based on subjective opinion-lets stop wasting our energy fighting. There is a higher purpose for humanity somewhere, that is the nature of Evolution!
Agreed. And I think it was James Madison who coined the phrase “wall of separation” between state and religion.
OTOH . . . naive question (I really don’t know the answer to this) — when did invocations of this manner start? (Obviously, if they were around in Madison’s time, and he wasn’t objecting to them, then . . . . . )
Websters Dict. Religion: The BODY of PERSONS adhering to a particular set of BELIEFS and PRACTICES. Just one of many meanings for religion. We take religion out of everything, we become zombies. There would be no straight men or women, gays, raciest, politics, teachers, pro players, etc, etc, etc. Oh yeah there would be no human life. HMMM
Religion can be anything that u practice.
Baloney can be anything you spew.
I didn’t write the dictionary.
I’m not on here to bash anybody. But I have read in some of the post on here about love and hatred, don’t be judging, how religion has hatred towards the gay and lesbian community.
I don’t agree with Rev. Warren teachings, once saved always saved, or the closer you are to God the more you will have. No where is it biblical. Another words there is no scripture for that. (Same as Darwins theory. There is no basis or facts on evolution. Science cannot prove it. ITS A THEORY.) It is T.V. evangelist like him and others that give the Kingdom of God a bad rep.
When the charismatic churches can grow a church in todays society over night, running at least a 1000 or more, their teachings are wrong. Nowadays people go to church to hear a feel me good service, not to hear the truth. People don’t want to hear the truth. Now we are being judgmental when we start to speak the truth or we are haters. (If you go to church, and the church teaches just come as you are that God don’t care, you better find you another church. He or she is leaving some scriptures out somewhere or he/she is trying to get your tithing and offering money.) Not just towards gay’s, but also to people that cuss, drink, prostitution, smoke, etc, etc, etc.
Now am I better than everyone else cause I try to live a Godly life. No!!
I die daily. Nother words I repent daily. If I don’t I can and will fall out of the grace of God. I am not immune to the things of this world.
It seems to me that the gay and lesbian communities has just as much hatred towards the churchs, as the churchs do towards the gay and lesbian community. (I don’t believe the church have hatred towards them, we just don’t agree with the lifestyle just as the gay and lesbian community don’t agree with the church lifestyle) I say that to say this: The gay and lesbian community expects us to except them as they are, then why do they not except the Christians for who they are.
This is not a Rodney King thing, Can we all just get along. People are different in every facet of life. Nor are we made to get along. People are different.
We can all get along just fine….with religion excised from our government. As you so eloquently note, and in a way prove, god is each person’s internal concept, and more power to each person for that. However, it has no place in official governance not its trappings.
So, by removing religion from all governmental functions and acts, we would be assisting to “all just get along”. This argument here would be solved immediately just as one example. There are so many others that would be similarly solved too.
Its humanly impossible to get along, even in the animal kingdom, there is always a battle for supremacy. Look up the definition of Religion. Without Religion there is no government. If you practice it, its a religion. I didn’t write the dictionary as I said before.
Either way someone is gonna be offended by religion. Whether God is involved or not. Lets face it, what it all boils down to is Big Brother telling us what we can and cannot do.
Barack O. is gonna be a let down for a lot of people. It has already started with the gov. of Ill. Just like in the Clinton pres. ALOT OF DRAMA.