Tuesday, the Reverend Rick Warren gave his much feared invocation. For the most part, he didn't touch on any of the controversial issues many expected. One line in particular of his invocation I actually agreed with. It is a line which had it been taken out of context from the rest of the invocation would have been seem by me as a great deal of progress. Warren said, "United not by our race, religion, or blood, but by our commitment to Freedom." I think this is a great statement about America and one which I continually fight for. However, Reverend Warren didn't really mean this statement. I say that because the entire rest of his invocation contradicts that statement.



Warren laid the Jesus talk on thick. His use of the big stage to push his religious views was stunning. If any other religion was professed to the extent that Reverend Warren professed his beliefs, there would be mass outrage. But because most of the nation is Christian or at least some derivative of the Abrahamic religions, this type of invocation is not just tolerated, but applauded. Quite frankly, I am appalled.



Many Christians seem to not understand why this type of thing is so disturbing to non-Christians. But all one has to do is replace ever instance in which the Reverend uses “God” or “Jesus” with “Allah” and I “betcha” that they would be plenty outraged. Many Christians seem to only care when they are being marginalized and not based on the principle of divisive invocations themselves.



If Richard Dawkins was called to do the invocation and declared that "there is no god," I would be equally outraged on the grounds that this type language isn’t appropriate at that time and place. I think the person giving the invocation should talk about the strength of the American principles of diversity, hard work, ingenuity, entrepreneurial, and creativity. I think the invocation should talk about the joys of humanity and the greatness of the human spirit. To me that is a worthy invocation.

It's clear, then, that you are ill-informed about what an invocation is..



This is a Christian Nation, founded by Christians, inhabited predominately by Christians..

Like it or not, Freedom of Religion does not mean, nor imply Freedom from Religion.

Sorry to rain on your parade dear sir, but it sure does mean freedom 'OF' as well as freedom 'FROM' religion!

It is the first amendment of your constitution!

Don't mean to upset you, but IT IS WHAT IT IS!

Dearest Sir,

You fail to grasp the distinction I was making. The Constitution, which you claim I fail to understand, says that you are free to practice (or not practice) any religion you so choose. Further, it says that the Government cannot force you to accept or renounce any particular religion.

It does not, however you might wish it to, protect you from any and all things religious in the public square.. You'd like the First Ammendment to effectively ban religion. It doesn't. Indeed, that would violate the very premise it's intended to set forth.

I don't see where he said anything about banning religion, thought is sounds great to me, even I don't expect that. I would love to see it banned in public places where some christians like to gather for in your face preaching and condemnation feasts, and only practiced in homes and churches. But I am fully aware that that won't happen any time soon.

Some Christians think they own the whole dang country...Hell, the world.

Oh my... but that would include 'everyone'.. Can't have that.
(our commitment to Freedom) Ya, right. Freedom for whom?

That's a dangerous road you walk there, amigo.. The price for Freedom of Speech is that you must tolerate speech with which you do not agree. What you're talking about is the very oppression from my forefathers fled and founded this country.. There's a reason it's the FIRST Ammendment. The Founders valued no other freedom more highly.

Not a Christian nation...not...founded by Christians...

There are many many threads on these boards covering this subject.

Sheeple...

First off, I am not your amigo. And second, you obviously did not read my post correctly. What I would like and what I tolerate and expect are not the same thing. I am very aware of freedom of speech!

Next time read the whole thing, not what you wanted to see!!

Rick Warren is a pastor...and people get mad when he preaches about Jesus?

I guess thats why they did'nt invite Ted Haggard.

Well not that you would grasp this, but it's not that he preaches about Jesus at all. I won't waste my time explaining, it's been out there long enough for you to have grasped the issue by now..


Really hung up on sex aren't we.....

I FAIL NOT! ... my dearest and most esteemed Sir,

... and again you are inviting me to point out a serious misinterpretation on your part of the 'establishment clause' of the 'first amendment'.

The accepted interpretation of the Constitutional Amendment by YOUR SUPREME COURT is summed up in two straightforward interprative statements:

'... It squarely PROHIBITS:

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, (sorry to break it to you, but that would include Christianity. The USA, which only exists through its constitutional edict, is not a Christian Nation)

and further PROHIBITS;

2) the preference of one religion over another ...'

You are free to believe, and exercise your right to do so, but the 'State' cannot show any form of preference for one religion over another, and that again includes Christianity.

Misinterpretation often occurs when some pieces of a whole are taken out of context, in order to suit a particular ideology, dogma, or unilateral point of view.

I thought it would be useful to provide the following information to help clarify the whole, from its ideologically misinterpreted parts.

________________________________________________

The ‘First Amendment’ and the ‘Establishment clause’
(from Wiki)

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.


The establishment clause has generally been interpreted TO PROHIBIT

1) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION BY CONGRESS,

or TO PROHIBIT

2) THE PREFERENCE OF ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.

The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation.

In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination.

The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.


The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Neither can force nor influence a person to go to (freedom from) or to remain away from church (freedom for) against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion (freedom from).

No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs (for) or disbeliefs (from), for church attendance or non-attendance.

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

________________________________________________________________________

This, my dearest and most esteemed Sir, is all I inferred by my ‘for’ and ‘from’ religion statement.

While the United States of America might still hold a majority of citizens whom are of CULTURAL Christian background, and a portion of those whom choose to practice some form of Christian faith, as afforded by the constitution, the US Constitution Squarely PROHIBITS the NATION FROM BEING 'CHRISTIAN' (a religion amongst other religions for which the Nation cannot show preference). You can be Christian all you want, but not the Nation.

If only through the simple and straightforward ‘legal’ interpretation of the ‘Establishment clause’ of the 'First Amendment' of Your Constitution:

‘PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION’,

As a citizen of a religious neutral nation, if you have a problem with your constitution, take your fight to Congress, as many ‘religious right’ folks have done without any success before you.

Politicians may opportunistically cater to the minority ‘religious right’ voting block by throwing around the compulsory ‘god bless you, and god bless America’ as a vote getting ploy, and some may still fall for it, but at the end of the day, politicians will be politicians, and the Constitution will be the Constitution.

The Law of the land, founded on the Constitution, always has and always will speak louder than any opportunistic politician.

It states clearly: ‘PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION’.

You are free to interpret that any which way you personally wish, but until the Constitution is revisited, and re-written, ‘WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF TH LAND, IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE LAND!!!’

(SEAMNOSTER's OP made the subtle nuances that the forefathers intended for the Nation: the neutral co-existence of the 'Freedom for' and 'freedom from' religious concepts, without any form of governement intervention, except to ensure 'freedom for' and 'freedom from'. The line is fine. People cross it indiscriminantly, and that is what Seamonster, in my humble opinion, is pointing out quite wisely with this post.)

first, let's be civil and quit yelling. I was trying to be cordial, friend. Is such beneath you??

I did read your whole post. My arguement still stands and I, by it. Making it law that forbids worship or expressions religious in nature violates the very nature of the first ammendment. That you'd like to see it happen requires that you value your freedom of expression over that of another. Saying people should only be allowed to worship or preach in this place or that is a step on a slippery slope. If some bible thumper is preaching the gospel at you, there's nothing keeping you from simply walking away.. is there? Any man has the right to stand on the street corner with a cross and a bible and preach Revelations or recite "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and you have no right to stop him. That's the price we all pay to enjoy the right to do the same. You don't have to like it but you do have to tolerate it.

I know I'm not going to "win" this arguement with you being that you're entrenched in your position but saying that you want big brother to protect your precious ears from all things religious is absurd on its face. That's neither the domain nor the purpose of government. Shutting someone up (or wanting to) because you don't like what they're saying, or better yet getting jack-booted government thugs to do it, violates the very concept of Freedom.

If you don't like what you're hearing from Rev Rick, turn the station. The man was there to give an invocation and that's what he did. He's a Christian minister. He's not going to get up there and begin preaching the Tora or the Q'ran. If anyone, perhaps it is The Annointed One with whom you have a bone to pick. If you wanted to hear from a Mullah or a Rabbi, he should have invited one.

Or perhaps Rev Wright would have been more to your liking? A little dose of 'God D*mn America' and a dash of "U.S of KKK A" thrown in for flavor? Does that suit you?

I despise what Wright and Phalger stand for. I depise the message they give to their flock. But nowhere and under no circumstances would I suggest someone undermine his right to speak it. I find it insulting to my intelligence that I'm supposed to believe that Obama could attend that church for 20 years and yet somehow be suprised to hear that his beloved minister and spiritual advisor would utter such hateful speech. but that's another issue altogether.

signed,

White man embracing what's right, man

Violeazur,

having read your dissertation above, I find you've accused me of intellectual dishonesty. And let it not go without saying that that deeply offends me, particularly being that I am not the one who changed the debate.. am I?

The original contention was that 'of' and 'from' have different meanings in the context within which we're examining it. But, in your rebuttal you argue freedom 'for' religion.. where did 'for' come from??

When you say this:


are you, by any chance, refering to this: ??



I'm not the one attempting to turn the debate in my favor by supporting a point I never made in the first place...



Thanks for accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. It is you, though, who is attempting to shift the ground upon which we are debating. Nowhere did you make any refernce to the use of 'for' in the context. The disagreement was that 'of' and 'from' have two entirely different meanings, not 'from' and 'for'!!

by the way, there is little that is either subtle or nuanced about the op. He was bashing a Christian minister for being a christian minister..



That's fine and good and there's plenty of room in the schedule for that. There were poets and authors that spoke about other secular topics and about such values. Bottom line is Rev Warren did exactly what Rev Warren was there to do.

--------------------------------------------

As an aside, I would argue that the values of hard work, entrepreneurship, creativity and ingenuity are not the values on which the Obama campaign rode into town. Rather, redistribution of wealth, 'economic justice', and 'from each according to his mean, to each according to his need' were the bullet points of his campaign. Oh and Hope and Change..



Shall I refer you to the WBEZ.fm Chicago Public Radio interview from 2001?? or can you find it yourself?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "



that's all it says.

a person can interpret that any way he pleases but all it says is that Congress can't pass a law promoting or restricting religion

it doesn't say that a person must convert to any religion to be elected and it doesn't say that a person must give up their religion when they are elected

it says that you can do whatever you want to do

IMO I thought the speech was fine. And the black minister's was. too. We need to get over ourselves a tad bit.

Wow lots of venom in this thread. O_O

The Constitution protects minority rights, not minority sensibilities. Newdow and company filed similar lawsuits before the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, to no avail. The Supreme Court ruled more than two decades ago that such public "acknowledgments" of God are ceremonial, not theological, and serve "the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society."

The Constitution protects minority rights, not minority sensibilities. Newdow and company filed similar lawsuits before the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, to no avail. The Supreme Court ruled more than two decades ago that such public "acknowledgments" of God are ceremonial, not theological, and serve "the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society."