|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 12/19/2008 : 15:05:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Perhaps this is Obama throwing a little something to the fundies to make them not feel so left out.
|
Then it will backfire. Most of the fundies you talk about do not like Rick Warren anyway. His teaching (in Purpose driven Life) is not biblical. Also, why would a Christian do this for a pro choice canidate? I wonder if he gets to say anything he wants or will Obama look at his words ahead of time. Maybe if he can preach the Gospel, it might be a good idea. But I doubt he will be allowed to. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2008 : 15:32:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
But Dude-- given the huge number of those who are religiously insane in this country, doesn't a change-oriented, uniter-type guy need to at least early on do some pandering? |
I'm not sure I follow. Refusing to pander to the religiously insane any longer would be consistent with Obama's promises of change. In my opinion, this notion of "inclusion" doesn't jive with including someone who makes a living by promoting bigotry and oppression on divisive religious grounds, anymore than the virtue of "tolerance" means blindly accepting the intolerant. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Obama could have picked any number of moderate religious voices to preside at his inauguration. He didn't, and that's not okay.
I'll repeat Posner's conclusion again: "[This] outreach now has come at the expense of other people's comfort and inclusion."
Obama isn't "uniting" anybody with this choice. He's creating an unnecessary division.
I mean, otherwise he's left looking like Dear Leader who, in true asshole fashion, went far-right-fundie about 30 seconds into his "I'm a uniter"/"compassionate conservatism" first term.
|
Except Obama has portrayed himself as a religious moderate from the beginning. This pick would seem to go against that position, or in other words doing exactly what Bush did. Remember, this is the man who said before the election: | In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that. |
Still, he does speak favorably of Warren and his work combating AIDS in that same speech, so perhaps this shouldn't come as a total shock.
Maybe Obama won't end up being very different from Bush II. Maybe we were all duped into thinking Obama represented progressive thinking and real change. Maybe the agents of intolerance still have their man in the Oval office after all. I just don't think any of us who fight against religious extremists like Warren can afford to turn a blind eye any longer. This is a major setback and a grave omen of things to come.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/19/2008 15:36:16 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2008 : 15:35:00 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: | Then it will backfire. Most of the fundies you talk about do not like Rick Warren anyway. His teaching (in Purpose driven Life) is not biblical. |
I've read the Bible and I've read a bit about the Bible written by Bible scholars, and I can say that as a pretty intelligent person of 30 years, I have no idea what would be a most correct, literal, honest, or true reading of the Bible. And I'm pretty confident in saying that you don't either.
| Also, why would a Christian do this for a pro choice canidate? |
This is a weird question to ask considering that the invocation has no impact what-so-ever on our government's policy on abortion. So why would Rick Warren or any other person asked to give the invocation care what Obama's stance on that particular issue is?
Also, plenty of Christians are in favor of legal abortion, in at least some forms and under at least some circumstances. In fact, many Protestant Evangelicals supported Roe v. Wade when the decision was made, including the Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/blumenthal
| By 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe, the antiabortion movement was almost exclusively Catholic. While various Catholic cardinals condemned the Court's ruling, W.A. Criswell, the fundamentalist former president of America's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, casually endorsed it. (Falwell, an independent Baptist for forty years, joined the SBC in 1996.) "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," Criswell exclaimed, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed." A year before Roe, the SBC had resolved to press for legislation allowing for abortion in limited cases. |
| Maybe if he can preach the Gospel, it might be a good idea. But I doubt he will be allowed to. |
How would preaching the Gospel be even remotely appropriate at this event? He's not being asked to do a sermon, he's being asked to do an invocation. He's not among his own private congregation; he's speaking before the whole, diverse population of the United States. This isn't a church service, it's the inauguration of the leader of a nation. You don't give Rick Warren enough credit. He doesn't need to be micro-managed by Obama or his staff. I'm sure Warren knows well enough not to fart when asked to sing.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/19/2008 15:36:23 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2008 : 15:50:41 [Permalink]
|
Alan Colmes posted his opinion on this subject in his blog: http://www.alan.com/2008/12/18/obama-and-rick-warren-good/ Liberals are upset that Barack Obama is having Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration. I disagree with Rick on a number of issues, but he is one of the few evangelicals who stresses issues like poverty and the environment. I empathize with gay rights advocates (and I consider myself one of them) who are disturbed by this choice, but it shows a willingness on the part of Obama to reach out and include divergent views.
We are coming out of an administration where there was a “my way or the highway” attitude. It's refreshing that this will not be the case going forward. |
I see his point. Just as I think it is inappropriate for Robb to question how Warren could agree to do the invocation since Obama is Pro-Choice, I think it is inappropriate for people to insist that Warren is such a terrible or divisive choice because of his stance on gay marriage.
The fact of the matter is that the invocation at the inauguration isn't setting any policy, and Rick Warren isn't going to bring up any of those divisive issues when he gives his invocation. To demonize the man based on some issues is to strip away his complexity as a human being and popular leader among many Americans. Warren is clearly fundamentalist and socially conservative, but he is is popular for putting greater emphasis on uniting issues, such as combating poverty and climate change, and it is pretty clear that that is why Obama picked him.
How do we decide what issues are most important? How do we decide what stances are totally unacceptable? Should Obama have just picked some quiet clergy who isn't popular or opinionated and so wouldn't cause any controversy? I think picking Warren makes us ask some important questions about many topics and issues.
Of course I still think there shouldn't be an invocation in the first place. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/19/2008 15:52:34 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2008 : 16:47:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Perhaps this is Obama throwing a little something to the fundies to make them not feel so left out.
|
Then it will backfire. Most of the fundies you talk about do not like Rick Warren anyway. |
How so?
His teaching (in Purpose driven Life) is not biblical. |
In your opinion. My question is, how many share your view of that? Indeed, I'd be interested in what the difference is between "Purpose driven Life" (what does that mean anyway?) and your view of what is biblical.
Also, why would a Christian do this for a pro choice candidate? |
Why wouldn't he?
Why should I even talk to a pro-lifer?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2008 : 20:46:23 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| . To demonize the man based on some issues is to strip away his complexity as a human being |
No, not really. A bigot is still a bigot, even if they give millions of dollars and loads of time to fight poverty and AIDS. If that person says atheists, because they are atheists, are automatically unqualified for any public office(or any number of hateful things he has said about various minority groups), then his bigotry is his defining character trait. It overshadows anything else he might do.
| How do we decide what issues are most important? How do we decide what stances are totally unacceptable? |
You ask that as if its some difficult question to answer, as if it presents some legitimate quandry for you. I hope you are kidding.
Issues of freedom and equality are the most important, because all of our essential rights as human beings (assuming you agree that we have some basic rights) stem from those two things.
People who are advocates for discrimination, who support laws designed to discriminate, are enemies of the most basic rights we have.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2008 : 20:59:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Should Obama have just picked some quiet clergy who isn't popular or opinionated and so wouldn't cause any controversy? |
Why couldn't he have picked someone popular and less controversial? Yes, why exactly is that so much to ask?
A Mr. Paul Williford had this suggestion in a web letter to The Nation:
The obvious choice for the invocation would have been Jim Wallis, the most visible face of progressive evangelicalism, founder of Sojourners and author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It and The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post–Religious Right America.
Wallis is a strong voice who believes that addressing poverty is one of the central issues of our time, particularly for those of us who call ourselves Christians. |
Found in a comment in a thread on this same topic left over at Panda's Thumb. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 14:13:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
To demonize the man based on some issues is to strip away his complexity as a human being...
|
True, but the trend is toward polarization. You must have the correct views on every issue or you must be demonized, there is no middle ground. Acknowledging that a person might do good in some ways despite being wrong in other ways is just too complex for modern political discourse. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 14:26:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
True, but the trend is toward polarization. You must have the correct views on every issue or you must be demonized, there is no middle ground. Acknowledging that a person might do good in some ways despite being wrong in other ways is just too complex for modern political discourse.
|
Yep, because there is a middle ground on every issue. When one group wants to extend basic rights to a group of Americans, and another group opposes such efforts, then clearly both groups are equally wrong and picking sides is evidence of simplistic thinking. We should always teach the controversy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 20:47:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Mycroft
True, but the trend is toward polarization. You must have the correct views on every issue or you must be demonized, there is no middle ground. Acknowledging that a person might do good in some ways despite being wrong in other ways is just too complex for modern political discourse.
|
Yep, because there is a middle ground on every issue. When one group wants to extend basic rights to a group of Americans, and another group opposes such efforts, then clearly both groups are equally wrong and picking sides is evidence of simplistic thinking. We should always teach the controversy.
|
You seem to believe I've said something different from what I did say. Nowhere do I claim there is middle ground on every issue, or even the one issue. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 04:16:58 [Permalink]
|
I don't see the Warren choice as all that big a deal, and certainly not worth the R & H (rhetoric & hyperbole) that's it's inspired. What the hell is an invocation, anyway? It's no more that some religious guy getting up and running his pious mouth for a few minutes, then shutting his yap (hopefully) and sitting back down. What he has to say is meaningless and will be forgotten soon enough, the American short-term memory being what it is.
I really don't care who gives it -- stuff a Bible in Michael Moore's or Rush Limbaugh's hands and make one of them do it; it'll amount to the same, damned thing.
Tempest in a teapot.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/23/2008 07:31:30 |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 13:25:31 [Permalink]
|
I'd be happy to deliver an invocation. Being both a Rabbi of the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic and a minister of the Church of the SubGenius, I've got the paper qualifications. I've even got a text prepared:
*Ahem* Now, just in case there are any invisible, undetectable supernatural beings watching the proceedings, I'd like to address a few words to them:
Don't freak out!
If you'll just have the good sense to remain invisible and undetectable everything will work out just fine. After all, the whole "invisible and undetectable" schtick has been a winner for all of human history, and if we're smart enough not to bother nagging you about a bunch of shit that we really ought to be dealing with ourselves, so much the easier for you, eh?
So, just crack open a cold one, relax and enjoy the festivities.
What's that? The Inaugural Committee doesn't think that's good enough?
No problem, I've got an emergency backup right here...
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 13:28:24 [Permalink]
|
I'd be happy to deliver an invocation. Being both a Rabbi of the Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic and a minister of the Church of the SubGenius, I've got the paper qualifications. I've even got a text prepared:
*Ahem* Now, just in case there are any invisible, undetectable supernatural beings watching the proceedings, I'd like to address a few words to them:
Don't freak out!
If you'll just have the good sense to remain invisible and undetectable everything will work out just fine. After all, the whole "invisible and undetectable" schtick has been a winner for all of human history, and if we're smart enough not to bother nagging you about a bunch of shit that we really ought to be dealing with ourselves, so much the easier for you, eh?
So, just crack open a cold one, relax and enjoy the festivities.
What's that? The Inaugural Committee doesn't think that's good enough?
No problem, I've got an emergency backup right here...
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 14:23:24 [Permalink]
|
filthy said:
I don't see the Warren choice as all that big a deal, and certainly not worth the R & H (rhetoric & hyperbole) that's it's inspired. What the hell is an invocation, anyway? It's no more that some religious guy getting up and running his pious mouth for a few minutes, then shutting his yap (hopefully) and sitting back down. What he has to say is meaningless and will be forgotten soon enough, the American short-term memory being what it is.
|
It gives a fundie bigot a national stage, is the problem. Its like rewarding him for being a total asshat.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Rick Warren to do invocation on January 20th?
