Rick Warren to pray at Obama's inauguration

PDN

Barack Obama has asked Baptist megachurch pastor Rick Warren to pray over him at his inauguration. I find this interesting, particularly since Warren clashed with Obama a couple of times when Obama & McCain participated in a televised debate at Warren's Church during the campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

studiorat

It'll get a lot of people on side with Obama. Despite winning the election he still needs support in certain areas. Warren has a serious following, he's the obvious choice. It's bound to set a few evangelical hearts at rest for a while.

Nick_oliveri

PDN wrote: »

Barack Obama has asked Baptist megachurch pastor Rick Warren to pray over him at his inauguration.

Barack needs all the help he can get there. Him being the first black president and that. There'll be a lot of us hoping some lone whackjob doesn't get trigger happy.

Maybe Warren can cast Gift of the Wild and have his healing spells mapped to the proper hotkeys just in case anything happens. Hopefully Warrens Heroic Presence will also stack.

Húrin

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Barack needs all the help he can get there. Him being the first black president and that. There'll be a lot of us hoping some lone whackjob doesn't get trigger happy.

If after eight years of provocation, nobody has done in Bush, I'd say that Obama's chances are survival are pretty good!

lostexpectation

well the anti gay and anti abortion stuff ain't no surprise for a baptist but is guy kosher or scam artist.

Nick_oliveri

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Maybe Warren can cast Gift of the Wild and have his healing spells mapped to the proper hotkeys just in case anything happens. Hopefully Warrens Heroic Presence will also stack.

The only thing worse than playing that game is making jokes based on it (other than South Park's excellent episode).

Why is this thread in Christianity anyway? Any discussion of why Warren is there is surely political? Obama is choosing a pastor to mollify the extreme right, some of whom think he is a Muslim even though they also point to his former pastor's racial comments as provocative. This can only imply they think Islam is a race. Frankly anyone that stupid is likely to be outwitted by the Secret Service.

Nick_oliveri

Deleted User wrote: »

The only thing worse than playing that game is making jokes based on it (other than South Park's excellent episode).

That is true, and its the second time ive done it on these boards.

Frankly anyone that stupid is likely to be outwitted by the Secret Service.

/me Throws shoe

Nick_oliveri

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

me Throws shoe

He was an accredited journalist and the Secret Service do not consider thrown shoes to be a creditable threat to the President's life. Unless you think Obama could be taken out by a deadly cobbler?

PDN

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is this thread in Christianity anyway? Any discussion of why Warren is there is surely political? Obama is choosing a pastor to mollify the extreme right, some of whom think he is a Muslim even though they also point to his former pastor's racial comments as provocative. This can only imply they think Islam is a race. Frankly anyone that stupid is likely to be outwitted by the Secret Service.

The thread is in Christianity because it concerns a Christian pastor.

I disagree with you about this being an effort to mollify the extreme right. The extreme right will hate Obama irrespective of who prays over him.

Also, the extreme right don't like Warren either. Obama is reaching out to the increasing number of younger evangelical Christians who are not wedded to the right and who are passionate about the environment, eradicating global poverty, stopping human trafficking etc.

brianthebard

lostexpectation wrote: »

well the anti gay and anti abortion stuff ain't no surprise for a baptist but is guy kosher or scam artist.

He's a baptist, hardly kosher tbh.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

I disagree with you about this being an effort to mollify the extreme right. The extreme right will hate Obama irrespective of who prays over him.

Also, the extreme right don't like Warren either. Obama is reaching out to the increasing number of younger evangelical Christians who are not wedded to the right and who are passionate about the environment, eradicating global poverty, stopping human trafficking etc.

I can accept that point. Extreme right was a poor choice of words on my part.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

The thread is in Christianity because it concerns a Christian pastor.

I disagree with you about this being an effort to mollify the extreme right. The extreme right will hate Obama irrespective of who prays over him.

Also, the extreme right don't like Warren either. Obama is reaching out to the increasing number of younger evangelical Christians who are not wedded to the right and who are passionate about the environment, eradicating global poverty, stopping human trafficking etc.

Just to complicate it further, , I'm not extreme right and I don't like Warren nor Obama.

But I give more leeway to the politician than I do to the pastor. To whom much is given, from them much will be required.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Barack Obama has asked Baptist megachurch pastor Rick Warren to pray over him at his inauguration. I find this interesting, particularly since Warren clashed with Obama a couple of times when Obama & McCain participated in a televised debate at Warren's Church during the campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

I find this interesting because there is supposed to be a separation of Church and state in that country.

I've seen Warren on ted.com. Charismatic but a very sloppy thinker. Like many hardline Protestants, he came across as someone who finds it hard to make a point without referencing the scriptures and you'd wonder has he read much else that was published in the last 2,000 years.

I would imagine this is just a bit of PR for Obama but it's very sad to see him stooping to this.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I find this interesting because there is supposed to be a separation of Church and state in that country.

Indeed there is, which is why the President does not have to belong to any religion, and why it is his choice as to who prays the inauguration prayer or indeed if he has an inauguration prayer at all.

A lot of people misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state and think it means that any mention of religion should be banished from any public event. But that is not the case. It means that the State does not endow or favour any particular religion.

In the UK, for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury participates in the coronation of the monarch and Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords. That is an example of State religion.

In the US the President elect chooses who he wants to participate in his inauguration. If Obama wants a player from the Chicago Cubs to be represented then that would be fine - nobody will be silly enough to argue that means the State is endowing or favouring the Cubs at the expense of other baseball teams. If the President elect's religion is important to him then he can choose a representative of that religion to participate. That is a fine example of secularism - giving the church the same rights as a baseball team (no more, no less).

Of course those who hate baseball might object to the Cubs participation, just as those who hate Christianity might object to Rick Warren's participation - but it certainly does not violate the separation of Church and State.

I find it interesting that Obama, instead of choosing a clergyman from his own branch of Christianity, has chosen someone who has wide appeal across denominational lines.

I've seen Warren on ted.com. Charismatic but a very sloppy thinker. Like many hardline Protestants, he came across as someone who finds it hard to make a point without referencing the scriptures and you'd wonder has he read much else that was published in the last 2,000 years

I must say that's the first time I've ever heard Warren described as a hardline Protestant. That's quite amusing.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I must say that's the first time I've ever heard Warren described as a hardline Protestant. That's quite amusing.

Don't know much about him. Would you describe him as a 'sloppy thinker'?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Indeed there is, which is why the President does not have to belong to any religion, and why it is his choice as to who prays the inauguration prayer or indeed if he has an inauguration prayer at all.

A lot of people misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state and think it means that any mention of religion should be banished from any public event. But that is not the case. It means that the State does not endow or favour any particular religion.

That's just double think. The head of state is publicly favouring a particular religion at a state event.

In the US the President elect chooses who he wants to participate in his inauguration. If Obama wants a player from the Chicago Cubs to be represented then that would be fine - nobody will be silly enough to argue that means the State is endowing or favouring the Cubs at the expense of other baseball teams. If the President elect's religion is important to him then he can choose a representative of that religion to participate. That is a fine example of secularism - giving the church the same rights as a baseball team (no more, no less).

Of course those who hate baseball might object to the Cubs participation, just as those who hate Christianity might object to Rick Warren's participation - but it certainly does not violate the separation of Church and State.

Separation of state and sporting preference has never been an issue. If it had been an issue people very well might have issues with a President doing just that.

All your analogy is making something that is serious, trivial.

I must say that's the first time I've ever heard Warren described as a hardline Protestant. That's quite amusing.

He may be very well read in Science and Philosophy (or maybe he thinks it's all irrelevant) but that was absent from the ted clip.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Don't know much about him. Would you describe him as a 'sloppy thinker'?

No I wouldn't. Warren is certainly no CS Lewis - but his primary ministry is not apologetics. He is excellent at presenting Christianity in a way that ordinary non-religious people find attractive. I think his books on that subject (eg the excellent The Purpose Driven Church) and his missions activities to combat poverty are evidence of a very clear thinker indeed.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No I wouldn't. Warren is certainly no CS Lewis - but his primary ministry is not apologetics. He is excellent at presenting Christianity in a way that ordinary non-religious people find attractive. I think his books on that subject (eg the excellent The Purpose Driven Church) and his missions activities to combat poverty are evidence of a very clear thinker indeed.

C S Lewis writing is riddled with logical fallacies. So it's about as sloppy as you can get. That said, I think he was sincere in what he believed, but he just wasn't very good at thinking.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

CS Lewis

Don't mention that name around Tim! I'm not sure if I can take any more accusations of 'logical fallacies'.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

C S Lewis writing is riddled with logical fallacies. So it's about as sloppy as you can get. That said, I think he was sincere in what he believed, but he just wasn't very good at thinking.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Don't mention that name around Tim! I'm not sure if I can take any more accusations of 'logical fallacies'.

I'll have you all know that I type that without knowing what Tim was writin .

Score one for FC!

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Don't mention that name around Tim! I'm not sure if I can take any more accusations of 'logical fallacies'.

Don't take it from me. Take it from Julian Baggini. Here's some superb Christmas Reading for you.

Read that and Lewis falls apart.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll have you all know that I type that without knowing what Tim was writin .

Score one for FC!

But why fear discussing logical fallacies? Surely that's very important if you wish to examine if something is true or not?
Otherwise what's the point of logic?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I must say that's the first time I've ever heard Warren described as a hardline Protestant. That's quite amusing.

I've not spent a vast amount of time either listening to Warren or teasing apart his beliefs -- there are plenty of far more enjoyable things to do with one's time. However, other people say they have investigated, and some of their findings don't make pleasant reading.

Specifically -- and going from the LA Times article below -- he's compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, he's called women who abort "Nazis", he's said that Jews will burn in hell, he's a creationist, he tells married women that they must obey their husbands in all things, he wants President Ahmadinejad of Iran assassinated. And so, no doubt, on.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-pollitt22-2008dec22,0,6597471.story

While from a European context, these beliefs certainly are considered hardline (if not extremist), a lot of them do appear to be considered mainstream in much of the USA.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's just double think. The head of state is publicly favouring a particular religion at a state event.

Actually I don't think it is, if a candidate is recognised as religious then its not unexpected for them to bring an element of that into their inauguration.
Actually it would seem more dishonest for them hide these aspects (such as Blair did) than have the at the fore. As long as they don't seek to promote their faith to the exclusion of others its a non-issue.
If I vote for a leopard I expect to get one spots and all.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As long as they don't seek to promote their faith to the exclusion of others its a non-issue.
If I vote for a leopard I expect to get one spots and all.

I would see what he is doing as promoting his faith and unnecessary for the job he was elected for.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Actually I don't think it is, if a candidate is recognised as religious then its not unexpected for them to bring an element of that into their inauguration.
Actually it would seem more dishonest for them hide these aspects (such as Blair did) than have the at the fore. As long as they don't seek to promote their faith to the exclusion of others its a non-issue.
If I vote for a leopard I expect to get one spots and all.

Of course, whatever about Blair's 'deceit', the real question is why he though it only acceptable to make his conversion after he left office? So Obama is being criticised for integrating his faith into his inauguration and Blair is criticised for keeping stum.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course, whatever about Blair's 'deceit', the real question is why he though it only acceptable to make his conversion after he left office? So Obama is being criticised for integrating his faith into his inauguration and Blair is criticised for keeping stum.

And a huge amount of other heads of state have their faith and aren't being criticised at all. Can't see what your point is?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And a huge amount of other heads of state have their faith and aren't being criticised at all. Can't see what your point is?

Huh? But you are the one criticising Obama.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Huh? But you are the one criticising Obama.

Yes because he is promoting a particular religion. Other heads of state had their faith but didn't.

I don't understand your last point about Blair. It sounds like you think it's a dichotomy. You either share your faith or you hide it and you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

What I was pointing out was you can keep your faith and not be damned.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

C S Lewis writing is riddled with logical fallacies. So it's about as sloppy as you can get. That said, I think he was sincere in what he believed, but he just wasn't very good at thinking.

Which is like the Cheeky Girls saying Mozart wasn't very good at music.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Which is like the Cheeky Girls saying Mozart wasn't very good at music.

Another analogy and perhaps an attack at the poster rather than the post.

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

Indeed there is, which is why the President does not have to belong to any religion, and why it is his choice as to who prays the inauguration prayer or indeed if he has an inauguration prayer at all.

A lot of people misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state and think it means that any mention of religion should be banished from any public event. But that is not the case. It means that the State does not endow or favour any particular religion.

blaa blaa

considering the bush years you might forgive us for thinking the state endows a religion pdn

lostexpectation

its pity obama couldn't get somebody who reflects his views. then his pick might seem less endownment like

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Another analogy and perhaps an attack at the poster rather than the post.

Ah, I'm sure that was a gentle ribbing rather than a personal attack. The latter comes after you publish your magnum opus on logic.

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

considering the bush years you might forgive us for thinking the state endows a religion pdn

I'm not aware that Bush enforced his Methodism on anyone.

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

I'm not aware that Bush enforced his Methodism on anyone.

deny deny deny that all you do pdn, he mixed things up so much, had these faith based programs, etc

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah, I'm sure that was a gentle ribbing rather than a personal attack. The latter comes after you publish your magnum opus on logic.

No, it was not gentle ribbing.

I find Tim Robbins to be one of the most confused and least coherent posters on these boards. He also has a habit of spouting pronouncements on stuff he obviously knows nothing about.

CS Lewis was an Oxford don acknowledged by friends and enemies alike to be an outstanding intellectual.

If anything I think the Cheeky Girls/Mozart comparison was insufficiently drastic.

For Tim to criticise Lewis as a sloppy thinker is like me saying Einstein was a poor scientist.

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

deny deny deny that all you do pdn, he mixed things up so much, had these faith based programs, etc

Yes, faith based programmes that are equally available to all religions. Not endowing one religion.

I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be 'denying'. I'm not a Methodist, so I don't belong to Bush's denomination, and I was not a supporter of his Presidency.

I'm just expressing an opinion.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

No, it was not gentle ribbing.

I stand corrected. Probably best that I let y9ou speak for yourself in future :pac:

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would see what he is doing as promoting his faith and unnecessary for the job he was elected for.

I think there is a degree of mountain and molehill here. Every US President has been sworn in on a Bible. Every single one.

He is swearing to do a secular job and to uphold and protect a document which specifically forbades state endowment of religion in any form. However, a President can be whatever the electors choose. If he is religious, and they always are no matter what side they are on, then it is only fitting that he asks for the strength to do a truly immense task from what he considers to be a great source of strength for him. Once he does not seek to promote his religion to the depriment of others then the Constitution does not apply.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

CS Lewis was an Oxford don acknowledged by friends and enemies alike to be an outstanding intellectual.

There's no evidence C. S. Lewis was good at thinking. Unless by thinking you mean good at "English" or literature.

His arguments are regularly cited as examples of sloppy thinking actually.
For example, his famous liar, lunatic, lord is a variant of false dichotomy as it is more of a false trichotomy. Anyone, who was an "outstanding intellectual" wouldn't profer such faulty arguments.

For Tim to criticise Lewis as a sloppy thinker is like me saying Einstein was a poor scientist.

Another analogy and another personal attack. How far can you push this and not be violating your own charter?

Tim Robbins

Deleted User wrote: »

If he is religious, and they always are no matter what side they are on, then it is only fitting that he asks for the strength to do a truly immense task from what he considers to be a great source of strength for him. Once he does not seek to promote his religion to the depriment of others then the Constitution does not apply.

He can do all that privately. Not at a major state function.

Húrin

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there is a degree of mountain and molehill here. Every US President has been sworn in on a Bible. Every single one.

Franklin Pierce and John Q Adams didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_Day

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no evidence C. S. Lewis was good at thinking. Unless by thinking you mean good at "English" or literature.

His arguments are regularly cited as examples of sloppy thinking actually.
For example, his famous liar, lunatic, lord is a variant of false dichotomy as it is more of a false trichotomy. Anyone, who was an "outstanding intellectual" wouldn't profer such faulty arguments.


Another analogy and another personal attack. How far can you push this and not be violating your own charter?

If it's within the charter for you to express your low opinion of CS Lewis' thinking then why should it be against the charter for me to express my low opinion of your thinking?

You want to dish it out to a dead guy and then start whinging when you get a taste of your own medicine?

If JC began posting on the A&A forum expressing his opinion that someone wasn't a very good scientist then what do you think the response would be?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

If it's within the charter for you to express your low opinion of CS Lewis' thinking then why should it be against the charter for me to express my low opinion of your thinking?

1. Because he's not a poster.
2. I haven't just expressed my low opinion, I also gave a clear example to substantiate my viewpoint.

It would appear criticism of C.S. Lewis just isn't allowed.

If JC began posting on the A&A forum expressing his opinion that someone wasn't a very good scientist then what do you think the response would be?

Another analogy.
1. I doubt JC would have any support from any contemporary intellectuals.
Baggini in his latest book directly cited one of Lewis's arguments when explaining what a false dichotomy was. Dawkins in the God Delusion also did.

Now you might not agree with those people, but they have quite a degree of intellectual pedigree.

He was also critised by, Philosopher John Beversluis and Philosopher, theologian and Christian, William Lane Craig.
See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma).

2. I can actually argue why Lewis's arguments are bad. It's not argument by assertion. I gave a clear example. Your argument insinuates nothing more than my argument being nothing more than argument by assertion.

Instead of the analogies, and the put down jibes why not argue your point of view. For a start, you could easily try to argue why the LLL argument is not a false trichotomy?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

For Tim to criticise Lewis as a sloppy thinker is like me saying Einstein was a poor scientist.

Well no, it is like you criticising Richard Dawkins as a sloppy thinker. Something people do on this forum all the time :P

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Franklin Pierce and John Q Adams didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_Day

You are right about Adams however incorrect about Pierce. I stand corrected by the exception to the 42 Presidents who have sworn (or affirmed) on a Bible.

Also: Tim Robbins

The US is a religious country. There are numerous examples of professions of piety by organs of the State (Red Mass for example). What you are arguing is a narrow and, frankly, incorrect interpretation of the doctrine of separation of Church and State. The United States Supreme Court has held that organised prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. Nobody thinks that the preacher at Red Mass is going to use his sermon to sway the court into a rethink on that, or Roe, or any other issue.

In fact; what Obama is doing is a perfect example of why the doctrine works. He is standing up and showing his faith but he is also swearing, on and by that faith, to protect and obey a document which prohibits him from promoting that faith to the detriment of others.

Tim Robbins

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are arguing is a narrow and, frankly, incorrect interpretation of the doctrine of separation of Church and State.

I obviously interpret separation of Church and State different to you.
Either "separation of Church and State" is held as a honest meaningful maxim or it's a con job - much like Irish nuetrality.

There is no need for the President to have Rick Warren there to do the job he has been elected to do for the state and he is clearly promoting a particular religion over others by doing so.

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I obviously interpret separation of Church and State different to you.
Either "separation of Church and State" is held as a honest meaningful maxim or it's a con job - much like Irish nuetrality.

separation of Church and State =/= separation of faith and State

I'm not exactly an expert in US History but I know that the clause was put there to stop the kind of practices that have "soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries", that is, the politicising of religion. All the states of Europe had an official religion at that time, as England and Denmark do to this day, except back then they took it too seriously.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

I'm not exactly an expert in US History but I know that the clause was put there to stop the kind of practices that have "soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries", that is, the politicising of religion. All the states of Europe had an official religion at that time, as England and Denmark do to this day, except back then they took it too seriously.

Yes and I see this as the politicising of religion. In fact it's the promotion of one religion over others by a politicial head of state, when there's no need for it.