dagblog - Comments for "In (limited) defense of Rick Warren"

Calpaige, thank you for

Bluesplashy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:28:14 +0000

In reply to Standing on the mall, among

Calpaige, thank you for posting. I was listening at home and also had a very strong reaction to Warren. I was rather angry but didn't realize it was because of the feeling of EXCLUSION until I read your post. I was willing to listen to him with an open mind because Obama had picked him but I was very dissapointed. I am glad Ripper started this thread so I can see what other people are thinking about the prayer.

A valid point, Paige.

Ripper — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:07:21 +0000

In reply to Standing on the mall, among

A valid point, Paige.

Standing on the mall, among

CaliforniaPaige — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:57:00 +0000

In reply to In (limited) defense of Rick Warren

Standing on the mall, among two million of my new best friends, I had a visceral reaction to Warren's speech. I was entirely willing to work with the inclusive symbolism of incorporating an icon of the Christian Right into the proceedings, but it hadn't occurred to me that his actual utterances would be so, well, Christian. Perhaps it was everything an invocation ought to be, and I am simply unfamiliar with the practice. At the time, all I could think was: nevermind my own beliefs (or non-beliefs), why isn't he trying to make this accessible to members of all the monotheistic religions?

Now that I've had a chance to recover from the shock, I've realized that I would have been perfectly happy with the lack of inclusiveness if he had simply added some form of acknowledgement that not everyone standing there in the cold believed as he did. I wonder, too, if the experience of listening to Warren was different at home. I suspect, had I not been surrounded by so many people and at the mercy of the elements, I would have simply ignored the man on the TV screen. But being there, being contained, having nowhere to redirect my attention, the speech seemed more official. (And that, of course, is the core of my issues with government-sponsored prayer: its tendency to seem to express the view of the government.)

Anyway, like I said, this was an emotional reaction, rather than an analytical one. And maybe I don't know enough about how invocations are supposed to work, but yesterday when I heard that the President had attended an interfaith service, I thought: now why didn't they do *that* at the Inauguration? Warren's words alone would not have bothered me had they been accompanied by words from other religious traditions, delivered by leaders in those belief systems.

I dont get so worked up about

Deadman — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:09:00 +0000

In reply to The problem with Warrren is

I dont get so worked up about religious expression, either. I know we live in a god-fearing nation, and a mostly christian one, and I'm totally fine with that. But there is something about the missionary aspect of evangelical christianity that rubs me the wrong way. i know most people's hearts are in the right place - they are convinced they've found the path to salvation and just want to spread the gospel to others. but there's such a fine line between missionary zeal and intolerance that i feel being a bit defensive and on guard is probably a wise thing. which i think led to the heightened sensitivity to Warren's speech you noticed.

plus, i know there were some republicans who weren't so into it, but it just felt like yesterday was a glorious moment for all Americans, and the mere presence of Warren I'm sure put a damper on the day for some people, particularly homosexuals. Warren should have been happy enough to receive the invocation honor and gone overboard to try and not to offend. but my guess is he wanted to throw his own flock a Jesus bone.

i thought orlando had it almost right. If she turned the W in 'wildly inappropriate' upside down, that's how i would describe the prayer.

btw, thanks for posting, ripper! we need diversity of views here, especially when they're well-expressed ...

Forgot to say "thanks" for

Ripper — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:44:42 +0000

In reply to Thanks for posting, Ripper. I

Forgot to say "thanks" for letting me post here. Very kind of you all.

The problem with Warrren is

Ripper — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:43:01 +0000

In reply to i respect your views, and i

The problem with Warrren is that he does not view gay rights as an issue of equality. That alone, however, should not taint the divine generosity his invocation sought to achieve. His views on gay rights is another matter that should be addressed squarely on its own lack of merit.

That said, I was not always a Christian, but even when I was a staunch atheist, I never considered religious expression particularly offensiveto my ears -- at least not in most instances. I understand and agree that Warren should have been more sensitive to the needs of non-Christian citizens, but I disagree that it was, in Orlando's words "wildly inappropriate." No offense, O. Personally, I wouldn't do anything to shove religion down someone's throat. Having a faith healer lay hands on you without soliciting it (as has happened to me) will turn you off of that very quickly.

I understand your point that

Ripper — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:25:24 +0000

In reply to Thanks for posting, Ripper. I

I understand your point that many Americans (Orlando among them), felt somewhat excluded by Warren's invocation. I reget this is so. Yet I think one should not expect a duck to walk like an elephant. Warren was bound by his theology to give an invocation of this sort.

Obama surely knew this and asked Warren to deliver the invocation anyway. I won't say this was done for purely plitical reasons, because Obama and Warren enjoy a good relationship. But it surely figured into Obama's decision that reaching out to evangelicals might help him govern more easily.

i respect your views, and i

Deadman — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:07:25 +0000

In reply to In (limited) defense of Rick Warren

i respect your views, and i agree that the reverend shouldn't be required to list the name of all the world's revered deities (a nearly impossible task if one were to be totally comprehensive). That's why it would have been so much more appropriate had he just stuck to a generic, all-encompassing term like god, the divine, etc. even lord is probably sufficiently generic. the fact that he repeated the word Jesus in various other languages is even more offensive - it was as if he was saying the divinity of Jesus is - or should be - recognized around the world by all people (tho i grant that there was at least a chance he did that little exercise with a higher-minded purpose of trying to make his prayer more inclusive).

but the fact remains he talked about all people being equal, and yet he does not believe the words with his opinion on gays and gay marriage.

I have no problem with most of his prayer. I thought there were some very nice lines. But given his stance on homosexuality, they also rang rather hallow to my ears.

Thanks for posting, Ripper. I

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:07:14 +0000

In reply to In (limited) defense of Rick Warren

Thanks for posting, Ripper. I can't speak for the bloggers you refer to, and I'm sure that Orlando will defend her view, but I don't think that "inappropriate" = "disrespectful" or "malicious." There was nothing disrespectful or malicious in Warren's recitation of the Lord's Prayer. He was not trying to hurt anyone. But it was still inappropriate. The inauguration is a public event for all Americans. The Lord's Prayer is a religious prayer for some Americans. It was inappropriate because it made many Americans feel uncomfortable and excluded at the inauguration of their own president. No one is suggesting that Warren should have misrepresented his beliefs for the invocation, but he didn't have to use that moment to promote them. The world didn't stop, people still enjoyed the inauguration, but that doesn't make the prayer appropriate.

That said, I don't entirely disagree with you in that those mushy unitarian prayers seem like a facade to me. Whether or not Jesus is mentioned, the invocation always invokes Christian theology for Christian believers. I feel excluded either way. At least Warren was up front about it.