Thursday, 18 December 2008
-
Obama Chooses Rick Warren to Deliver Invocation at Inaugural Ceremony
Guest post submitted by sirnickdonGay rights activists as well as the pro-abortion lobby are openly angry and critical of President-elect Obama for choosing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural ceremony in January. The liberal critics are concerned that Warren is a "symbol of division," by which they mean (I assume) that he disagrees with them. They are concerned that Warren's status among Democrats and liberals will be elevated as a result of Obama's decision, and that Warren's voice will resonate more loudly with the party - a problem, they contend, because he supported Proposition 8, opposes the homosexual lifestyle in general and is staunchly pro-life.
What do you think? Is this an example of Obama being true to his word in reaching out to those whose views differ? After all, he could have chosen, say, Bishop John Shelby Spong, whose political views more closely match his own, without creating any political fervor. Or is this a sign that Rick Warren is not really a Christian after all, as some hyper-conservatives have long contended?
-
recommend
- recs 6
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: sirnickdon
- Name: Nick-Don
- About Me: I like tea, poetry, jazz and riding my bike. I graduated from college last year with a double-major in English and Christian ministry. In February my wife and I are moving into a new monastic house in Findlay, OH, to pursue a more gospel-centered lifestyle.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 6 Views: 0 4826 Comments: 0 205 View all posts by sirnickdon
Comments (112)
@oneforomission@xanga - Certainly not.
@mynameisuntz@xanga - No it's not, but a lot of the conservative argument is that by redefining marriage this "one time" it will lead to more redefinitions that are by far worse. Perhaps that sounds like a fear-mongering idea, but if this were a topic on allowing second-world countries nuclear technology, would it really be fearful or would it sound a lot more rational?
"Homosexuality is not incest. Comparing the
two is a weak argument. That'd be like comparing it to bestiality or
other forms of "unlawful relations." "
I guess it depends on how we define what "unlawful relations" are.
@Allen_Oz@xanga - Incest is unnatural. Studies show the unnatural sense of incest. Read up on incest taboos and how the process works; our bodies tell us to stay away from family members for several reasons (theories): makes us less prone to properly reproduce, stops us from expanding our kinship, and creates problems within the family - these are a few. Either way, as far as we know, anyone who wants to partake in an incestuous relationship probably has some mental disorders. Regardless, that's not really the question at hand.
Homosexuality, in many instances, is natural (according to science). Natural being "dictated by nature," and if someone's genes tell them they are gay or predispose them to be gay, then how are we to fault them for that? How are we to discriminate on that basis when it brings NO ONE harm or infringes on NO ONE'S rights? It doesn't make you or me any less of a Christian.
@mynameisuntz@xanga - well, you find those quotes for me and refute the ones I've shown you :)
@greenbird321@xanga - The burden of proof is on you, as you initiated the claims. Not on me.
@mynameisuntz@xanga - no, you see...I already proved my point. it's your turn to prove yours, if you choose.
@greenbird321@xanga - No you haven't. If I told you that Scientology is the truth, and I post a video of Tom Cruise agreeing with me, then I haven't proved anything. How is what you did any different? You're attempting to prove that our nation was founded on Christian ideals and ONLY Christian ideals which aren't shared by other religions by posting a CHRISTIAN site.
Show me some credible historians who say we aren't secular and you might have something.
@greenbird321@xanga - show me something from a source that doesn't conflate religion with history .
@mynameisuntz@xanga - okay, you obviously can't see the point--the point I was making was to show you the quotes of our founding fathers acknowledging God and the innate truth of the Bible(which influenced them and the way they founded this nation)...the quotes are all accurately recorded, therefore it does not matter the source of the quotes--we are talking about the founding fathers, right? I was not making the point that--'hey, this dude agrees with me'.
@greenbird321@xanga - Oh I understand the point, but how do you explain the first amendment? How do the letters change the fact that we can't make laws with respect to religions?
"I consider the Government of the United States asinterdicted by the Constitution from meddling with religious
institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. But
it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a
day of fasting and praying. That is, I should indirectly
assume to the United States an authority over religious
exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them
from. ... Every one must act according to the dictates of his
own reason and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been
given to the President of the United States, and no authority
to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."
-Thomas Jefferson
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there
were no religion in it."
-Thomas Jefferson
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his
unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot
class myself under that denomination."
"Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an
established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
-James Madison
"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."
-Thomas Jefferson
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any
church that I know of. My own mind is my church."
-Thomas Paine
Does your CHRISTIAN site talk about these quotes? I understand the the site is quoting certain individuals, but these are also quotes from those same individuals, so who is more right? That's my point - your site went through all these quotes of these individuals and only picked the ones that supports the notion that America is based on Christian values.
Please explain how this makes us based on Christian values:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, 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.
@mynameisuntz@xanga - no, I totally agree with you that we cannot make laws respecting any religious sect, we must have misunderstood each other somewhere. I'm saying that our country was founded on the values espoused in the Bible.
@gmartinw@xanga - You mean learn your history? And its not MY history so I don't really give a damn. You should learn English =D