The latest organized effort against Warren's participation was launched by a group of atheists who have filed a lawsuit that contends prayer should not be allowed during the ceremony. One name stands out among the list of plaintiffs -- Michael Newdow, the man who challenged the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.Those of us who are sharpening their knives for Warren may have to let another group borrow our whetstones. Are you ready for the latest folks hating on Warren? His very own evangelical Christian community:
Warren did not answer directly when asked whether he would dedicate his prayer to Jesus. In a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press, Warren would say only that, "I'm a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray."
"Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements nor political posturing. They are humble, personal appeals to God," Warren wrote. His spokesman would not elaborate.
Evangelicals generally expect their clergymen to use Jesus' name whenever and wherever they lead prayer. Many conservative Christians say cultural sensitivity goes way too far if it requires religious leaders to hide their beliefs.
"If Rick Warren does not pray in Jesus' name, some folks are going to be very disappointed," Caldwell said in a recent phone interview. "Since he's evangelical, his own tribe, if you will, will have some angst if he does not do that."
Considering the lawsuits will fly fast and furious if he offers up anything overtly Christian, there's no way this can end well. Either he doesn't give Jesus a shout-out and ends up with evangelicals gunning for him, or he "prays the only kind of prayer I know how to pray" and ends up in court. Either way, he's fucked.
Have I mentioned I'm enjoying this immensely? I'd enjoy it even more if the insufferable ass got caught getting a blow job from a male prostitute a few days before the inauguration, but I'll settle for watching him attempt to thread a needle that has no eye. Schadenfreude will come in time.
3 comments:
So... whether intentionally or not, Obama's appointment of Warren to speak at the inauguration has so far had two notable effects:
* Forced Saddleback to remove the gay-renouncement requirement from their web site
* Caused cracks to appear in the church's solidarity with its pastor
I'll be looking forward to see what other consequences occur when a prominent radical evangelical is given the opportunity to speak in front of a national audience.
I don't much care for Warren's mistaken theology. It's just hard for me, and possibly others in my age group, to become indignant about him. It's not so much a boast as a confession. I wonder how many share my attitude.
I was in middle school in the 1970s, at a conservative school in a (relatively) liberal town, where it was assumed that "gay" was bad. This assumption was so deeply embedded that it wasn't until high school (at a much more liberal institution) that anyone bothered actually explaining what it was.
Since then, I have examined the evidence (both rational and scriptural) and come to the conclusion that the anti-gay position is thoroughly hypocritical and indefensible. So yes, I seethe just a bit whenever I see the BS used to justify it.
I'm mainly not getting worked up about Warren, though, because I don't think of it as Obama endorsing him but as Obama telling him to "put up or shut up". Something like "hey, if you think your ideology is all that great, let's see you try it on all of mainstream America." Bring it out in the open, and see how it stands up in the light of public exposure.
Flashback to 2001; let's say Dubya had invited someone like Warren to speak at his inaugural. To me, this would just be confirmation of what I thought Dubya's attitudes were likely to be, i.e. unenlightened and pandering to his far-right base. No big surprise.
We had (and have) higher hopes for Obama. I do understand the outrage, and I hope that my tentative faith in Obama's motives is not unwarranted.
Post a Comment