|
||
Rick Warren's Prayer
So, Rick Warren is going to use the name of Jesus in his prayer, and his prayer may not reflect the views of all Americans. So what?
Obama's speech probably won't reflect the views of McCain voters, and the prayer of Bishop Eugene Robinson, the nation's first openly gay Episcopal Bishop may not reflect the views of many Americans either. That's what makes America great. Everybody gets to speak their minds and not worry about about having to perfectly reflect the views of people who disagree with them.
I hope Bishop Robinson follows Warren's lead and prays the way he wants to and not the way others want him to, and in a manner that is reflective of his views and not the views of those he may disagree with. Why should any of us be in the business of telling ministers, or any American, how to practice their religion or what to say to their God?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Everybody gets to speak their minds and not worry about about having to perfectly reflect the views of people who disagree with them."...
Yeah, that's great...only Robinson didn't get aired on TV and Warren got prime time. Not sure how inclusive he was when his idea of diversity is different names for his judeo-christian deity....
Rev. Rick Warren's prayer was very beautiful and traditional for the US of America. Even with its many problems and imperfections, people from all over the world clamor to be here because G-d has richly blessed this nation. Can someone tell me of a successful atheist society that has flourished? What comes to mind -- the old USSR, Cuba and Red China. Not very good examples for the promotion of atheism to me. The religion of atheism brings destitution to the heart, lack of humanity and dismal financial futures to those under its auspices. But even in America we are free to practice it.
I'm glad Pastor Rick reminded us that Jesus' real name is Joshua. That's inclusive not exclusive. Joshua entered the Promised Land by faith - faith in God's covenant with Abraham through which the whole world would be blessed. It was Moses, who represented the Law (all that excludes) who could not enter Canaan. And just to demonstrate his melodramic credentials, God draws our attention to two people from the Battle of Jericho; Achan and Rahab. Achan broke only one commandment "thou shall not steal". Rahab, a prostitute, probably broke most of them. Which one did God accept? Which one did he reject? And why? It was Rahab's descendant, Joshua Ben Joseph, who hung on a cross for all humanity. Thank you Pastor Rick.
When the government does anything, it's going against the wishes of at least somebody.
When religion stays out of everyone's personal life & stops trying to force their marriage beliefs on every American, only then can we have the home of the free.
Hello. I am a rationalist, an aethist and against gay marriage so I don't believe this argument for gay marriage is about religion. It is about the ideal, again, the ideal of marriage being about the strength of a family unit with natural procreation, growth and safety being the bases beneath the ideal. Gay marriage cannot naturally procreate. That is not religion, that is science.
You can bring up all of the hetero marriages that cannot naturally procreate or are horrible marriages in and of themselves but marriage is an ideal to try to achieve yet no one ever achieves it. So examples whereby the ideal isn't meant mean nothing since no one meets the ideal.
My opinion is that gay men and women do deserve equal rights. Civil unions whereby all federal and local protections are given is a fine solution. Equal rights are given. That is what the fight should be about. It has worked in Denmark for 16 years. If this is a rights issue, this should settle it. If it is about the word marriage then it actually isn't about rights but about the condoning of a lifestyle choice. That is where the gay movement loses broad support.
Really? You're a rationalist? Yet you claim that being gay is a "lifestyle choice"? I quite frankly think you're a liar. Your entire argument is based on your religious beliefs . . . about marriage being for the sole purpose of natural procreation. That's a religious perspective -- not a rational one. From a purely rational perspective, if you really believed that, you would be all for prohibiting marriage of any heterosexual couple who could not naturally procreate. The fact that you refuse to take that position shows where you're coming from.
As for settling for "civil unions," the only problem with that is, each and every time any law is changed that affects married couples or marriages, or any time a regulation is adopted, it has to be separately decided whether or not gay couples are included. That is not acceptable. I expect equality. I demand equality. If you don't want the government to give me a marriage license -- even though my church has given me one -- then get the government out of the business of giving marriage licenses at all. Make it "civil union" for everyone, and leave "marriage" to churches, or other non-governmental organizations, to define as they see fit.
Why is ANYONE preaching, praying or otherwise
invoking deities at a secular national event?
Because the USA has always done so.
I am a Christian, and am coming to the conclusion that there should be no religious content to our secular government events at all. My Christian beliefs should not be foisted on anyone, nor should any other religions be foisted on me as the unofficial religion of the government. One alternative would be to allow all major religions to deliver a prayer, but that would be fought tooth and nail by the religious right. Another would be to allow the mention of God, but not Jesus (our money does not say "In Jesus we trust").
For Rev. Warren to say "Jesus" in different languages in an attempt to be inclusive was incredibly ignorant in my opinion. The other prayers I've heard (Rev. Lowery's and Robinson's) didn't seem like they would have been as offensive to peoples of other faiths as Rev. Warren's was.
i have a mute button for every one of these religious loons. they are nothing more than a barrier to man's relationship with God. i celebrate my 'spirituality' in solitude, so as to not have someone else's 'taint' mincing my words or God's. this is what Christ instructed. religious leaders were/are an affront to the man. do everyone else a favor ,and pray on your own. stop infecting our leaders with the same ideas that you use to seperate God from man every time you congregate. AND GET THE HE// OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT!
Rick Warren can say what he pleases but he shouldn't be given an inaugural podium to say it.
Nobody seeks to censor mr warren when he speaks in his own church or indeed in public where not sanctioned by goverment offficialdom in a governmental or quasi- govermental forum--- and in fact no one is actually attempting to censor his speech at the inauguration, many of us just point out how inappropriate it seems, given his other freely expressed essentially libelous statements about certain parts of our citizenry, that he should be given such a postion of prominence and seeming approbation at what should be an inclusive PUBLIC event . Oh well, the protestant christianists have long had a tremendously privileged position in American discourse and public life and protest when even the tiniest vestige of that officially sanctioned privilege is challenged.
So if I pray for you to be treated unfairly even arrested for your beliefs I should be tolerated?
Prayer is nothing more than a conversation between two parties - a person and god. If I tell my office mate I'd like to step on that spider, is the spider harmed? Not till I put my foot over it and bear down. If a person tells god anything, does that make it happen? It sounds like you believe it does.
Wrong. A public prayer is between the person praying and all those listening. It is only pretending to speak to some "god."
Why should we be in the business of telling people how to practice their religion or say to their God??
Because what a lot of people say and do in the name of their God is just simply wrong, and in fact usually contrary to the very nature of the roots of the religion. Religious figures such as Rick Warren and reverend Jeremiah Wright are nothing more than divisive hatemongers who spew their moral superiority over everyone who disagrees with them.
Are you really truly saying that we should allow and accept these hate speech propogandists for the sake of inclusion and peace? If so, then why not invite the parents of the boy who was taken from his parents because they named him Adolf Hitler to speak at the inauguration, because if we're going to include divisive hate mongering preachers, then we ought to include neo-nazis as well, no?
Hey Mark,
I'm glad you can support a diversity opinion, that grants to Mr.Warren, the right to call me a degenerate!!!
Stephen K. Mack
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
