Obama, Pastors & Illiberal Liberals

PDN

I saw this interesting piece in the Washington Post:

The Washington Post wrote:

Inauguration Week: Rick Warren Reaches Out to Gene Robinson
By Jacqui Salmon

The Rev. Rick Warren, the conservative evangelical minister who will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, has extended an olive branch to Bishop V. Gene Robinson.

Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, had reacted angrily to the selection of Warren, who opposes gay marriage, calling it a "slap in the face." But then Robinson was selected this week to give the invocation at the inaugural opening ceremony at the Sunday afternoon concert on the Mall.

Today, Warren issued a statement praising Obama for selecting Robinson, saying the president-elect "has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground. I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen."

I like Warren's position in recognising that the new President should represent all Americans, not just those who agree with his views.

What I find interesting in all this is that Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own, whereas Warren (whom people attack as a bigot because of his evangelicalism) is the one praising Obama's diverse choices.

Interesting times that we live in.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

What I find interesting in all this is that Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own, whereas Warren (whom people attack as a bigot because of his evangelicalism) is the one praising Obama's diverse choices.

That's really misrepresenting the motivations here.

It would be fairer, I think, to say that Robinson is cheesed off at Warren for the latter's views on homosexuality, which Warren has publicly compared to incest and pedophilia (see here). It would be difficult to imagine the scale of the protest, not to say the derision, that would happen if Robinson, in response, were to say the same about Warren's sexual interests.

And neither do people "attack" Warren "as a bigot because of his evangelism". Rather, as the article above points out, people object to him referring to women who terminate pregnancies as "Nazis", and the general pro-choice position as being equivalent to "Holocaust denial". While Jews seem to be unhappy that he's publicly stated that they're going to "burn in hell". Promoters of equal rights don't like him telling women that they must submit to the will of their husbands, while, strangely, also speaking in favour of equal rights! Then there are the scientists and other members of the reality-based community object to his open support for creationism, while many more object to his public call for the US government to assassinate the President of Iran.

I suspect that most people object to Warren for the much simpler reason that his views appear to be those of a slightly confused, and occasionally rather obnoxious, man.

.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

And neither do people "attack" Warren "as a bigot because of his evangelism". Rather, as the article above points out, people object to him referring to women who terminate pregnancies as "Nazis", and the general pro-choice position as being equivalent to "Holocaust denial". While Jews seem to be unhappy that he's publicly stated that they're going to "burn in hell". Promoters of equal rights don't like him telling women that they must submit to the will of their husbands, while, strangely, also speaking in favour of equal rights! Then there are the scientists and other members of the reality-based community object to his open support for creationism, while many more object to his public call for the US government to assassinate the President of Iran.

I suspect that most people object to Warren for the much simpler reason that his views appear to be those of a slightly confused, and occasionally rather obnoxious, man.

.

Certainly a meeting of groups not offended by Warren wouldn't need a large hall for the event. The fair thing to do would to hold a multi-faith ceremony with everybody having a turn, thus making sure everyone gets offended in turn by everybody else. Or scrap the religous element.

studiorat

That Inauguration is a bloody circus, nothing more.

These two guys are at each others throats and now Warren is applauding Obama's choice of the gay bishop for the inaugural prayer. I doubt that very much.

Obamas confusion in this matter should not be applauded. But then again Obama is no stranger to cynical use of preachers for his own gain.
Let's remember he sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama even used the title of his book from one of Wright's sermons and then dropped him like a hot brick when he became a political liability.

It would look like Warren's invitation is payback for the presidential forum he held at Saddleback, Warren helped get Obama elected and the new president understands there is still evangelical gold in them there hills. He needs their support on issues such as climate change.

Also, Warren's PR company certainly earned their money this last few weeks. Since the Warren inauguration controversy, the nature of his work against AIDS in Africa has gone unexamined, lucky him.

The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa,commented that Warren and his allies actions were "resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred."

His allies stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in local newspapers while lobbying to imprison them.

report by Human Rights Watch documented educational material in Uganda's secondary schools falsely claiming condoms had microscopic pores that could be penetrated by the AIDS virus and noted the sudden nationwide shortage of condoms due to new restrictions imposed on condom imports.

As long as he's running around Washington,out of harm's way and not displaying his missionary zeal in Uganda and Rwanda I'll be happy enough.

For the ceremonies themselves, Robinson doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible:
"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."
Will Warren be as gracious?

Húrin

People should leave Robinson alone, he's always getting attacked.

At the same time, I do tire of people on either side blowing up the homosexuality issues to an unwarranted level of importance.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own.

back again...
I don't see any evidence for this, how do you make out he want's to silence anybody? Would you like to support this, please.

Interview with Robinson

PDN

robindch wrote: »

That's really misrepresenting the motivations here.

It would be fairer, I think, to say that Robinson is cheesed off at Warren for the latter's views on homosexuality, which Warren has publicly compared to incest and pedophilia (see here). It would be difficult to imagine the scale of the protest, not to say the derision, that would happen if Robinson, in response, were to say the same about Warren's sexual interests.

Have you got a source for this (apart from a hysterical rant by an unbalanced journalist)? I have googled this and all I can find is a youtube clip which is repeatedly & falsely claimed to show Warren making that comparison.

However, when I viewed the clip what I actually saw & heard was Warren making the following statements:
a) That he believes divorce to be a much greater threat to American families than homosexual marriage.
b) That gossip is every bit as much of a sin as homosexual acts, and that it is wrong to zero in on one and ignore the other (as many christians do).
c) That he believes homosexual couples should have legally recognised civil unions with the same partnership benefits & pension or insurance rights etc. as heterosexual couples.
d) That he does not believe that the word 'marriage' should be redefined, but should retain its traditional meaning of a union between one man and one woman.
e) He then gives examples of things that do not fit in the traditional understanding of marriage, including a brother marrying his sister or an older man marrying a child.

Now, there is no moral equivalence or comparison made between those actions and homosexuality. This is yet another example of downright lying by those who object to the biblical view on homosexuality. I have experienced it myself in a thread on this board when the same lie was directed at me.

If I made a statement saying, "We should obey the law in all things. Jay walking is against the law, so we should not do it. Murder is against the law, so we should not do it." I am not comparing the two acts, nor am I insinuating that they are equal. I am simply saying that we should obey the law both in respect to big issues and seemingly insignificant issues."

Warren is saying that he believes marriage should not be redefined. It should not be redefined to include socially unacceptable things like incest or paedophilia, nor should it be redefined to include socially acceptable things like homosexual acts. He's all for civil unions, but he doesn't want to call them 'marriage'.

Now, people are free to diagree with Warren on that issue - but they are no free to tell blatant lies. So, I would ask that if posters repeat Statements like this they back them up with sources, otherwise you are lying as well.

The only thing Warren compared homosexuality to was gossip - but that isn't going to create headlines as easily as lying slurs.

And neither do people "attack" Warren "as a bigot because of his evangelism".

If you're going to put quotation marks around my words then please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly. Nobody mentioned his 'evangelism'. I referred to his evangelicalism. He holds normal evangelical views on homosexuality (not hatred, but incompatible with Christianity or a traditional definition of marriage) and abortion (killing babies with a loss of human life greater than the Holocaust).

Neither did I see Warren making any public call for the President of Iran to be assassinated. I saw him starting to make a reasoned response which began with stating that the Bible justifies the punishment of evildoers, then he was cut off by a loud mouthed right wing interviewer who began rambling about King David. Unfortunately we never got to hear in what context the Iranian President could be punished, because it ended up becoming a discussion on whether you can kill someone in self defence as when they break into your home. At no stage did he make any public call for anyone to be assassinated.

I suspect that most people object to Warren for the much simpler reason that his views appear to be those of a slightly confused, and occasionally rather obnoxious, man.

I don't think most people object to Warren at all. The objections come from a highly vocal group of people who appear to be too stupid to read a transcript of an interview or hear what a man actually says, or are simply so dishonest that they will stoop to telling blatant lies.

Fanny Cradock

Got a source for that?

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

These two guys are at each others throats and now Warren is applauding Obama's choice of the gay bishop for the inaugural prayer. I doubt that very much.

To say that two guys are at each other's throats would, to most of us, mean that they have been attacking each other.

Can you cite me some of these examples where Rick Warren has attacked Gene Robinson? Even one example would be a start.

The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa,commented that Warren and his allies actions were "resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred."

Personally I don't agree with Warren's strategy in Uganda concerning AIDS. I'm glad he's doing something, but I wish it would include a greater element of condom distribution. It also sounds to me like he's chosen a rather unsavoury character to work with on the ground.

But it's funny, when I google that UN quotation it brings up a New York Times article from 2005 that does not mention Rick Warren at all but rather states that the quote in question was directed at the Bush administration.

For the ceremonies themselves, Robinson doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible:
"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."
Will Warren be as gracious?

Appeasement ≠ Graciousness.

back again...
I don't see any evidence for this, how do you make out he want's to silence anybody? Would you like to support this, please.

He objects to Warren being allowed to speak at the inauguration because of Warren's theological stance on homosexual acts.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

What I find interesting in all this is that Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own

Bishop Robinson wants to "silence" all theological viewpoints but his own?

I don't know much about Bishop Robinson, other than him being openly gay and a supporter of Obama, do you have anything to support the idea that Robinson is interested in, or leading a campaign, to silence all theological viewpoints other than his own?

Does he have a website calling for this or something?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

He objects to Warren being allowed to speak at the inauguration because of Warren's theological stance on homosexual acts.

LOL :rolleyes:

You make that sound like Warren is having his freedom of speech rights oppressed. .

This seems to be a mountain out of a mole hill, a trumped up reason to be outraged.

It is hardly surprising that liberal Obama supporters are not pleased with Obama choosing someone who they feel doesn't represent their views or the views of Obama that they voted for, speaking at his address.

How you turn this is into some claim of religious or speech oppression, or that they want to silence all opposing view points, is beyond me.

studiorat

Warren's public offering of his church to those who left Robinson's congregation while not an outright attack is an fine example of showboating and one-up-man-ship IMO. As was Robinson's "not my god" comment. I personally have little regard for either.
.
The quote comes from an article from a Max Blumental, or at least that's where I got it, it's all over the net in various parts at this stage. Warren began his partnership with Ssempa in 2002 afaik. He seems to have little trouble working with this man, no doubt he's aware of his past tactics. This is a concern I think.

If you can help me with an adjective for appeasment I'll edit the post. I wonder will Warren be as appeasing. How's that?

I had a look at the famous interview btw,
Warren said, he was opposed to brother and sister getting married, men and boys getting married and polygamy. When then asked does he see that as the same as gay marriage. He replies "Oh, I do!" What I find most interesting however is how he continues and how quickly he associates this train of thought with Aids.

In another interview, Warren said that “it doesn’t matter” whether or not homosexuality is “part of your biology”; it’s still wrong. Attempting to explain , he compared accepting one’s homosexuality to being “naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see.”

philologos

Warren didn't say that. What he did was say that he would offer his church to any conservative Anglicans who fall into disagreement with the Episcopal Church, which I think is a nice gesture.

I’ve been on Gene Robinson and other’s attack list for my position on gay marriage. ....[Our] brothers and sisters here at St. James in Newport Beach lost their California State Supreme Court case to keep their property.
We stand in solidarity with them, and with all orthodox, evangelical Anglicans. I offer the campus of Saddleback Church to any Anglican congregation who need a place to meet, or if you want to plant a new congregation in south Orange County.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=rick_warrens_meddling_with_gen

To me that seems a nice thing to offer, and this is from a rather critical article. As an Anglican personally I think that the Episcopal Church should be offering to work with people who disagree with them on homosexuality instead of against them.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If you're going to put quotation marks around my words then please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly.

Humble apologies for mis-typing "evangelicism" as "evangelism".

PDN wrote: »

Now, people are free to diagree with Warren on that issue - but they are no free to tell blatant lies. So, I would ask that if posters repeat Statements like this they back them up with sources, otherwise you are lying as well.

I've certainly backed up my claims with several sources -- could you do the same for your claim that Robinson wants to "silence any theological viewpoint other than his own"?

studiorat

Either way his nice gesture is politiking IMO.

The Court said it wasn't their property BTW. They Lost...

Maybe the people who disagree on homosexuality should be the ones offering to work with the Epsipolcal church.

philologos

studiorat: I can see why they disagree though, and I don't think the Episcopal Church should have gone this far, when the church is still a full part of the global Anglican communion.

Anyhow, I think Rick Warren's gesture was a decent one to fellow Christians, and I don't think it has anything to do with Gene Robinson. He just disagrees with the current Episcopal policy, and that's fair enough. It is more to do with him and the Episcopal Church, and if they have an issue with him doing this, that is for them to resolve.

studiorat

I'll submit to your superior knowledge on the finer details of the apparent schism. (for want of a better word)

However given Warren's political manovering past and present I cannot but be cynical about his motives and the obvious political motivation behind his and Robinsons role in the whole circus.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Warren's public offering of his church to those who left Robinson's congregation while not an outright attack is an fine example of showboating and one-up-man-ship IMO. As was Robinson's "not my god" comment. I personally have little regard for either.

No, I didn't ask you for examples of show-boating. I asked you for even one example of where Warren has been at Bishop Robinson's throat. Again, if you're going to make such a claim then you should have plenty of examples of Warren attacking Robinson. Just one would suffice for the purposes of this debate, otherwise you are the one doing the showboating.

If you can help me with an adjective for appeasment I'll edit the post. I wonder will Warren be as appeasing. How's that?

An adjective for 'appeasement' would be 'lily-livered' (in Warren's case) because the Bible is key to who and what he is. In Robinson's case I don't think it's graciousness or appeasement, because it's not like the Bible is very important to him anyway.

Obama's Presidency represents diversity. Diversity does not mean everyone pretending to be the same, but rather people to celebrate their differences. His train journey to Washington included a Black Gospel Choir singing in Baltimore. For them to pretend to be white, or to sing songs that studiously avoid mentioning God, would defeat the whole point of celebrating diversity.

Rick Warren is part of that diversity because he represents a huge swathe of Americans (including Obama himself) who believe the Bible has an important place in their lives. Of course some people disagree with him - fundamentalist Baptists detest Warren - but diversity by its very nature does not try to be bland. Bishop Robinson is also part of that diversity, and, while I disagree with Robinson profoundly, I applaud Obama's courage in choosing him to participate in the inauguration events. I don't expect Robinson to hide his homosexuality and I don't expect Warren to hide his Bible.

The point is that Warren, by applauding Robinson's inclusion, understands the whole diversity thing. Robinson, by attacking Warren's inclusion, hasn't.

I had a look at the famous interview btw,
Warren said, he was opposed to brother and sister getting married, men and boys getting married and polygamy. When then asked does he see that as the same as gay marriage. He replies "Oh, I do!" What I find most interesting however is how he continues and how quickly he associates this train of thought with Aids.

As your own quote makes clear, he was not speaking about homosexuality per se but specifically about gay marriage. And, as soon as he said "I do" he went on to stress what he meant, that they are the same in that they are attempts to redefine marriage to something other than its traditional meaning.

Then he went on to talk about AIDS because this is the context in which he and his church has most contact with homosexuals, in helping and caring for those who have AIDS.

In another interview, Warren said that “it doesn’t matter” whether or not homosexuality is “part of your biology”; it’s still wrong. Attempting to explain , he compared accepting one’s homosexuality to being “naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see.”

And he's making a very valid point, that the issue is not your inclination but how you act on that inclination. Only a moron or a liar would attempt to transform that into some kind of homophobic statement.

Robin wrote:

I've certainly backed up my claims with several sources -- could you do the same for your claim that Robinson wants to "silence any theological viewpoint other than his own"?

The point of sources is that they are supposed to be sources for the claims you are making, not saying something different.

The only source you cited that actually agrees with your claims is an opinion piece by a journalist that is long on bile and hysteria but short on facts. I could just as easily cite an article by Mary Kenny as a source for saying that an atheist bus will promote child abuse.

However, I, for one, am happy to admit when I am wrong. My statement about Robinson wanting to "silence any theological viewpoint than his own" was a gross exaggeration. I'm sure he would be quite happy for Muslims, Hindus, pagans, or indeed anyone other than an evangelical pastor to participate in the inauguration. He specifically wants to silence Warren from speaking at the inauguration because Warren holds a particular theological opinion that he disagrees with. Warren, on the other hand, supports Robinson's choice to speak at an inauguration event precisely because of their disagreement on that particular issue. One of them gets the point of diversity and toleration while the other doesn't.

philologos

studiorat: St. John's grounds had also been 100% owned by it's parishioners, so I do see the verdict of this trial to be grossly unfair.

studiorat

PDN, you are the one who is suggesting there is personal attacks taking place. I said they were at each others throats. In a frame of discussion, they are. That is to say the discussion is heated to say the least. In two posts you’ve completely dropped our debate and seem bent on asking me to provide a citation on a point that you in fact made up your self. I would say we are each others throats right now yet there have’nt been any personal attacks, yet…

Both Warren and Robinson are lily-livered imo. However I do respect Robinson for speaking out despite death threats against him.

If Warren had a bit more conviction and as he says loves and respects all. He wouldn't be dealing with the likes of Ssempra, unless of course he condones Ssempras actions. There are plenty of other aid workers in the region.

Robinson is right in his call to re-evaluate the bible. Warren and most people who use the bible as their moral compass choose to obey and ignore it’s text as they see fit.

The Bible says you must not wear garments made from 2 kinds of material, I’m sure all parties here regularly break that rule.

The Bible says you must not let 2 kinds of animals breed, for years we have bred horses and donkeys.

The Bible says that we must not receive interest on money.

Jesus forbids divorce, yet Christians divorce all the time.

Women must not speak in church, if they have a question they must ask their husbands. There’s even women clergy.

The lists goes on…

Why can the cases I’ve illustrated here be ignored and Robinson’s case not?
If they are all the word of God why is one obeyed and one isn’t?

Anyway, I don’t know what nonsense you are talking about Gospel choirs pretending to be white, it’s a moot point. However it would seem to represent only Christian diversity. Frankly I think the whole thing is a circus anyway. I’d be more concerned as to whether Obama can do his job rather than which particular flavor of Christian he chooses to kick off the party.

However, I don’t think Warren represents Obama himself as you state. They were in fact on opposite sides on the Prop 8 issue. I’m sure Warren would like to think so but I doubt if Obama would concur. I've already stated how Obama will use each pastor as he finds useful to himself. Warren and Robinson are no exception.
Warren by applauding Robinson's choice is merely taking the moral high ground. We both know he is a capable politician and is acutely aware
of how this will present him to the media. As you like to say so often yourself, only a fool would see it any other way.

The statement that he and his church mostly meet homosexuals through working with people with AIDS is absolute fiction on your behalf, though. Warren frequently goes out of his way to suggest that he has many gay friends, and he and his wife dine with them regularly. Giving the “water and doughnuts” to protesters is just another example of the pious and sanctimonious postition in which he views himself. “No, you can’t have equal rights, here, have a dough-nut instead”

I'm astounded PDN, at the way you can retract a statement of gross exaggeration in your closing paragraph and yet replace that statement with a similar statement the next sentence.

---

Jakass: that unfortunately is the nature of the law, someone wins someone looses. If they feel out-done they may be able to bring the case up again. Maybe Warren will put his money where his mouth is, and help them.

Hivemind187

I'm wondering why the real issue here isnt "Why, in a nation who has a separation of church and state, is there an argument over which religious leader is getting speak."

Should it not be abhorrent that ANY religious leader is asked to thump their chest in the name of their chosen deity? Are they going to say that Obama was put their by god thus undermining the whole point of holding a democratic election? Will Obama say that "God is on our side" or some variation of that comment?

Isnt it weird how there has never been an General who stood before his army on the morning of a battle and said "Last night while I was at prayer, the lord came to me and spoke ... and I'm afraid he's backing the Turks on this one"?

Warren has put his foot in it there is no doubt and considering that the politics between himself and Robinson are similar to those between the Democrats and Republicans I'm not suprised that Robinson was peeved.

philologos

Warren was invited by Obama, so I don't see how possibly he has put his foot in.

It might be abhorrent to you, however I think it's quite positive that America is more open about faith than in Europe which is often rather cold towards it. Infact in some ways I think Europe could learn some lessons in that respect.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

Warren was invited by Obama, so I don't see how possibly he has put his foot in.

I meant in relation to his commentary in the media, I'll make it clearer next time.

Jakkass wrote: »

It might be abhorrent to you, however I think it's quite positive that America is more open about faith than in Europe which is often rather cold towards it. Infact in some ways I think Europe could learn some lessons in that respect.

Havent read the bit about separation of church and state then? Its supposed to be a fundamental principal of the office of the President and the government of the US.

I will repeat my point.

A secular government in a nation with a clear separation of church and state why is there any requirement or invitation to the religious to pass comment or to speak on behalf of a man elected by the people of that nation?

philologos

The separation of church and state can be taken too far. I personally would see it as religious institutions having direct impact in lawmaking and so on, not in relation to who Obama would want to speak at his inauguration. I think people want to take "separation of church and state" further than it was ever intended to be, such as the headscarf ban in Turkish universities, or the banning of religious symbols in French schools. This seems more a plan to ostracise people of faith rather than to keep the State separate from religion.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

The separation of church and state can be taken too far. I personally would see it as religious institutions having direct impact in lawmaking and so on, not in relation to who Obama would want to speak at his inauguration. I think people want to take "separation of church and state" further than it was ever intended to be, such as the headscarf ban in Turkish universities, or the banning of religious symbols in French schools. This seems more a plan to ostracise people of faith rather than to keep the State separate from religion.

Either they are separate without leaning on one another or they are not.

No one is trying to ostracise anyone. They separate themselves by choosing to follow certain dogmatic principals that are individual to their belief system.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

My statement about Robinson wanting to "silence any theological viewpoint than his own" was a gross exaggeration.

Good to hear.

PDN wrote: »

The only source you cited that actually agrees with your claims is an opinion piece by a journalist that is long on bile and hysteria but short on facts.

Well, let's look at the transcript of the video in which Warren supports Hannity's call to assassinate the President of Iran:

Hannity and Warren wrote:

Hannity: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.
Warren: Yeah.
Hannity: I think we need to take him out.
Warren: Yeah.
Hannity: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?
Warren: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe.
Hannity: By force?
Warren: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

While it's not the "public call" that I mentioned above, since Hannity was the man who brought up the topic of assassinating the Iranian President, Warren was still the man who agreed with Hannity when he had a chance to register a vigorous dissent. Warren then reinforced Hannity's point by explaining that such a state-sponsored murder was actually fully supported by Warren's own personal interpretation of his own chosen religious text.

PDN wrote: »

He specifically wants to silence Warren from speaking at the inauguration because Warren holds a particular theological opinion that he disagrees with.

Which is a reasonable thing to think if you believe -- as you appear to -- that the right to say whatever you like, is more important than the right for people to live without prejudice.

As I said above, one could hardly imagine the howl that would go up if Robinson described Warren's sexual interests in the same terms that Warren described Robinson's.

Or indeed, imagine there were a worldwide religion that declared openly that while being a christian was ok, the act of practicing christianity was a moral abomination and equivalent to incest. It is possible to describe such a declaration as a "theological opinion" and hope that everybody would file it in the same criticism-free region of their brains traditionally reserved for other peoples' religious opinions, but I suspect that's really quite unlikely.

PDN wrote: »

One of them gets the point of diversity and toleration while the other doesn't.

As you have pointed out yourself once or twice, toleration does not extend to letting people get away with anti-social behavior or anti-social crowd-mongering. Or in this case, agreeing that it's the god-given duty of the US government to assassinate the President of Iran.

philologos

The French system currently isn't tolerant to Muslims and Sikhs in particular, and quite honestly it doesn't make for a society where it is comfortable for Muslims and Sikhs to live in amongst others I am sure. I thought secularism was meant to welcome freedom of religion and freedom of expression, part of this would fall into the way that people dress.

Either they are separate or they or not, in terms of lawmaking they are. It is only the view of individuals who get elected, the church has no direct involvement in political decisions apart from believers who happen to get elected. It is a misinterpretation in my opinion of what "separation of church and state" actually means if you are to ban individuals from expressing their faith even if they are the President of the USA.

Tim Robbins

Nodin wrote: »

Certainly a meeting of groups not offended by Warren wouldn't need a large hall for the event. The fair thing to do would to hold a multi-faith ceremony with everybody having a turn, thus making sure everyone gets offended in turn by everybody else. Or scrap the religous element.

Could you imagine if he invited Sam Harris?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

Either they are separate or they or not, in terms of lawmaking they are. It is only the view of individuals who get elected, the church has no direct involvement in political decisions apart from believers who happen to get elected. It is a misinterpretation in my opinion of what "separation of church and state" actually means if you are to ban individuals from expressing their faith even if they are the President of the USA.

I see it as imprecise use of the English language. Perhaps we should just refer to it as "Separation of Church from State's legislation process". As to you, PDN etc that's exactly what it means.

To other people's it also means,
"Separation of Church from State's ceremonies".

You could argue about the original meaning of the phrase, but you could counter that by the original meaning of the word "state".

I am not weakest link, hello.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

Warren was invited by Obama, so I don't see how possibly he has put his foot in.

It might be abhorrent to you, however I think it's quite positive that America is more open about faith than in Europe which is often rather cold towards it. Infact in some ways I think Europe could learn some lessons in that respect.

Indeed! In Europe it would seem like political suicide to admit that faith has any prominence in your lie. Whatever your feelings towards Tony Blair - I'm inclined to think that an otherwise excellent couple of turns in office has been overshadowed by his horribly misguided decision to go to war - it is telling that his final conversion to RC was forestalled when he was in office, spoken only of in hushed tones. I can only imagine that such an admission was not considered politically expedient.

Nodin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can only imagine that such an admission was not considered politically expedient.

...or to avoid the number of remarks that would be made about him choosing a church that had the sacrament of confession.