On January 20, Barack Obama will become the new president of the United States, but the upcoming inauguration is already making headlines. Scheduled to give the invocation speech is evangelical minister Rick Warren, whose comments comparing gay marriage to incest and beastiality have made him a highly controversial figure. Will Obama's choice to ring in the new year unite America, or further fracture an already divided country?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should Obama have Picked Rick Warren for Inauguration?
On Unity
It has seemed to me for a while now that Obama is taking a page from the Lincoln rulebook in taking actions that unite enemies rather than to perpetuate their divisions. I think a great many agree, if Obama absolutely had to pick a Christian to insert into an official government function, Rick Warren is probably not a shining example of the alleged "religion of love and peace" that is Christianity. Nevertheless, I believe it is Mr. Warren's controversial views that argue his selection for this role. Perhaps he will be a statement that, although we Americans disagree about much among ourselves, in the least, we all stand united in our feelings about liberty for the all - our highest value.
In any event, the trappings of religion do not belong in this event in any official capacity. There is no harm in Barack Obama mentioning his "god" or even for others there to bow their head in prayer if they wish, however, rather than swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States with one's hand resting on a divisive document such as the christian bible is a contradictory message. Far better is it to swear on the Constitution which is the supreme law of our nation - not the christian bible, not the christian god, not christian principles or laws.
Those who are genuinely mature enough to fill leadership roles, at least in the United States, more than likely realize that one's language and actions must avoid showing preference for or denigraton of any set of values or practices other than those supreme American values of inalienable individual rights and mutually guaranteed liberty to exercise them. We ought surely to recognize that most americans practice some religion or another and the value that are those practices, however, our language and actions must remain purely representative of ALL peoples of the United States regardless of their other values, their other beliefs, their other practices. We are not united in our religions but we ARE united in our value of liberty for all. Our government officials ought always in their official duties and responsibilities express unity and refrain from official insertions of divisive viewpoints. I doubt seriously that Rick Warren's selection is in recognition of religion in general or even of a specific religion. That would be an act of division in light of the fact that "god" belief isn't universal among Americans who wish to be united. No, I believe his selection is to send a message of unity which is a right message to send for a President who hopes to undo eight years of growing division.
- Naumadd
December 31, 2008 6:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Undecided
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.