Experts and users discuss religion in society, obama, gay issues, obama inauguration, obama presidency: Should Obama have Picked Rick Warren for Inauguration?

Regarding Question

Should Obama have Picked Rick Warren for Inauguration?

An attempt to Balance "Force"

Obama is a politician using the "Force" of the White Christian right to validate the "Force" used by his Black friend and mentor the Rev. Wright. By picking Rev. Warren to speak from the podium on inauguration Day, Obama is leveling the playing field of Religious Force and vindicating the previous hate filled rhetoric of Rev. Wright. The hate spewed by Rev. Warren makes the White Christians no better than the hate spewed by Black Muslo-Christians led by Rev. Wright, which bring a sense of fair play and parity to the dumb and dumber of American society.

Like I said, Obama is a politician and probably the smartest one we have seen in many years. Remember he suckled at the breast of the Daily machine in Chicago and this one-upsmanship is pure Daily politics.

Perhaps Obama should consider the following excerpt from a book entitled "Power vs. Force" by Dr. David Hawkins; it may prove beneficial to him and the country.

"Politicians, operating out of expediency, rule by force after gaining their position through the force of persuasion..... Statesmen represent true power, ruling by inspiration, teaching by example, and standing for self-evident principle. Statesmen invoke the nobility that resides within all men and unifies them through what can best be termed the heart. Although the intellect is easily fooled, the heart recognizes the truth. Where the intellect is limited, the heart is unlimited; where the intellect is intrigued by the temporary, the heart is only concerned with the permanent."

Finally,consider that "Force" requires conter force to exist. "Power" simply is and stands alone in the universe. Be Powerful!

- jodantec December 31, 2008 7:22AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Just Exactly Who is The Family Research Council?
  
  I just made a long call to the Family Research Council in Washington DC, I was interested in possibly supporting them, I agree on many of the positions they claim to represent. I am setting here very disappointed, to use mild comparisons they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. For you non Christians they may be people who have hidden motives and are not who they claim to be. It is impossible to determine who or where there funding comes from. For all we know they could be funded by interests in China who wish to have much more control over the USA. The Fact is we just don’t know who the money comes from or if they have hidden motives. Do any of you know exactly who there money comes from? Please don’t use the Evangelical Council as a resource to find more on this subject, you will get only general meaningless data from them. How about it Family Research Council, give us a list of your top twenty contributors and there amounts.
  
  - Super Expert October 21, 2009 2:03PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.
Watched the entire thing

Nothing bad ever happened, just said for us to support our new president, which is not bad.

- The Other Conservative Guy January 22, 2009 9:50PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This was a balanced choice.

I don't care for Rick Warren, but V Gene Robinson was also there. So, it was a balance. The sad thing was that the television coverage did not broadcast Robinson.

- bhall June 20, 2009 12:08PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Obama Should Drop Warren and All Prayer from Inauguration

- From FFRF

Open Argument Go to this Argument

You Should Try Actually Reading Your Constitution

Even your organization's name has it all wrong... Nowhere within any of our founding documents are the phrases or concepts of "Freedom From Religion" found. Neither will you find the separation of Church and State a concept engraved upon the soul of that document or its amendments. The first amendment simply provides for those with a religious desire to exercise that freely. The actual wording states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

For once in your life take a look at that statement and read it for what it actually says, not what you hope it to say. It simply says Congress shall make no law establishing an official religion, nor shall it make any law prohibiting the practicing of any religion. Your own bias and misguided view of the document places a non-existent restraint on the ability of any government official to choose how they wish to exercise their own faith, whatever it may be, so long as they do not establish it as an official religion of the nation.

I know you as an organization are not so ignorant that you do not know the history of the phrase "separation of church and state." I can only conclude then that it is with willful malice that you seek to mislead my fellow countrymen as to the intentions of the Constitution of these United States and the Amendments thereto. You must look, in context, at the message from Jefferson the Danbury Baptists and realize that the "wall of separation" mentioned has more to do with assuring those in that religious minority that the Government would let them be and allow them to worship as they saw fit than it has to do with whether or not the Government itself was allowed, in any way, to worship or pay respects to any deity, most likely at the time to be the God of the Christians.

To prove my point I will end my rebuttal to your answer with the actual text of the letters, which show unerringly the meaning behind Jefferson's words and will hopefully clarify the subject for many of my fellow citizens of these great United States.

In an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson as sitting President to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Writing to another church, the Virginia Baptists, he wrote in 1808:

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

Clearly we can see by the actual texts of the Constitution, the First Amendment and the letters where the separation of church and state is a fallacious idea and should not be propagated any further.

I will, as a Christian and an American, always fight for the right of any Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist and any other religion to practice that religion freely, regardless of their status or station within our government, so long as they don't force me to participate with them. Which by the way, having an "Evangelical" Christian preside over an inaugural prayer is not forcing anyone to participate, simply don't listen, or listen but disagree with anything he says, the choice is yours, freely to make.

- mobilemarvel December 31, 2008 8:08AM

Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Not if you read as badly as you seem to...
  
  "Clearly we can see by the actual texts of the Constitution, the First Amendment and the letters where the separation of church and state is a fallacious idea and should not be propagated any further."
  Oh no, what we can clearly see is that you have cherry-picked the sources available to find a set of quotes that you appear to believe support your argument. While somehow managing to ignore the facts that have led to your ability to practice your faith in relative safety.
  It won't be long now, before you will find that, while you can continue to practice your "faith" in your home or church, bringing it out in the public eye will just get you laughed at.
  I will, as an atheist, always fight for your right to get laughed at, if that's what it takes for you and other wishful thinkers to get off the mythological kool-aid.
  
  - Lazareus January 16, 2009 4:00PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - On the contrary
    
    His reading skills seem fine. What we can clearly see is that you absolutely refuse to admit that you are beaten, and resort to attacking your opponent's reading level when you are. You say he cherry picked quotes, but it looks to me he has taken the quotes that you and yours have cherry picked, and given them context, and what the text giveth, the context hath taken away. If you come up with a quote, with context, that supports your claim, we'll all listen. It's the least you can do to give us the same courtesy. As for your delusional belief that "it won't be long now" before people of faith are laughed out of the public square, I must remind you that the vast majority of Americans believe in a god of some kind, and that the majority are Christians. How many Atheist Presidents have there been? It seems you are a bit mistaken as to whom is being laughed at.
    
    - richardsonkr January 17, 2009 7:01AM
    
    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.
  - Cherry Picked Quotes???
    
    Lazareus,
    There are many things I would love to say to you right now... but won't due to my self restraint. It is weird how you accuse me of cherry picking the quotes to support my position and ignoring facts yet you yourself provide no proof that my argument is wrong.
    
    I am amused at how crazy it makes you a-theists when this topic is discussed logically. It's probably because somewhere deep inside you know that this entire universe could not have just erupted out of chaos and has to have some type of creator... whether you will admit it consciously or not.
    
    Refute my argument with facts, not suppositions and lies and maybe we can talk. Otherwise go back into the ignorant, hateful hole you crawled out of.
    
    - mobilemarvel January 22, 2009 6:29PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree with mobilemarvel

You have a quote taken out of context and then modified to give yourself some sense of legitimacy in your name, and you have another out of context quote in your description. Neither of those quotes, by the way, are from the Constitution that you claim to be defending. The Establishment Clause states simply that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Nowhere does it say that they must ban religion from the public square, which would actually be unconstitutional, being as that would establish secularism as an official religion. Nowhere does it say anything about the Executive at all, or even suggest that he must keep his religion personal.

While you are correct in stating that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 makes no reference to a god or have instructions to place a hand on the Bible, (you really should capitalize that, not for any religious reasons, but being as it is a book title) it is also not forbidden, and George Washington (a Founding Father) started those traditions, and all Presidents thereafter have had the option to not carry them on, but they all have out of respect for the tradition that this country was founded on.

The First Amendment does guarantee all American citizens free exercise of religion, but the Establishment Clause absolutely does not require the President or anyone else to "be scrupulous in conscientiously seperating personal religious views from their government actions and duties," it simply forbids them from establishing a religion similar to the Church of England.

I could go on much longer, I actually have a lot to say about your "roadtrip to theocracy" comment, as well as your fallacious claim that Prop. 8 was passed solely on religious fervor, but I have to go practice for the very inauguration we are now discussing, so that will have to wait for another time.

- richardsonkr January 17, 2009 7:26AM

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.

Regarding Argument

Obama Deserves Credit for Rick Warren Pick

- From Deal Hudson

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Opposing hate is not extremism

There's nothing extremist about wanting our new president to support ALL Americans, instead of endorsing a man who is very outspoken in his hate of certain Americans.

- Blue Linchpin December 31, 2008 9:21AM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Endorsing all Americans
  
  But Rick Warren is, himself, an American, is he not? How can you hope to support ALL Americans if you refuse to endorse a man based off of his belief systems?
  
  - QuinceyQuick January 25, 2009 9:15PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Well
    
    Probably because he refuses to accept a significant portion of America as not human enough for the same rights as the rest of us.
    
    THAT'S WHY.
    
    - Blue Linchpin January 26, 2009 10:16AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - So you're telling me...
      
      ...that he should just be refused certain jobs just because he holds certain beliefs that have nothing to do with said job? Rick Warren spoke, but he wasn't standing up there after he was done saying, "Oh, by the way, gays suck lolol." Why? Because that's not part of the job description.
      
      We use the same song and dance, don't we? Discrimination against anybody based off of sexual orientation is a Title VII offense. Isn't discrimination against somebody based off of -anything irrelevant- a Title VII offense?
      
      - QuinceyQuick January 26, 2009 10:21AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Characterizing the LGBT Community as Extremists is Absurd

Religious fundamentalists have maligned, denigrated, oppressed and incessantly defamed gay and lesbian people for centuries. They are largely responsible for creating homophobic societies adverse to same sex love and affection. Their dilemma in this crusade is that intelligent educated people value civility, productivity, creativity, diversity and the common good. And consequently, they are not so easily convinced by mere belief that LGBT individuals are, as Pope Benedict XVI puts it, as a great a danger to humanity as global warming is to our environment.

The religious right's vendetta against gays and lesbians is sure to fail because there is no logic, science or common sense behind it. It only demonstrates a fanatical stubborn belief based on 1000 year old antiquated religions who's archaic dogma has long since lost its relevance in the modern world.

As a society we would be more honest people, closer to the truth if we only allowed the very best among us to speak at such auspicious events as the inauguration of President Obama. The grace of the moment in which America finally elects their first Black leader is diminished by unconscious narrow-minded pundits such as Warren. And there are most assuredly many hopeful and proud gay Americans awaiting this moment that beckons us to a future when all of humanity is respected.

- Marco January 1, 2009 6:50PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Obama should give up praying

Obama should grow up and quit praying. Prayer is just talking to the wind or asking a non-existent friend to protect you.

Anyway, prayer has no place at the inauguration of our President. The last idiot who led us claimed he prayed to God for guidance and look where it got us!

- Robert T Carroll January 7, 2009 11:31PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Not just Obama, but yes indeed!
  
  Wishful thinking of any kind has no place in our government. Praying for guidance indeed! Anyone sufficiently deluded to even try such a thing is hardly likely to make good of any guidance they get. From ANY source.
  
  - Lazareus January 16, 2009 4:05PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Idiots, indeed.
  
  Forget the past Presidents who prayed for God for guidance and led this country to temporary prosperity. Let's call upon cognitive biases and arguments of completion and say that since the last President who happened to pray to God was an "idiot", all Presidents who pray to God are idiots.
  
  - QuinceyQuick January 25, 2009 9:11PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- I'll be infantile & idiotic any day...
  
  ...if it means I'm still praying to my Lord & Savior Jesus Christ! Prayer gives me power over the enemy every day, and I've lived with the triumphs from including prayer in my life. I am disappointed in those that resort to "name calling" in order to drive their opposing views of God and religion . This behavior smells of desperation. What is not to love about a Creator that gave his only Son for all of humankind to enjoy everlasting life? God bless you all and I hope you can someday enjoy the wonderful peace and hope prayer provides.
  
  - JesusIsLord May 7, 2009 11:41AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Rick Warren, Gay Heartbreaker

- From Reason Foundation

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Proud to be a Bible-thumper

You want to know who deserves better? The good people of the United States! The people who have been lied to and decieved by liberals for too many years. Proposition 8 was the one time the tables got turned and real progress was made this election season! So stop your whining, with the new leftist, socialist, moral-lacking president, and his cabinet full of people only slightly better than himself (on average, that is) and our house and senate filled with more left-wingers than we've had the displeasure of seeing in a long time. Our country is headed down the moral tube to the direction of "anything goes" and toward the Canadian realm of not even being able to say that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong without getting slapped with a fine! It's a direct violation of our constitutional rights, but give it until the end of the next four years! I think we're all in for an unpleasant surprise... It's just that some of us won't know how unpleasant it is until it's too late.

- Brady December 31, 2008 2:34AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Oh, really?
  
  Explain to me what's good and moral about forcing your religion on a group of AMERICANS and keeping civil rights from their otherwise legal relationship? Isn't America all about freedom?
  
  - Blue Linchpin December 31, 2008 9:24AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - No One's Forcing You.
    
    "No One" is forcing you to listen to Christan's or any other person of religion. I'm not a Christan by no means but, I do respect their right to their faith. I do not push my morality toward anyone and I do not expect anyone to force their beliefs or morality upon me. However, when it comes to homosexuals that is where I draw the line. I "DO NOT" believe two men or two women should be allowed to get married and have all the advantages of a regular married couple (Man and Woman). This type of behavior is tearing down the moral fiber of America. If gays
    and Lesbians want to practice their animalistic style of sexual perversion then please return to the closet where it belongs.
    
    - shadow December 31, 2008 11:27AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Really, now?
      
      I'm sorry, but yes, yes you are, and yes, yes they do. You begin by saying that you are not pushing your beliefs on anyone yet you end your paragraph by doing so.
      
      So please, give me a logical argument WHY you should be allowed to force your beliefs on people, why they should not be given the same rights, why their legal relationships should be held to a lower standard, and why this is tearing the moral fiber of America. Explain why you should be allowed to force your beliefs on the private lives of others, and why I should not be able to do the same to you without giving any legal or logical reason.
      
      Go on. I've heard them all before, torn them to pieces, and still people like you refuse to acknowledge reality.
      
      - Blue Linchpin December 31, 2008 1:16PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

On a West Wing and a Prayer

- From FRC

Open Argument Go to this Argument

I think the question should have been:

Should Rick Warren agree to speak at Obama's inauguration. In the mind of American evangelicals such as myself, Obama is the controversial figure. If I were Rick Warren, I would refuse to speak at such a sick and sad event for America's history. "Yes, the first black president! What a wonderful day for America!" Well quite personally I can name 3 black people off the top of my head who would have made better presidents!

- Brady December 31, 2008 2:20AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Amusing
  
  I find it funny that conservatives are rather upset over Obama winning by a landslide, yet when Prop 8 passes --violating the Constitution-- by a narrow margin, we're told to 'get over it'. Cute, you know? Very cute.
  
  - Blue Linchpin December 31, 2008 9:26AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Good News
  
  Yes it's a Great day for America!
  I was wondering maybe if your other 3 black peoples names were: none, none, and none?
  
  As for Rick Warren....."great"! It's tough to find someone these days who hasn't offended some small fussing group or another. Seems everyone wants to be offended about something these days to gain a stage or platform.
  
  To Me! :- ) ....many evangelicals are questionable! The Christ whom is supposedly represented, for some reason looks kind of different from many of them with quite a different attitude and has "Good News" to offer.
  
  - Me2 December 31, 2008 9:31AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Name them!!!
  
  Who are the 3 blacks you think would be better than Obama?
  Name them.
  
  I could use a good laugh.
  
  - inthetropics December 31, 2008 8:13PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Three? What, just three!?
    
    Why restrict the question to race. Why not ask with a more egalitarian tone, which person would be better than Obama. Such a list would be long. To restrict it to a single race (mixed though most all of us are anyway), I would favor:
    
    J. C. Watts, first and foremost.
    
    Alan Keyes.
    
    Perhaps even Larry Elder; he's not to shabby, and might be able to fix things up in Washington.
    
    - Forumgitator December 31, 2008 10:03PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Warren may undermine FRC's focus

Perkins: "...Warren has distanced himself from the 'religious right' by emphasizing issues more popular with liberals, such as AIDS relief and global warming. But he has also been consistent in his support for the unborn and for the natural definition of marriage. ..."

You have a good point. Obama's selection of Warren may actually widen the Religious Right's focus beyond it's narrow anti-women, anti-gay, and anti-tax focus to broader Christ-like issues such as helping the sick, vulnerable, and environmental stewardship. Shouldn't FRC and Focus On The Family be concerned that the promotion of Warren may ultimately undermine their movement by bringing real Christian values to politics (i.e. universal health care, peace, welfare to the vulnerable, etc.)?

(Off topic: Are not promiscuity, polygamy, and bisexuality part of the "natural" definition of marriage?)

"...Let's hope that Rick Warren will use his channel of communication to the new President to press him for more pro-family policies-rather than simply being used by Mr. Obama to make political inroads with evangelicals...."

So, Warren should undermine the president-elect's campaign promises and beliefs? It would seem disrespectful and disingenuous for Warren to choose to participate in a political ceremony if he didn't support many of Obama's presidential goals. While clearly Warren probably does not support Obama's pro-women and gay equality policies, it's assumed that Warren must endorse some of Obama's other goals (poverty, AIDS, environment, etc.) or else Warren should have declined the invitation.

- Norm December 31, 2008 9:12AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Religions are love.

It is the insanity of the day that religious institutions, all of whom are founded on love as its essence, would be the biggest haters of the day. As well, more violence seems to come from religious folks than any other institution.

If you are going to be against legal equality, condemning of others for who they are and against love please do not call yourself religious, pious, moral, etc as you are clearly the opposite of all these things in their true meaning.

The strength of our society is shown by where we stand for the few, even a single individual, who is on the side of love...

- Chicago Recovery Alliance December 31, 2008 11:33AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- "Please don't call ANYbody moral"?
  
  Yeah, I just hated seeing those darn Mormons tear the rainbow symbols out of the hands of the marching, shouting, fist-waving gays around the bath-house. Or was it those darn gays tearing religious symbols out of the hands of 50 and 60 year old ladies and knocking them down? And was it those darn gays marching around the Mormon temple waving their fists at all who came through the gate? Because those gays condemn others for who they are (Mormons, Christians, and persons morally opposed to gay-sex and/or gay-marriage, and sometimes just Republicans and Christians), I agree with you that those gays should not call themselves religious, pious or moral, as they are the opposite of those things in their true meaning.
  
  "Strength of our society"? I don't know what that means. That a strong society does not give way to threats, or does not wither in the face of a stronger society, that it refuses to change its mind, laws, and traditions? Moral strength, or religious strength, or social collectivist strength, or political partisan strength, or strength in intimidating others (fascism), or strength in swallowing one's own pride, sacrificing one's own self interests for the sake of those with whom one disagrees? So many possibilities. So few clarifications.
  
  - Forumgitator January 3, 2009 1:07AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Defining "strength of our society".
    
    I'm here to represent that part of your question that says "strength in swallowing one's own pride, sacrificing one's own self interests for the sake of those with whom one disagrees?"
    
    I'm placing this statement in context and asking whether "minority rights" exist at all. Should the rights of the minority be placed to vote by the majority? Should we completely disregard West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in which the rights of individuals were found to "depend on the outcome of no election" (U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1)?
    
    - QuinceyQuick January 25, 2009 9:21PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Being nice to a nice person isn't a "strength"
      
      A moral society and moral government presupposes moral individuals. In the absence of a sufficiently moral society, minority rights exist only when the people in power allow them. Congress was structured, in fact the entire government, including the establishment of states, the electoral college, and certain freedoms were either recognized (or granted), in such a way that majority oppression would be forestalled by multiple minority oppositions.
      
      Today, the rights of the minority ARE subject to majority whim. That "majority" may either be larger numbers or greater powers.
      
      The remarks on pride and self-interest was part of a question asking for greater clarification of what the Chicago Recovery Alliance meant by, "The strength of our society is shown by where we stand for the few, even a single individual, who is on the side of love..." It is not clear to me what kind of strength that demonstrates, but I do suspect that standing for someone "who is on the side of love", however nice it is, does not really show a society's strength. I think that was just rhetoric.
      
      - Forumgitator January 28, 2009 10:29PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Confusing "Is" with "Should"
        
        That's what you're doing. Just because the rights of the minority -are- subject to the majority (and, in being so, are directly in conflict with Constitutional ideals) doesn't mean that they -should- be subject to the majority.
        
        Or, would you turn a blind eye to cases such as Loving v. Virginia, when it was unpopular for the Supreme Court to protect the rights of the minorities when they were subject to the majority?
        
        Admittedly, I've strayed far from your original argument against the Chicago Recovery Alliance (which ... I can't say that I fully understand, but maybe because it's late at night here), but I felt that I needed to address that.
        
        - QuinceyQuick January 29, 2009 12:22AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Argument

Letter to Pres-Elect Obama on Choice of Rev. Rick Warren

- From HRC

Open Argument Go to this Argument

Moving Forward

I agree there are very strong reasons to choose Rick Warren for your inauguration. He's intelligent, wise, funny, and quite open-minded. He chooses to discuss the values of love, maturity, kindness and service at every opportunity. In his defense, if anyone's lifetime of beliefs and statements were held up to a microscope, few of us would look better than Mr. Warren.

At the same time, gay people and their supporters, i.e. the people who elected you, are rightfully offended by things he believes and says. Having a homophobe at your inauguration comes at a particularly bad time, because of the election loss in California. It's not OK in the USA to say blacks are inferior, not OK to say women should have fewer rights, but it is still OK to say homosexuality is worse than heterosexuality, and gays should be limited.

We elected you to help create a United States where homosexuality is just another color in our rainbow. Keep Mr. Warrren for the inauguration, but be clear that when the Constitution states "all men are created equal," that means gay men and women too. Be clear you will not tolerate sexual orientation prejudice, and say we must allow gays to marry.

- siggy65 December 31, 2008 8:23AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Email a Friend

Experts and users discuss religion in society, obama, gay issues, obama inauguration, obama presidency: Should Obama have Picked Rick Warren for Inauguration?

Should Obama have Picked Rick Warren for Inauguration?

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Obama Should Drop Warren and All Prayer from Inauguration

- From FFRF

By Freedom From Religion Foundation - Protecting Church and State Separation

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Obama Deserves Credit for Rick Warren Pick

- From Deal Hudson

By Deal Hudson - Director, InsideCatholic.com

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Rick Warren, Gay Heartbreaker

- From Reason Foundation

By Reason Foundation - Free Minds and Free Markets

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

On a West Wing and a Prayer

- From FRC

By Family Research Council - Defending Faith, Family and Freedom

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Letter to Pres-Elect Obama on Choice of Rev. Rick Warren

- From HRC

By Human Rights Campaign - Working for Equal Rights

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Rick Warren for Inauguration?

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

Subscribe to Opposing News

Email a Friend

Rick Warren for Inauguration?